David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
I'm sorry, Lamson, but I don't buy your argument.
I Googled "edge fog" and here's the definition that came up:
QUOTE:
(graphic arts) The light fog which appears along the edge of roll film, generally from exposure during loading or unloading. UNQUOTE
And you're trying to sell me on the notion that Clint Hill appears beyond the left edge of the sprocket hole because of "edge fog". Really, you've got to be kidding.
Where did you get your degree in critical thinking? From Fetzer?
If you could read you would know I am telling you your claim that the red truck frames have a mechanical hard edge stop at the left edge of the intersprocket area is bogus because you can't see what might have been there, because it was destroyed by EDGE FOG! Now is that clear enough or do you want me to draw you double pictures?
I think you're engaging in irrelevant techno-babble.
Think what you will but any honest, educated observer can note by your posts that you don't know squat about this subject matter.
As for your "normal sample variation," I don't buy that either.
If I'm stopped by an officer for speeding, and he's using radar, I'd don't think I could escape a ticket by arguing that his radar set was off because of "normal sample variation"--and that the problem perhaps was with Motorola's manufacturing processes, and not that my car was going too fast. And that's basically how I feel about your line of reasoning.
He may still give you a ticket but that in no way eliminates the possibility that your cars speedo exhibits normal sample variation. Common sample variation exists. That you want to ignore this is really quite telling.
Just take a look at the Costella Combined Edit. The frames repeatedly go BEYOND "full flesh left" (I just happened to choose that sequence because Clint Hill was out there on the edge.)
Do you think the entire length of the Zapruder film is polluted with "edge fog"? (And no one noticed this before, but you?)
There is no edge fog on the zfilm in that area and I never claimed there was.
I don't think so. Rather, I think "edge fog" and "normal sample variation" is circumstantial evidence of someone invoking high falutin terminology of dubious relevance and little validity to address the serious problem of Z film forgery.
I'm sure you don't think so, in fact I'm starting to wonder about your thinking process in total.
Interestingly your invoking the Clint Hill frame was a stroke of genius. Lets review it shall we?
First lets take the frame you selected from the Costella edit, 244, and roughly remove the pin cushion distortion correction applied by Costella and strike a line at the far right edge of formed image.
Can you see the image has a hrad edged stop, as if something mechanical prohibited the image from extending further. Wow!
Next lets see what the internals of the Zapruder camera looked like in the film gate area
Wow there is somthing that can limit the image width..the aperture plate! The drawing above shows the nominal size. Given you are the guy that says things can be measured a the margins (good science and all of that) why don't you do just that and then tell us if it is impossible for the Zapruder camera to form images as far left as we see in the z film. Now I know this goes against the grain of your current handwaving argument, but you do say you believe in good science, so why not prove it?
Oh one final point, which I might add is yet another one of those basic photographic principles people seem to have such a hard time with.....from the same report as above...
Get back to us when you have a real argument, and not some silly handwaving.
Happy New Year.
DSL
12/31/09
Los Angeles, CA 5:05 AM
To Craig Lamson:You are introducing terminology I never heard of—"edge fog."
efore entering this arena and proposing to discuss this matter, please define your terms, or at least stick to known vocabulary.
What the heck is "edge fog"—other than your own linguistic invention to account for a serious optical discrepancy, one that demands explanation, and which your post does not in fact explain.
Then perhaps you should educate yourself before getting involved into a subject area such as the basic photographic process. I made a post just before this one that will school you on the standard photogrpahic term edge fog.
Let me address your post in detail:
You write: "David, how can you tell that the image area of the Rollie red truck frame does not extend to the extent that it does in Z?"
DSL Response: I can tell (and anyone can tell) by just looking at it. Very clearly and very obviously, it does not extend beyond the very well defined left edge.
No you can't. You can't see anything beyond the the right most edge of the edge fog. You have ZERO clue what image area might have been destroyed by the errant light exposure.
