David G. Healy

are you going to Dallas this November? If so, I'd like to talk with you soonest.

Thanks,

David Healy

...

- - - I have to wonder what standards you have in the way you approach the JFK case, and whether you have any grasp at all on what is truly relevant, if not critically important.

DSL

4/28/13; 9:20 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

vintage David Lifton.... Hello David, hope all is well...

David Healy

This is about the point where I expect Rod Serling to step in and address the viewers.

well, there's always .john and his merry band of trolls...

further... pictures, not for the faint-at-heart. Real or altered?

http://imgur.com/a/Nx8EU

Zavada on David Healy....oops...

You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the

presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” at Jim Fetzer’s

May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding’s book The Technique of

SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.

In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he

was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera

and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the

types of films used in post-production. Therefore David’s analysis appears

to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were

working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability

environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm

film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special

optical effects changes.(pg 15)

I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.

Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve.

and who praytell wrote that for Rollie, you, Gary? Or a gruppe effort? And, nor does Roland Zavada have a clue as to optical film printing and its techniques and process. Ask Dino Brugioni for a bit of advice....

Who praytell is being naive here,dude? Sounds like you have been taken in under the 6th floor Mausoleum? Your unencumbered zeal to protect the lone nut-WCR-LHO did it all by his lonesome position, Zapruder film as an icon of fanatical belief is duly noted, AGAIN! Your "I don't care who did it" bs notwithstanding.

Now don't forget Lampoon, Roland Zavada left me on your 2004 "group of eight" e-mail list. And he, Rollie was perfectly willing to post his new and improved Zavada Report (which never happened) for comment right here on this forum. Of course Dr. Thompson and Gary were dead set against his revision to the original Zavada report. Hell man, Rollie even told me he went to Florida to check with my published source, see below link:

Author-Professor Raymond Fielding: http://www.amazon.co... cinematography (source: The ART of Special Effects Cinematography1st edition-1963 Ray Fielding)

re: Special Effects Cinematography. Rollie was not a happy camper, nor has his belated revision surfaced... and you know, old Rollie had no clue a 8mm film could be blown up to 35mm in 1963... what does that tell you.... did you? Imagine that!

p.s. do you really need that large font, does it make you feel large? You're reminding me of a certain high school bully type syndrome, rather un-flattering too.

... you silly boy

my Gawd Lampoon, this is the best you can do? Then you drag Zavada into your tirade, Zavada who was firmly backed into a corner by Livingston concerning the Zapruder film report (have you read the interview transcripts of those face-to-face meetings?). The Zavada that refused to debate-discuss the technical aspects of the Zapruder film during the 2003 University of Minnesota Zapruder Film Symposium, didn't even show up? That Zavada?

That very same person the Gang of Eight protected in 2003-2004, of which you were part? So now, here you are, hiding behind Dr. Josiah Thompson and his name, personna and cred's, AGAIN, whilst calling out, "silly little boy" to one whom appears a very competent researcher? Your "product" selling here is failing dude.

Your old and cranky now, back then a mere pain in the rear, not worthy of Z-film authentication issue debate, simply another opinion (informed or NOT, but opinion none-the-less). Ya should stayed with your Moorman5/Polaroid-DP camera study.

The next generation is here dude, they aren't letting go... despite your "silly" protestations...

...

The davie Jo fantasy continues..."we can conclude". Roflmao

and you thought Z-film alteration was dead..... you're getting old and tired, Craigster... tough to keep up, eh? LMAO!

Richard,

...

you've lost the case evidence PR war hon! Best focus on the Nov. 2013 Dallas DP circus.

Another brilliant say-nothing post from David "Zapruder Wasn't Even On The Pedestal" Healy.

If we were to remove the terms "hon", "poo", "deep fryer", ".John wannanbe", and "carry on, son" from Healy's vocabulary, we'd have nothing left at all.

And this is a guy who actually had something he wrote PUBLISHED in a JFK book?

Yikes! Those poor readers!

you finally recognized .john-ites... congrat's Von Pein. You've attained deep fryer employee of the month, will that be plain or crispy, xxxxx?

Yep, we've kept you nutter-trolls busy defending the ridiculous 1964 Warren Commission Report/Fiasco for the past 10 years, that's a fact!

