David G. Healy

Is Jack going too fast for you there, guy? LMFAO!

frankly Jer, the only, ONLY film of importance is the alleged in-camera Zapruder film currently stored at NARA.... hate to be a stickler about such things.... can't rebuild the films credibility, what is, IS.... pass that on to David Von Pein (aka Dave Reitzes-pieces) will ya Jer. The poor xxxxx is still trying to get a writing gig with Vinny Bugliosi/Tom Hanks/HBO.... Speaking of which, can you guys handle another Oliver Stone *SPECIAL*?

http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html That photo is a fake as a wooden nickel and anyone who doesn't think so is suffering from the Emperor's Naked Clothes Syndrome or just hasn't studied Jack's and other's clear evidence of fakery. I'm not going to repeat it all here again. The apparent purpose of many on the list is to endlessly bring in doubt - to make it seem as if the conclusions have never been reached and to usually cite 'official' sources or panels [who have clearly been complicit in this and other crimes and cover-ups]. Not impressive - and newbees should not be fooled. First there was just one such photo, then two, then three, then four, now many more - all different - and it is impossible for any of them to be real - just look at Jack wonderful video or other work on them on this Forum. As I mentioned, I have yet another - never released - different than the others but, unfortunately, can't release at this time [under the conditions I was given it]...but know 101% they are fakes. One could go on for hours about what is wrong and impossible with that photo. Where are his finger tips and the papers, of known size show the impossible size of the body and on and on. Why believe the 'officials'. They lied in the WC; lied about Tonkin; lied about LHO not being an intelligence agent; covered-up the events of Dallas; tampered with the evidence and even the body; lied about 9-11 (no matter how you view it); lied us into endless wars - everyone I can think of. The whole event of Dallas was fake - as presented officially - as with all covert operations - to fool people into thinking X happened by Y; when Z happened by the usual gangsters running the power structure. Don't be fooled by those who endless post the 'doubt'. Personally, I doubt even they believe it. Think for yourself. Most evil, war, economic injustice, assassinations, government overthrows, bank collapses (into the pockets of the rich), murders made to look like accidents or natural death, injustice, etc. is perpetrated by those in power - not 'lone nuts'. It is the power elite that must be eliminated - and the sycophants who want to see the Emperor with his clothes on ignored or laughed at - the Emperor and the Empire [any Emperor / any Empire] are stark naked, if you only think for yourself and read real history - not the synthetic pap written to lull you into somnolence, so you can be controlled. Be a People not a Sheeple! In the light of the now acknowledged 'cognitive infiltration' of websites, forums et al. [as follow-on to the Mockingbird Op which did the same with the print and radio, TV media, one really has to wonder how much cognitive infiltration we have going on here. I'd say quite a bit. It is all about Machiavellian Power by a few over the many. Sadly some are fooled and others are working for the powerful to try to pull the wool over other's eyes. Sadly, most people trust and want to trust those in power and the 'system' they live under. I see no system that deserves trust and NO one in power or authority who should be believed. If the People lead, the government will follow - not the other way around. NO positive change EVER came from the top down; only from the bottom up. Read the quotes in my signature below. How true they all are! We'll make NO progress in human society - nothing of real meaning - until we free ourselves continuously of the tentacles of power from the few who wish to control and fool us - for their profit and power - for our enslavement and sheephood. They want us to be serfs. Stand-up! Better to die standing on your feet and knowing the truth, than to live on your knees believing your master's lies! Want to be a mental slave to the Oligarchy - listen to what Evan has to say. Want to be a free person - then think for yourself. The Back Yard Photo issue is settled. They are fakes - faked by those who framed Oswald to eliminate JFK who was becoming to much pro-Peace and anti-War to take over covertly the USA [it is still under their control - even worse than in 1963] and slowly the whole world. Pure evil and pure lies. For Empire, riches for the few, control of information over the many and turning them into serfs. Neo-Mideavalism I call it. frankly Peter, we have them dancing, mightly! They're all over the place these days.... same on the alt. boards -- the very best the lone nuts can do is instill doubt, and attack the messenger.... they KNOW the Warren Commission Report is in the toilet. The result of same is on full display here, and other places.