By way of background: Josiah Thompson has done me –and every other person who is studying this matter closely (and certainly anyone who believes in Z film alteration) a very big favor. He has supplied the "rollie red truck" frames at a level of clarity I have never before seen.
Certainly, I have never before seen what I am now calling the "Rollie Red Truck" sequence at this level of clarity—and so I must direct this question to Thompson: does this exhibit which you included in your original post on this matter (and which has precipitated this debate) come from Zavada himself? Did he go back to his original materials—the actual film he took in Dealey Plaza, and provide you with these pictures? Or is it the case that frames of this clarity are in the actual Zavada report?
Whichever is the case, these frames, it seems to me (and unless one is going to invent one's own unique terminology, as Lamson has done here) prove important evidence that the left margin of the frame of a Zapruder-type camera does NOT permit image to appear beyond the left-most edge of the frame—in start contrast to what we see in the Zapruder film frames that supposedly come from a "camera original" film.
Do you even have the basic understanding of how the circle of illumination of a lens works? If you can't get your hands on the Z camera ( why give it to people without a clue and a silly argument) get 10 other samples and test them, see what happens instead if sitting around writing about things it appears you have scant knowlege of.
As for you, Craig Lamson: Inventing your own terminology, calling the argument "silly," and invoking "normal sample variation" does not answer, much less address the fundamental question. To repeat: how can Clint Hill be seen—to the left of the "intersprocket area", when test films on a Zapruder type camera used by Zavada show a clearly defined left edge, one created by the camera mechanism itself, and beyond which no photo image can (or should) appear?
The argument is silly and weak. Normal sample variation is rampant in the professional lenses today, when you would think it should have gone away with better manufacturing processes. The sad fact is that wiht the current crop of very high resloutoin digital cameras and 100% pixel peeping in Photoshop many photographers have had to resort to buying many copies of the same lens, testing them and only keeping the best one, simply because they vary so much from copy to copy. Even then it is not uncommon for that lens to be shipped back to the manufacturer for even further adjustment.
This happens with 3-4 thousand dollar lenses, and you want us to believe cameras made in the early 60's don't have normal sample variation? Please! All it would take is for one camera to limit the maximum zoom to 26.5mm and for the next camera to limit maximum zoom to 27.5mm to change the size of he circle of illumination. This is a mechanical devive built by humans in the early 60's. It is noit even a high end product. You think theyumachined this thing on a CNC machine?
You say this : "To repeat: how can Clint Hill be seen—to the left of the "intersprocket area", when test films on a Zapruder type camera used by Zavada show a clearly defined left edge, one created by the camera mechanism itself, and beyond which no photo image can (or should) appear?
You clearly have not addressed either of these two points in detail, you have simply waved your hands and deemed them true.
On the first, you can't know the the "camera mechanism" has limited the penetration to a "clearly defined edge" because you can't even see the edge, because of the edge fog.
The second is just a wild claim based on nothing, simply because you don't have a clue what you are looking at or how the system works.
DSL
1:55 PM; PST
Los Angeles, CA.
irrelevant and quite frankly Craigster, David Lifton has more operating time on a professional optical film printer than you ever had... Your gonna need Rollie Zavada to endorse your KODAK double 8mm film "edge fog" scenario/dream (a few B&H414 engineers might help too) so, it's about time to roll out Dave Wimp and his traveling road show, eh? LMAO!
-
"BRAVO Ray... and your conclusion does not make not one wit of difference if I think, or, you think the Z-film is altered. The Z-film debate is and for recent years a canard -- fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls... A now needless debate that stymies progress..."
I couldn't agree with you more, David. All of this terrain has been covered over and over again while the interesting work on the Kennedy assassination stands apart from it. It is becoming more and more clear that there is a kind of exact correspondence between the acoustics map of the assassination and the map of the assassination provided by the Zapruder film. A sound impulse on the Dallas police channel is matched by something happening on the Zapruder film... some sign of a bullet hit in the car or some sign of a shot's sound making Zapruder jerk the camera (and, in many cases, both). The overall picture is of five shots in all, one from the stockade fence, the rest from the north end of Elm Street. From what I've been reading, this picture of what happened in Dealey Plaza is edging ever closer to proof.