I may be dense, but I don’t understand all the hand-wringing about how Oswald could have been “manipulated” into being a patsy. Oswald wasn’t a military or intelligence officer; his military rank was private! He wasn’t a college graduate, he didn’t have case officer training, he was a grunt. Yes no doubt he got some kind of specialized training (interrogation and the like) and Russian language training, required for his assignment, but that’s it.

Anybody who has been in the military (I was) and brushed up against national security/intelligence stuff, no matter how slightly (I did) understands that you OBEY ORDERS. You are thoroughly INDOCTRINATED as to your patriotism, loyalty and OBEDIENCE. This isn’t an option. Example: when you get a Top Secret clearance, and gain access to Top Secret information or materials, you are bound and agree to observe that secrecy FOR LIFE. If you start blabbing about such matters, even if you have been in civilian life for thirty years, you can still be prosecuted. I promise you there are plenty of people walking around with Top Secret secrets from long ago that they will take to their graves. That goes whether it’s from WW2, Korea, the space program in the 60s, Roswell or anything else.

You do what you’re told, obey your orders to keep your mouth shut or else!

As to being “manipulated” , please! Example: a low-ranking person, say a Lee Harvey Oswald, could be told by his superior, “Lee, take this package to this address in St. Louis and deliver it to Lt. Smith. Take two days off and report back on Monday. You’ll be traveling as a civilian so here are your plane tickets and cash for expenses.” ORDERS. “Yes sir.” Our “Oswald” is intercepted along the way and the package turns out to be a kilo of uncut pure heroin. He protests that he is under orders and didn’t know what was in the package. When the police contact his superior, they are told, “he went over the hill two weeks ago. We haven’t seen him since.”

His records will be altered to show he was UA, and everybody at his duty station will be told to say they haven’t seen him for a couple of weeks. They won’t question why, they will OBEY ORDERS. Top Secret, you know! End of story. And “Oswald” goes off to prison for 5 to 10.

Thank you Richard Coleman, common sense is in short supply here. Take David Von Pein for example..... a fretter above ALL fretters trapped by the 1964 WCR....

But there are so many non-distinctive books that a really good book would likely be passed over in all the busyness.

I guess it depends on your definition of "non-distinctive". To some, Roger Stone's loony book up there about LBJ might be considered a classic. (Robert Morrow probably will think so.) While to others, it's not worthy to line the bird cage.

Take Vince Palamara's overboard critique of Doug Horne's five volumes of body-altering garbage (with this review being written in 2009, after Vince P. had already fully endorsed and praised Vincent Bugliosi's book two years earlier):

"Douglas P. Horne, the author of this latest masterpiece, "Inside The Assassination Records Review Board," has achieved a literary feat worthy of a Pulitzer Prize. His 5 volume study (5 books in one, so to speak) reads almost like the Defense's side of the case; the perfect answer to the Prosecution's ("Reclaiming History") masterful plea to the bench. I am amazed and highly impressed with the book as both a very inspired, well put together piece of art (it's a great read!) AND for the substance--and length---of the (counter) argument." -- Vincent M. Palamara; December 16, 2009

Complete review (full of hilarity):

http://www.amazon.co.../R23U3HRSNOQ2X3

So, as we can see, one man's Pulitzer Prize winner is another man's trash.

you're getting perilously close to that chickee-poo deep fryer again, son. What remaining brain cells are left need CT re-alignment...

...

the HSCA has about as much creedence [sic] as the WC does and again you have cherry picked what you offer as empirical evidence while stating you haven't the foggiest. so which is it?

Take a guess, you silly little man.

are you related to Lampoon Lamson? Purchased a franchise perhaps? LMAO!

Dawn, are you serious? The REALITY is that we, in the Boston area, had a dangerous bomber in our midst, who was on video planting a bomb, who had killed and showed inclination to kill again. The older brother was not tortured; When he was being captured, his brother ran him over. Schools, businesses and pretty much everything else were closed, people were afraid to leave their homes and they wanted this guy caught. There was a complete consensus to give the various police organizations 100% support in eliminating the threat.

Nobody is being tortured, nobody is having their rights violated. To believe these things is to be out of touch with the reality of the situation. To not understand the fear we felt this week is to be out of touch with the reality of the situation.

generating FEAR is exactly why terrorists terrorize! Fear generates paralysis. From Osama BinLaden all the way down to the corner car-jacker! Power! Whatever happened to Boston type revolutionaries, don't tell me they were all hiding in coffee bars.