My My, you have it all figured out now don't you? And how does it compare to your website? Here, let me order youdup another hod of bricks, you seem a bit low. figured out? Everyone who comments on Dealey Plaza film-photo record is suspect, don't get paranoid on me... where you been for the past 10 years? I don't have nor need no stink'in website... word of mouth, that's how its down in the big leagues... even those little old national TV networks.... we really should do a few hours on camera, you and I, on the same set. We could match client lists, talk about film composing, optical film printing, the history all that kind of stuff.... Maybe even compare client testimonials.... even do a little fact checking... you up for something like that? We're stealing this thread ya know... I apologize to the thread starter.....

frankly son, I see nothing on your site that a 2nd year graphics arts student couldn't crank out. Little stock photo imagery, Photoshop, and a couple weeks.... some text editing, image replacement, all tucked away in a $60-$120 website template and you're good to go.

Come on David I THINK you are smarter than this..or maybe not. I'm not supporting the film , I checking the claims that people use to SAY is altered. What exactly was it you wrote? Oh yes...That Hollywood does special effects! Wow! Thats important news! I'm sure there was not a single soul who would have ever consider that. AS far as phots go, I can verify the ones in this study, and I tell you how to do them yourself so you don't need to take anyones word for it.. Empirical as all get out. Plenty of very solid proof...care to knock it down...if you can? www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm I'm not suprised you never mastered the fine art of creative lighting..not that much need for it shooting corp training videos or the 6 OClock news or the local rodeo. But I'm happy you found your life's work fullfilling. I know I mine has been and I have no regrets. I know a bit about the Carmel area. My in-laws have property there. Perhaps you have heard of a guy by the name of Edward Weston? He spent some time with Ansel...good friends they were. He shot a lot of very cool stuff at Point Lobos...he was one of my early heros and I have shot there many times myself.. Anyways his granddaughter is my brothers wife...have an original Weston right over my head..and Lamson's hang next to Weston's at a very nice private gallery....but I digress. Maybe you should have asked Adams about commercial work, you see he was a very fine commercial and portrait photographer..thats how he paid his bills...kind of...and if you had asked him (or prepared properly for the interview) you might not have stuck your foot deep in your mouth... Recognition, however, did not alleviate Adams's financial pressures. In a letter dated 6 August 1935 he wrote Weston, "I have been busy, but broke. Can't seem to climb over the financial fence." Adams was compelled to spend much of his time as a commercial photographer. Clients ran the gamut, including the Yosemite concessionaire, the National Park Service, Kodak, Zeiss, IBM, AT&T, a small women's college, a dried fruit company, and Life, Fortune, and Arizona Highways magazines — in short, everything from portraits to catalogues to Coloramas. On 2 July 1938 he wrote to friend David McAlpin, "I have to do something in the relatively near future to regain the right track in photography. I am literally swamped with "commercial" work — necessary for practical reasons, but very restraining to my creative work." Although Adams became an unusually skilled commercial photographer, the work was intermittent, and he constantly worried about paying the next month's bills. His financial situation remained precarious and a source of considerable stress until late in life. LMFAO.... ya don't hold a candle to Ansel son..... I doubt you've seen 5.6fs in a while..... but I'm sure Ansel'd be interested in seeing your non-existent client list, too.... after all, we in the film-photo biz do rely on one thing, our work selling client product and services -- gets us more clients through easy referrals..... we simply love to tell how successful we are... so a lifes work doing un-publilshed catalog work is one thing, dealing with Fortune 100 companies now THAT is another ball game altogether... So is Dr. Light speaking of creative lighting here? LMFAO... What ya need to impress me and others hereabouts is a client list there Craigster, who cares about a $100 website, where's the beef-a-roni, son? Of course you can prove to my satisfaction you're telling the truth about Ansel's family, yes? You can tell me who the EMMY winning cameraman was on all those video interviews, yes?