So let's ask this question: If it can be proven that the extant Zapruder film matches in content the sound impulses appearing on the Dallas police dictabelt, doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film? Let's also ask a second question: No discrepancy between the extant Zapruder film and any other film or photo taken in Dealey Plaza has ever been shown. Doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film?
The endless debate about Z-film authenticity is not just (as you put it) "fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls." Rather it distracts from productive research that will use the Zapruder film as an incalculably important resource in proving that a shot was fired from the right front of the limousine.
It's a pleasure to agree with you about something, David.
Josiah Thompson
Dr. Thompson..
This is all pretty simple, in fact, REAL simple from my perspective at least.
Simply put, every bone in my body says the Z-film is a fabrication. That was was proved (to me at least) during the 2003 Univ. of Minn. symposium. So much in fact, it's what led Rollie Zavada to get in touch with Jim Fetzer in order to get in-touch with me -- which he did. We spoke while he was here at a executive committee SMPTE meeting at Lake Tahoe. Rollie then he jetted off to Florida to speak with Ray Fielding discussing film composite possibilities related to the Zapruder film. Ray Fielding did not help Rollie with his new and improved Zapruder film/camera investigation-report, soon to be published (note: the original which Doug Horne played a role). As you and a few others here know, it never was published, I suspect the 6th floor had something to do with that, however, it makes no difference who or the why's, it wasn't published. It wasn't what past or present author-researchers or museum PR artists had to say, you or Gary Mack for that matter, Fielding didn't endorse what Rollie was looking for in hs revised report... in a nut shell, that it was impossible to alter the Z-film... When I corresponded with Ray Fielding he was very specific, he did NOT want to get involved in the matter. So to me Ray Fielding's refusal sealed the case of Z-film alteration.... the argument wasn't worth going on the record in Zavada's new report....
So, my position is simple: until the lone nut'/SBT's find someone, ANYONE with film compositing expertise that will counter what the authors put forth in TGZFH, debating Z-film alteration issue(s) is simply beating a dead horse..... The lone nut/SBT adherents best play (only play left) is the holding option.... led by Gary, Lampoon Lamson and the remaining gang of 8...
Ray Carroll (and many others) has it right, shooters from the front (2-mine IMHO) AND the rear (2-mine IMHO)... Kennedy was hit at least 4 times (mine IMHO)... the medical evidence trumps ALL...
Gary Mack once told me... "the original in-camera Zapruder Film will never, EVER see the inside of a courtroom, PERIOD! I believe that, but for a different reason, it (the original film) simply no longer exists...
The Z-film debate has kept the CT research community up-front the last 6-7 years, we've kept the Single Bullet Theorists not only busy, but driving them crazy.... Let's finish the job! We no longer need debate the Z-film... it's time to pull it all together a focus squarely on the medical evidence...
So let's make Bugliosi and Company along with Tom Hanks and HBO do a little rewrite work, they've got deep pockets...
David
There are enormous contradictions between the medical evidence and what we find in the film, which seem to have passed you by. I have no idea what you are about, but be so kind as to explain the "blob" of brains bulging forward, the missing right-front cranial mass from the x-rays,.......At the 2003 Duquesne conference I asked the forensic pathology panel if they agreed that only a new autopsy would resolve all the conflicts in the medical evidence, and none of these distinguished experts disagreed. The original autopsy was performed by amateurs, and until a new autopsy is performed, I am unable to give definitive answers on the wounds to JFK's body. We do know however that an entry wound in JFK's throat was noted at parkland hospital, and we also know that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was driven backward by a bullet in the brain, apparently fired from the right front.
There have been various efforts to rationalize the Head Snap and make it seem consistent with a shot from behind, but none of these efforts (jet effect, neuro) are remotely persuasive, and the fact remains that Malcolm Perry was quite certain that the throat wound was an entry. So my view for now is that JFK was shot twice from the front, and that view may be modified depending on the findings of a new autopsy or other unassailable source.