I recognize that members of the forum are justifiably going to be outraged and upset with this article based on a new book. But I believe it is better to be forewarned about this news story that may gain greater currency in the days ahead. Already the Daily Mail (U.K.) and the New York Post are giving it big play.

Was JFK a meth addict?

http://www.dailymail...mphetamine.html

http://educationforu...255#entry270512

thanks, Mike.

--David

"There It Is" made in 1928.

Oh geeze, not that crap again...

best let Len deal with this Lampoon, your confusion concerning photo-film composing is complete, Len's is temporary...

I have you on the end of a string hon, and have so 10 years running now. I post, you feel a desperate need to respond. Always have ALWAYS will.

Not too bad for a guy who claims he can't prove the Zapruder film was altered, eh Craigster? LMAO!

You really are delusional davie...I post YOU feel a desperate need to respond... 10 years worth. Your attempts at damage control are really weak and totally transparent. And usually completely void of any substance. Does that make you a xxxxx davie?

Where would you be today if not for The Great Zapruder Film Hoax --2003?

Same place I was before that piece of garbage killed a few trees and poisoned a few minds....trashing silly CT alteration claims.

Btw, Chris is running you around in circles, imagine what he could do to your camp testing the alleged in-camera Zapruder original... perhaps you can explain to our audience here how parallax effects the official Dealey Plaza topo's?

Once again you prove you are deathly afraid to go on the record. Color me shocked. [/sacrasm] You really are a xxxxx. Poor Chris can't even read and understand the words he posts let alone have the first clue what he would be looking at if he had the Z film in his hands.

And you prove you can't read either... let me refresh your failing memory.

"...like in this instance...simple reading and comprehension correct". His failure (and now yours) has nothing to do with parallax.

Parallax DOES however play a role in some of the elevations West surveyed, given many of them were the the result of visually TRYING to align things from a DIFFERENT location that that of the Zapruder camera. GIGO I guess you must have failed photo 101 while you were learning to become a video camera repairman.

Perhaps your lone nut/LHO did it all by his lonesome schuck-n-jive has run it limit, eh?

sorry to dissappoint ya there Lampoon, as a published author, which I sure much to your regret and chagrin, my claims are on the record, both written and on video. Search is your friend poopsie!

I do however recognize you as the country's leading photographer of movie theater loge seats (en masse and singular) and no one can take a picture of a school bus better than you. Satisfied?

And yet again, I post and you can't help yourself.

But wait, surely Tink Thompson and Gary Mack-Dunkel have forgiven you for not knowing a damn thing about film-photo composition, haven't they?

Projecting? Pssssst, the Zapruder film is tainted, forever suspect, as is your beloved WCR...

I didn't realize you had a Civil Engineering degree, where from, Walmart or K-Mart?

Come to Papa! LMAO!

of course you care, who are you kidding... case photo's are subjective, no one, NO ONE will be putting the photo-film originals (if, in fact they can be proven to be originals) under the microscope for forensic testing, there will be NO forensic testing... so, all you've been doing here is fanning speculation, which does nothing more than reinforce WCR disinfo. There is no other purpose for you being here, unless you care of course, which you've told us you don't..... LMAO!

My my davie your fear really runs deep. What's the problem? Getting too hot for you? Must be since you mostly only post to try and defuse a CT getting trashed. And here you are trying to save poor Chris. Well keep it up, it speaks volumes.

And Forensics? Really? ROFLMAO! SIlly CTs have been making alteration claims for decades. and you want to tell me that we need forensics to show they got things like parallax, properties of light and shadow, perspective, or even ...like in this instance...simple reading and comprehension correct? LMAO!

When davie speaks the laughter begins. Keep up the good works davie. The entertainment value is priceless.

Now back to business. Tell us davie, does Chris have the work in question correct? Come davie, get in the game, put your sorry fanny on the line. You got it in you?

I have you on the end of a string hon, and have so 10 years running now. I post, you feel a desperate need to respond. Always have ALWAYS will.

Not too bad for a guy who claims he can't prove the Zapruder film was altered, eh Craigster? LMAO!

Where would you be today if not for The Great Zapruder Film Hoax --2003? Btw, Chris is running you around in circles, imagine what he could do to your camp testing the alleged in-camera Zapruder original... perhaps you can explain to our audience here how parallax effects the official Dealey Plaza topo's?

Perhaps your lone nut/LHO did it all by his lonesome schuck-n-jive has run it limit, eh?

...

Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence.

...