I've made no secret of my qualifications Don, I've been involved in all aspects of advertising photography for 30+ years. Samples of my work can be seen here: www.craiglamson.com BTW, I do much more than express opnions Don. I offer up detailed proof of concept data to support my work and better yet try and give the readers the tools to check for themself. I look forward to seeing what the Hollywood guys come up with and the data they use io back their claims. I'm not really impressed with the sign edge advice they gave Horne, and even less impressed that Horne himself would fail at such a minor level subject. of course you aren't impressed.... and of course you need to besmirch Doug Horne... In fact, your simply nervous... 46 years of illusion hang in the balance, you have doubts.... and to think you haven't addressed the medical evidence yet..... how do YOU spell conspiracy Sherlock? Get out that opinion booklet...

If nothing else, I must say watching you squirm is a wonderful thing. Instead of throwing bricks, why not just prove me wrong David? How tough can that be for a man of your skills? While you are at it maybe you can rescue Costella...and Lifton...and White...and Fetzer.... son, its quite simple, you can even understand, no one, or body has verified the Zapruder film content as original, you're simply throwing your support behind unverified film. Of course, that's fine by me, whatever toots your lone nut horn. You certainly waste no time of mine, nor anyone elses time that I know.... what you have provided for me and others, is a certain kind of entertainment-humor. How? By building excuses out of nonsense, then framing it as argument -- LMAO... So please keep on trucking... Throwing bricks? hell Craig, I've thrown nothing yet, simply post and published my *informed* opinions.... The Zapruder film trolls have been fumbling around for near on 10 years dealing with an article I wrote once upon a time. As to proving you wrong? Hell son, ya can't verify the images you speak to here, so there's absolutely nothing to prove.... others may be impressed with your (and others) film/photo nonsense here, I'm not. Simple as that! Frankly, to quote a Broadway term, "Much Ado about Nothing" But your right about one thing, for a change I've never mastered shooting a row of metal chairs or boats! Somehow that kind of photo project (shooting for catalogs?) slipped my mind while down at Montorey doing those Ansel Adams interviews.... Shame I never got around to asking him about that kind of project, perhaps I should give an Ansel's 20 year print guru a call and ask for his insight, eh? Hi Todd..... LMFAO

Hey, why don't YOU leave? I'm not going anywhere... ... LMAO, of course you're not going to leave. Hell, what would the 6th floor do, IF you DID? Perhaps a better proposition would be, prepare a new alias, find a Ph.D in Physics, one that can act like he/she understands optics then overwhelm us with nonsense as to how authentic the alleged Zapruder film is.... now THAT would be worth the price of admission (or in Ed Forum jargon, keeping the view numbers up, eh?)!

I'm surprised, as some one with some video and photo experience but a lay person regarding restoration, I doubted hand retouching films would still be done at a major studio. Is this done commonly, doing such work digitally seems so much easier. How much of an overlap do you think there is between retouching for restoration and painting negs for special effects? Do you agree its imperative that we see the images Price and the others based their judgments on because what they interpreted as alteration could in fact be generational degradation artifacts? DAVID WROTE: Price and the others (apparently) aren't really "post-production folks" in that their work doesn't involve producing special effects. Most of it seems fair routine technical transferring celluloid images to DVD/Blu-Rays and in the past to other formats. In some cases it may involve hand retouching films but in Prices case at least and perhaps that of the others this would be done by people working under them. Keep your day job, Len.

what anyone *believes* is irrelevant... Concerning concluding and detereiming what is/isn't case evidence, I and others want to know: how anyone can assume any conclusion based on a non-authenticated/unverified alleged original film. Preposterous!

from the Hollywood 7 thread...