10,000 posts all over the internet and you don't care> Aw shucks, does ANYONE believe that flight of fantasy? **FLASH** Dude, your right square in the middle of the argument.**FLASH** Sorry to burst your bubble.

Tell me davie.... Have you EVER seen me take a side on who killed JFK? EVER?

the controversy isn't WHO murdered JFK, it's: did a CONSPIRACY murder JFK? Hence the question!

You're artfully dodging the question,again. Further, I can't recall you taking a side, no. Not any more than one could say I (meaning me) believe LHO was the sole gunman in Dealey Plaza.

Is it within your realm of possibility that LHO was part of a conspiracy to murder the president of the United States, whether wittingly or UN-wittingly?

Don't care about THAT either ( and its really the same thing) davie boy. Its the photos...Got it? Oh wait you never will, not in your worldview.

of course you care, who are you kidding... case photo's are subjective, no one, NO ONE will be putting the photo-film originals (if, in fact they can be proven to be originals) under the microscope for forensic testing, there will be NO forensic testing... so, all you've been doing here is fanning speculation, which does nothing more than reinforce WCR disinfo. There is no other purpose for you being here, unless you care of course, which you've told us you don't..... LMAO!

...

Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence.

...

10,000 posts all over the internet and you don't care> Aw shucks, does ANYONE believe that flight of fantasy? **FLASH** Dude, your right square in the middle of the argument.**FLASH** Sorry to burst your bubble.

Tell me davie.... Have you EVER seen me take a side on who killed JFK? EVER?

the controversy isn't WHO murdered JFK, it's: did a CONSPIRACY murder JFK? Hence the question!

You're artfully dodging the question,again. Further, I can't recall you taking a side, no. Not any more than one could say I (meaning me) believe LHO was the sole gunman in Dealey Plaza.

Is it within your realm of possibility that LHO was part of a conspiracy to murder the president of the United States, whether wittingly or UN-wittingly?

...

Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence.

...

10,000 posts all over the internet and you don't care> Aw shucks, does ANYONE believe that flight of fantasy? **FLASH** Dude, your right square in the middle of the argument.**FLASH** Sorry to burst your bubble.

Thanks for your thoughts Paul...

The only "pre-planned" fake I can understand would be shot from the same pedastal to be used to mix in with the actual film...

you will have to explain further what you mean by "Hastily withdrawn and recast"

Zapruder stating "I told them I was going to get the whole view"... COULD be to his family and be benign... but could also be a slip of the tongue.

Remembering the public only sees individual frames and hears the comments... all that was needed were a few people keeping their mouths shut about what they saw those first couple days

But if the original was actually seen, and we cannot dismiss the slowing or stopped limo from it NOT being portrayed as such in the extant film... or the real bones and debris that DID leave JFK's right rear...

or the subsequent reactions by the agents in the follow-up car, the comments of Chaney and Hargis... the quicker than normal head turns/physcial reactions in the Zfilm... the Nix/Muchmore films' treatment of Hill's movements,

the real impossibility of Hill catching a moving vehicle in two steps, etc... etc.... then the original was altered and a new original created using a single continuous roll that would now have the correct markings of an original...

I simply find it amazing that there has not been more done to more deeply question these first viewers of the film. And how easy some researchers accepted that Schwartz did not notice the limo stopping during his repetitive viewings...

Suggests to ME that like so much in this case, the testimony of those related to the film is simply not reliable or accurate... the FORWARD MOVEMENT was imo, added to the comments to add to the confusion.

added background via Doug Horne's excellent:

The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration

quote on

http://lewrockwell.c...rne-d1.1.1.html

...

Note: "prior to..." para1 2nd line

The Traditionally Understood Zapruder Film Chain of Custody, from Friday, November 22^nd, 1963 through Tuesday, November 26^th, 1963

Here is the commonly-agreed-to chain of custody for the camera-original Zapruder film, as it was known prior to our new understanding of the implications of the two NPIC events:

Friday, November 22^nd: Zapruder’s home movie of the assassination was developed at the Kodak Plant in Dallas. When developed, it was a 16 mm wide, 25-foot-long “double 8” film, with sprocket holes running along both outside edges, and was unslit. What does this mean? Simply put, as shot in the camera, and then as developed, all “double 8” home movie films consisted of two 8mm wide image strips going in opposite directions, and upside down when compared to each other. The normal practice immediately following developing was for the developing lab to “split,” or slit, the 16 mm wide film in half, vertically, and then join the two sides of the movie (known as the A side and the B side) together with a splice, so that it could be projected in an 8 mm home projector. A “double 8” movie that has been slit only has sprocket holes on one side (the left side), and is 50 feet long (instead of 25). In the case of the Zapruder film, the A side (family scenes) and the B side (the Kennedy assassination) were not initially split, or slit apart, so that Mr. Zapruder could get three copies (contact prints) exposed at another lab (the Jamieson film lab in Dallas), in Mr. Jamieson’s 16 mm contact printer. That is, the 16 mm out-of-camera format (with opposing image strips going in opposite directions) was temporarily preserved on Friday afternoon, so that Zapruder’s film could be copied.

Before departing for the Jamieson lab to have three contact prints exposed, the 16 mm wide, out-of-camera original was viewed once by the Production Supervisor (Mr. Chamberlain) and Mr. Zapruder, on a Kodak 16 mm processing inspection projector, at twice the normal projection speed – to simply ensure that Zapruder had indeed captured the assassination on film. [5]

Following his return from the Jamieson lab with the three exposed contact prints, all three contact prints were developed at the Kodak Plant in Dallas. After the three dupes were found satisfactory, the original film was slit down the middle to 8 mm in width, and the two halves of the movie spliced together, end-to-end (per normal procedure). The original film, now 8mm in width, was viewed at least twice on an 8 mm projector by several laboratory personnel (including Production Supervisor Phil Chamberlain, and Customer Service Manager Dick Blair), Mr. Zapruder, and his attorney. [6] At least one of the three dupes was also viewed, and was noted to have a “softer” focus than the original film (as would be expected).

Zapruder departed Kodak’s Dallas Plant at about 9 PM, and turned over two of the three “first day copies” to the Secret Service. One was sent to Washington, D.C. – to Secret Service Headquarters – by Dallas Secret Service agent Max Phillips, who placed it on a commercial flight late Friday night. It arrived in Washington after midnight, and sometime before dawn, on Saturday, 11/23/63. The second “same day copy” relinquished to the Secret Service by Zapruder on Friday night was loaned by the Secret Service to the FBI in Dallas the next day, on Saturday; and then flown by the Dallas office of the FBI to FBI headquarters, in Washington, on Saturday evening. [7]

Zapruder went home Friday night with the camera-original film, and one of the “first day copies” in his possession. He was contacted on the phone late Friday night by Richard Stolley, LIFE magazine’s Pacific Coast editor out of Los Angeles, and Zapruder agreed to meet with Mr. Stolley and discuss the film’s potential sale the next morning in his office.

We have now accounted for the whereabouts of all three “first day copies” that weekend. However, the primary focus in this paper should remain on the original film. ARRB consultant Roland Zavada’s formal conclusion in his report was this: “After the dupes were found satisfactory, the original film was slit to 8 mm.” [8] There was absolutely no doubt in his mind about this, for he had interviewed the surviving employees from the Kodak Plant in Dallas, and both high level supervisors present that day concurred in this.

Saturday, November 23^rd:

Abraham Zapruder met with Secret Service officials and Mr. Stolley of LIFE in his office on Saturday morning, 11/23/63, and projected the original film for them on his 8 mm projector. [9]

He then struck a deal with Richard Stolley, selling to LIFE, for $50,000.00, worldwide print media rights to the assassination movie (but not motion picture rights). Zapruder agreed in this initial contract that he would not exploit the film as a motion picture, himself, until Friday, November 29^th. Zapruder immediately relinquished the camera-original film to LIFE for a six day period, and kept in his possession the one remaining “same day copy.” By the terms of this initial contract with LIFE, Zapruder was to have the original film returned to him byLIFE on or about November 29^th, and in exchange he was then to give LIFE the remaining first day copy. [10]

Richard Stolley immediately put the film on a commercial flight bound for Chicago, where LIFE’s principal printing plant was located. [11] The presses for the November 29^th edition had been stopped on Friday, the day of the assassination, and the plan was to make major use of the imagery from Zapruder’s film as the issue was reconfigured.