Bill, thank you so much for taking the time to post this! HM: Oh, Secret Service, he was an agent. He had gotten a roll of film directly from the person that had photographed it who called the Secret Service and told them that he thought he had on film he shot with a little Brownie Double 8, and he took it, he took it to Rochester. We had a division up there - I won't get into that, but they processed the film, it was Kodacrome, I think I or II, the daylight version, whichever that is, it was Double 8 and, after he got it processed, they told him there that we were probably the only place that had the equipment that could do what he wanted to, - take every frame on there, of the entire event, and make the best possible quality reproductions. Looking for the big finish, the "aha" moment ... does it go on to anything he says that leads them to the conclusion that this roll of film, shot by someone with their Brownie Double 8, who then called the Secret Service and directly handed the roll of film over to them, which was then taken to this place within a couple of days of the assassination to have blowups made of every frame .... was the Zapruder film? The description so far does not fit the Z film. Later on, this man says he thinks the film was unslit. Thinks so? Making enlargements ... may have taken all night .... how on earth does it get from this to the Z film having been faked at this secret lab? With the help of a trainee? Kudos again to you for taking the time to post this. This witness's memories are more than a tad vague. Leaves one wondering where's the beef ... must come later in the interview? Thanks, Barb :-) Hi Barb, Thanks for taking the time to read and reflect on this. Indeed Homer McMahon says a lot and some of it is good and true and some of it is a bit hazy and some could be total bull crap, as I think he realizes that he spilled some beans, but doesn't know exactly what it is or why its important, and so he intentionally tries to discredit himself. I will post the entire transcript separately, including all the Beef, but right here I want to focus on his photographic expertise, and to see if there are any real photo experts out there who know the history of photography, the history of the CIA photo analysis branch, the NPIC, and what the Zapruder film was doing there. Yes, there were questions as to whether McMahon was actually dealing with the Z-film or another film, and it is the Z-film and not another one. And so far you are the only one who has mentioned anything about anything being faked at a secret lab. You'll have to wait before you can start to discredit the secret lab. So far we are only working on the Z-film at NPIC, making color print enlargments for briefing boards. You're not interested in helping to try to answer any of my questions? Bill Smith - yes, Secret Service. So who was the Secret Service agent who took the copie(s) of the Z-film from Zapruder? If there is an unblemished chain of custody then we should be able to follow the film from Dallas to the NPIC, from the agent who took it from Zapruder to "Smith," and identify Smith. All of the agents who handled the film should have written official reports, and if they didn't, what were they up to? Instead of arguing with those who erroniously claim the anamolies in the Z-film are proof of anything, why not establish the chain of custody from Zapruder to the NPIC and show that there were no shennigans with the film? Of course its more fun to argue. BK very good point(s), Bill. There's also that Dallas KODAK lab *pesky* issue. That being, the phantom film process control #0184 date 11-22-1963... Let's see, the in-camera alleged Zapruder film process (developing) number was #0183, the 3 dupes made from same were numbered #0185, #0186, #0187..... so what happened to #0184? Possibly another un-split 8mm Zapruder film 1st generation copy floating around? Would that (#0184) scenario would fit somewhere in the Zapruder film, NPIC, chain of custody fiasco?

Retouching is retouching, and you claimed no painting on film...blew that one didn't you. Oh, I forgot one, used to do a bunch of it..on an Oxberry animation stand..using...wait for it...film that had been painted on.... What was it you were saying again David? It got lost in the laughter... Not going well for your team these days is it? Zapruder film, am I going to fast for you there Craig? Shall I slow down to a nutter-xxxxx snail pace? For those not so quick... here it is again....

Why don't you point out that thread for us David. Oh, and just for the record, back in the day it was not uncommon to "paint" directly on Ektachrome film using special dyes purpose made for the process... And then there is the process of using a pencil to retouch directly on negative film...you remember that...right? special dyes, Ektachrome film, pencil, all relating to the Zapruder film? Craig you do need to focus and stay on topic, son! Perhaps you're having too good a time here, Yes? Have you read Ray Fieldings The Art of Special Effects Cinematography book, or are you pleading ignorance? Is the above in his book, Craig? Perhaps you should write a book about Special Effects Cinematography, eh? LMFAO!