Now, here is the doubtful part of the chain of custody story that will require modification after we study the two NPIC events the weekend of the assassination: the traditional belief, for decades, was that the original Zapruder film remained with LIFE in Chicago from early Saturday evening, until Tuesday, November 26^th, when the first issues of the reconfigured November 29^th issue began to appear on local newsstands. The principal reference supporting this traditional view of the Zapruder film’s chain of custody, from Saturday through Tuesday, has been pgs. 311-318 of Loudon Wainwright’s 1986 memoir, titled The Great American Magazine: An Inside History of LIFE. In his book, Wainwright recounts hearsay passed along to him from others at LIFE about how the film was processed in Chicago – who was on the team that prepared the use of blowups from the film, how they worked on the layout, etc. [12]The magazine was actually printed at Chicago’s R. R. Donnelly and Company printing plant; prior to the actual layout and graphics work at the printing plant, numerous 8 x 10 inch prints were run off at a separate Chicago photo lab. [13]We shall further discuss the activities in Chicago, and what was actually published in the November 29^th issue, toward the end of this article. The only part of the Chicago story that is subject to doubt is the exact timing of when the LIFE editorial and technical team actually performed its layout of the Zapruder frames for the November 29^th issue: was it actually Saturday night, or was it really Sunday night, or perhaps even early Monday morning before dawn?

Sunday, November 24^th: On Sunday evening, Richard Stolley, on behalf of LIFE, approached Abraham Zapruder on the phone and requested that they meet to negotiate LIFE’sacquisition of additional rights to the film. “Something” had happened that caused the magazine to seek all rights to the film, including motion picture rights, and outright ownership of both the original film, and all copies. These additional rights would prove extremely expensive to Time, Inc., LIFE magazine’s parent company.

Monday, November 25^th: After the conclusion of President Kennedy’s funeral on Monday – the funeral ended at about 2 PM Dallas time (CST), with Air Force One flying over the gravesite at 2:54 PM EST, and with the former First Lady, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, lighting the eternal flame at 3:13 PM EST – Stolley, Zapruder, and his attorney for this purpose, Sam Passman, met to renegotiate the sale contract for the film. Earlier that day, LIFE’s publisher, C.D. Jackson, had relayed to Stolley the formal approval of the Board of Time, Inc. for him to renegotiate the contract. [14]

For a renegotiated total price of $150,000.00 ($100,000.00 more than the original contract signed on Saturday), Time, Inc. now gained all rights to the Zapruder film’s imagery (domestic and foreign; and newsreel, television, and motion picture); and permanent ownership of the original and all three copies of the “8 mm color films,” thus erasing any doubt that the original and the copies had been slit to 8 mm on Friday. In addition, the new contract stipulated that Time, Inc. would pay to Zapruder an amount equal to one half of all gross receipts for use of the film, above and beyond the new $150,000.00 sale price. (The contract stipulated that Time, Inc. would also own the two “first-day copies” that Zapruder had loaned to the Secret Service, once they were returned; they never were returned.) [15]

Tuesday, November 26^th: The first newsstand copies of the November 29^th issue of LIFE began to trickle out; the issue displayed a total of 31 fuzzy, poor resolution, black-and-white images of blowups from individual frames of the film. [16] Twenty-eight of them were quite small; two were medium sized; and one was a large format reproduction. What is hard to understand, in retrospect, is why LIFE magazine published such muddy, indistinct images of a film that its parent company, Time Inc., had spent an additional $100,000.00 to repurchase. We will revisit this question following our examination of the two NPIC “briefing board events,” below.

...

quote off

Craig, you are having troubles thinking in terms of 15.5ft.

For instance: Station "2+00" + 129.2ft = Station# 3.29.2 = entry for Z161 on CE884.

(Station "2+00" + 78.5ft) = (Position "A") + (15.5ft = Station# 2+94) or 94ft from Station "2+00"

Oh, I'm sorry, it doesn't quite equal the 94.7ft .

chris

I'm not the one having trouble at all.

You on the other hand, why you can't figure out what 91.6 means for example. You can't figure out that West has the TSBD wrong. You cant figure out there are no measurements from the base of the TSBD under the sniper window. You can't figure out...well much of anything.

Why?

You live in a fantasy world. But please keep it up. Its highly entertaining.

amazing.... everyone is wrong except the Warren Commission (and lone nut trolls), you need to accept reality Craigster, the WCR is flawed, DEEPLY flawed!

This is a bit of a surprise...?

The SS has an EXTRA COPY OF THE Z FILM - which is plain as day... Zapruder can't have a copy AND the FBI AND Sorrells AND Phillips...

Was Zapruder's BEST DAY COPY taken by Max Phillips and then returned to Zapruder?