I've noticed comments regarding "painting on film" re a few current Zapruder film threads. Painting on film is NOT a special effects procedure.... glass painting? now that is another story. If one wishes to educate themselves regarding Special Film Effects Cinematography one might consider reading Ray Fielding's The Art of Special Effects Cinematography 1965 (this book neatly covers film effects and equipment said are performed on. Circa. 1963-1965 a point of interest for some here. The books bibliography is chalk full of film effects history and publications dating back to the early 1900's (and before) right up to 1965. For those technically inclined, info and data on SMPE (Society of Motion Picture Engineers) and SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers) aside: Roland Zavada -- past member of the SMPTE society. AGAIN "painting on film" is a lone-nut myth...

On the record? Where? Who is to say they have it rigtht Davie? Unless you have data that no one else does. And why post production people? Are they the only ones with access to the knowlegebase? Credibility lies with facts, not the credentials of the presenter David, at least thats the way it works in the real world. In LALA CT fantasy land who knows what the rules are... oh you silly guy, your getting angry, no? Credibility lies with facts? ROTFLMFAO try telling Film Producer-Director-Writer James Cameron (AVATAR) that his 180 minute, talking, mythological blue people won't sell, in 3D yet! ROTFLMFAO.... Welcome to my world son! Where anything, if hyped correctly is believable, therefore credible in the mind of the beholder.... As I said before, Craig: "So, no banana at this point Craig! Not only no banana, ya need a new drawing board son! Jump in, the film composing-optical film printing water is fine!" Not hiding that you're on-forum these days are ya?

frankly Jack, I see no reason for Doug Horne or any of the Hollywood 7 (or me for that matter) to reply to ANY non-film alteration theorist posting in this thread or any other thread here or elsewhere. The non film-alterationists on this and other forums are simply not capable addressing 8mm-2-35mm film blowup/optical film printing techniques/issues, circa 1963-64. SIMPLE AS THAT... beyond their ken

ROTFLMFAO..... your inept "humor" is actually hilarious.... now, the Hollywood Seven appear to be on-the-record (with what appears plenty more to come) there Craig. Now if only YOU could find similarly qualified post-production folks to counter their findings we might give you protestation(s) a bit of credibility.... So, no banana at this point Craig! Not only no banana, ya need a new drawing board son! Jump in, the film compositing-optical film printing water is fine!

Except of course as already pointed out on this forum Ryan later recanted what he told Twyman saying the alterations would have been easily detectable and would have taken months to perform. In any case, like Zavada, he was a film scientist not a special effect expert. On one hand the former had a PhD and worked in Hollywood and the latter worked in Rochester and "only" has a BS plus a degree in photo science. On the other hand Zavada never recanted his position, was a specialist in 8mm and led the team that invented Kodachrome II while Ryan's expertise was professional 35mm film used by b the film industry. Zavada's view is backed by Oliver Stone, Raymond Fielding, Mark Sobel (director of "The Commission"), Robert Groden and eventually Dr. Ryan. Groden and Zavada examined the original film. On the other hand the Hollywood 7's credentials and identities are unknown and they have yet to make any public statements. They examined 5th generation copies that have yet to been made public. So sorry alterationists until: 1) we see copies of the files they looked at 2) we know who they are 3) they made statements The supposed views of these supposed experts aren't worth squat. Hey Len you barged into a Z-film thread here a few years ago acting like you were Rollie's agent on this board, Rollie then told you he didn't need your help then and here ya are again now propping up the Roland Zavada's Report? Pul-eeeeeeze.... ROTFLMFAO As far as the Hollywood 7's, trust me, these guys will run circles around the best you'll EVER find! Hell, you guys STILL can't find a PH.D in Physics to counter Dr. John Costella Z-film position. ???? Is the best your team can do Len, simply wishin'-n/a-hopin', where's the beef, guy? btw, you also know who Jack White, Jim Fetzer, John Costella, David Mantik, David Healy and David Lifton are. And while your debating film compositing (and by your own admission you don't have a clue) most of us will move onto other endeavors... You'll be busy for the next 10 years..... Redd Foxx won't be happy

Uh Dave, its FETZER who claims the matter is settled. I'm not the least bit afraid of ANY testing David, in fact I WELCOME it. And who really does need for the film to be altered and why the continued and failed attempts to prove that point over the last how many years? I don't really care if anyone listens to my opinions I present facts, and these wil lstand regardless of who presents them. What do YOU present Dave? O-P-I-N-I-O-N (which of course we're ALL entitled) not PROOF,Craig! One canNOT presents facts concerning a authenticated with unverified contents piece of celluloid. Till the film contents are verified we're wasting bandwidth... I will cede one point, Zavada did verify that the Zapruder film is indeed Kodak film, the best he could do concerning the film. He certainly wasn't charged with verifying film content, he simply wasn't qualified. While you guys have been playing the Z-film alteration gig... Doug Horne has done a fabulous job (and you didn't see his V volume expose coming?)... case MEDICAL evidence trumps all DP films... perhaps the reason for the current DP, 6th Floor Museum film-photo purist and their diversion(s)? p.s. YOU need the film alteration argument, not I. In the totality of things, just a blip on the radar screen.... The Zapruder film is simply another credibility problem for LBJ's 1964 Warren Commission Report

They have DISCOVERED? How do you know? Have you seen theactual scan? Have you seen the detailed technical data of the areas in question? Have you proven that the 5TH generation copy actually has the same level of shadow detail as the original film? Of course you have not. You are just blowing smoke, in a fantasy attempt to make speculation into a technical proof. The issue settled? What a joke! You have not even PRESENTED it yet. BTW, are you ever going to post 372 and 374 and point out for all of us the blowout to the back of the head? Surely you have this ability. Why the delay? Afraid? let me be short and sweet, the Zapruder film has not been officially authenticated and verified as ORIGINAL (the current film housed at NARA as the in-camera original Zapruder film) and to the best of my knowledge, it NEVER has! So, why should anyone care what the Craig Lamson opinion about ANY film is? Now we understand your afraid of film forensic testing, so Craister nothing, NOTHING is settled. Yet, its so simple to settle the film issue... and yet you run on endlessly (ye who makes the most noise does not necessarily win)..... so who is it that's afraid, praytell? Kinda makes many wonder, just WHO or what side needs the film alteration debate, eh?

perhaps you need a lesson in who are you quoting, btw? -and- isn't there one single lone nut-xxxxx that can explain film compositing to you? Perhaps Ray Fielding's Special Effects Cinematography is the place for a newbie to start. Don't feel embarrassed, most nutter trolls haven't a clue. Simply ask Craig Lamson to verify same.....

I agree, Tink. Embarrassing. Particularly in that Rigby is not even using the usual claim--that the Z-film shows Greer shoot Kennedy--but is instead conjuring up a case for the Greer did-it scenario by misrepresenting evidence statements. Exactly. The quote, "The shots sounded they were coming from inside the car", is a figure of speech. The witnesses did not mean them literally. Silly is a good word to describe the "Greer shot JFK" theory. ......Still waiting on the list of Top Researchers that think this theory is possible. LMAO.... where oh WHERE would we be without the lone nut-trolls? ROTFLMFAO! Where is the lone nut varsity one might ask? Horrible showing!

Sir, quality, even the lack of it, will out: You've earned your accolade, not least for rank incomprehension. Keep it up. Now, while your mulling over the many superiorities of evidence found several years after the event, contemplate the genius of SS Sorrels, that unwitting friend of the truth: CE-2111 http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H24_CE_2111.pdf appears Mr. Dugan is getting a lesson.....