Or was the remaining print that Sorrels has sent?

And are they in 8mm or 16mm format at this point... I see notes where both 16mm and 8mm films arew shown on 11/23

thanks

DJ

point: ALL films including the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original/3 alleged copies of the alleged original when removed from the film processor were in 16mm format (2ea. 8mm film strips together, side-by-side) until split, thus creating individual 8mm films. #0183 (original), #0185 (dupe), #0186(dupe), #0187(dupe)

...

Will you EVER come to realize that all the numbers you keep playing with are garbage? EVER?

They even told you so. "More exact" compared to " general"

Drill that into your head. You have spent the last few years playing in the garbage.

Really sucks to be you.

must really suck trying to rid the world of Zapruder film alteration scenarios, all those Dealey Plaza surveying facts and figures, whilst knowing you can't comprehend professional film-photo composition... gotta be tough there Craigster, gotta be REALLY tough!

You're not providing competition these days dude, whats with you, Gary Mack got the leash on you?

Thanks James,

No since in dealing with Craig on this, everything is flawed, according to him.

I'll keep posting tidbits for the rest of you.

chris

So Chris, are all the data points (not including fixed landmarks) generated by the recreations exact matches for the actual points we see in the assassination films?

A simple yes or no will do.

ASKing questions yet again instead of answering them... or even trying...

Are you so old and lost that you can't even FIND where the legend in question was discussed or why?

You keep saying the same old BS over and over as if you believe it to be the truth... yet you really don't know do you CL?

That this legend was created to EXPLAIN THE SHOOTING... using the films as refereence to position the activities AT THE CORRECT LOCATIONS...

CE884 is the data being referred to...

WCR Chapter 5 page 96... is where this legend is referred to.... and why.

"The general location of the car was described and marked on maps by eyewitnesses as precisely as their observations and recollections permitted (261). MORE EXACT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY MOTION PICTURES TAKEN BY ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER, ORVILLE O. NIX AND MARY MUCHMORE, WHO WHERE SPECTATORS AT THE SCENE (262)

261. CE 347, 354, 699.

262. 5 H 137 (Leo J. Gauthler) ; CE884 ; see 5 H 138-165 (Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt).

Gauthler is an FBI Inspector... The document is designed to be a LEGEND old man... which means it explains what is presented in the MAP in detail... as he explains...

So what you keep saying is that the FBI provided a legend to explain the assassination that does anything but explain the assassination... what it shows is how the Zfilm cannot be used as a reliable source of information

for once you apply the legend to the film and correlate what the legend says occurred, when and where, it CANNOT be applied to what the Zfilm shows...

CE884 was accepted as the detailed explanation of where the limo was at each of the identified frames....

Except the data relates to a vehicle doing anything but smoothly traveling down Elm....

and in turn creates the math you have no chance at understanding...

EVIDENCE old man... we deal here with EVIDENCE... all you do is whine and moan and press for answers that have nothing to do with the discussion...

Here. the FBI tells you that CE884 IS the breakdown of the killing.... yet the same WCR tells us that the shot was at 4+95, not 4+65...

the Zfilm does not show what this legend suggests...

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained thereon.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for identification.)

Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat map.

It contains certain positions marked as frame numbers. It indicates elevations and a column dealing with angle of sight from the frame positions to the window and to a horizontal line.

It also contains angels of sight the degree of sight and distances from these positions to a point on the top of the bridge, handrail height.

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that concludes the description of the general setting.

I would like to move now at this time for the admission into evidence of Exhibit No. 884, which completes all of the exhibits used heretofore.

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 884, was received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that completes the testimony of Inspector Gauthier.

It must be really difficult for you, trying to function without a working brain davie Jo.

The points you reference...aside from the fixed landmarks are noting more than GUESSES. Let me repeat that for the learning impaired like you...GUESSES.

Since they are GUESSES they have no true relationship to the Zapruder film.

But if course this is way beyond your ken...and it's reality which is REALLY beyond your ken.

But keep trucking little boy. Maybe one day you will actually grow up.

Btw, since reading is so hard for you, I suggest you re read your post...you might even learn they tell you the locations are guesses....

you're getting to the old Craigster, Mr. Josephs. Old Craig has even used the term "guesses" which is all he's done for 8 years, especially concerning the Z-film. Perhaps he's warming up to the fact he doesn't know what he's talking about? It's tough these days supporting WCR conclusions concerning conspiracy!