The Zapruder film is entirely consistent with JFK being struck twice from the front, and I submit that trying to have the Z-film declared a fake does nothing to resolve the problems with the autopsy.
BRAVO Ray... and your conclusion does not make not one wit of difference if I think, or, you think the Z-film is altered. The Z-film debate is and for recent years a canard -- fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls... A now needless debate that stymies progress...
-
There are enormous contradictions between the medical evidence and what we find in the film, which seem to have passed you by. I have no idea what you are about, but be so kind as to explain the "blob" of brains bulging forward, the missing right-front cranial mass from the x-rays,.......
At the 2003 Duquesne conference I asked the forensic pathology panel if they agreed that only a new autopsy would resolve all the conflicts in the medical evidence, and none of these distinguished experts disagreed. The original autopsy was performed by amateurs, and until a new autopsy is performed, I am unable to give definitive answers on the wounds to JFK's body. We do know however that an entry wound in JFK's throat was noted at parkland hospital, and we also know that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was driven backward by a bullet in the brain, apparently fired from the right front.
There have been various efforts to rationalize the Head Snap and make it seem consistent with a shot from behind, but none of these efforts (jet effect, neuro) are remotely persuasive, and the fact remains that Malcolm Perry was quite certain that the throat wound was an entry. So my view for now is that JFK was shot twice from the front, and that view may be modified depending on the findings of a new autopsy or other unassailable source.
The Zapruder film is entirely consistent with JFK being struck twice from the front, and I submit that trying to have the Z-film declared a fake does nothing to resolve the problems with the autopsy.
BRAVO Ray... and your conclusion does not make not one wit of difference if I think, or, you think the Z-film is altered. The Z-film debate is and for recent years a canard -- fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls... A now needless debate that stymies progress...
-
Have you read Appendix E of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX?
If you mean the DelaRosa Report then yes, I just read it this morning and I got a good laugh out of it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=_YAWJka6j...;q=&f=false
these issues....appear to be considerably beyond you. Just for my own edification, is it your view that the film is authentic? or do you believe it is a fabrication, but question the specific proof I have cited?We'll see what's beyond whom.
Photographs and witnesses PROVE that Abe Zapruder filmed the assassination using a Bell & Howell movie camera. Zapruder authenticated the film under oath on two separate occasions (WC & Shaw trial), so the film is now in evidence and it contains powerful evidence that William Greer abruptly SLOWED the limo when he should have accelerated to safety.
The film cannot tell us what motivated Greer to suddenly slow the limo, but it does show the UNDENIABLE FACT that Greer behaved in a manner that was completely inappropriate for someone sworn to protect the president and the film also tells us that Greer lied about his behavior under oath. His behavior WAS appropriate, however, for someone sworn to assist in the assassination of JFK.
If you understand that the vehicle was brought to a halt- ......The limo stop was such a stunning indication of Secret Service complicity in the assassination that it had to be removed.The film as it stands is already a stunning indication of Secret Service complicity, so if someone tried to alter the film to remove suspicion from Greer, I'm afraid they did not succeed in their purpose.
It is true that Vince Palamara can cite dozens of witnesses who recalled that the limo actually stopped. In The Logic of Drawing History From Ancient Documents, Charles Sanders Peirce warns that "THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LEAD one witness into error are likely to operate to deceive another."
http://books.google.com/books?id=grYAoECfZ...nts&f=false
One circumstance causing witnesses to think the limo stopped is the FACT that it SLOWED ABRUPTLY from 12 MPH to 8MPH, according to the calculations of Alvarez. Another circumstance is the fact that the VP's car DID STOP, creating the impression that the entire motorcade stopped. So witnesses can be AND OFTEN ARE MISTAKEN.
So the answer to your question is that I have so far seen NOTHING to make me doubt that the film shows exactly what Abe Zapruder saw through his viewfinder in those fateful moments.
Ray,
What I enjoy about all the above (and others of course) posts is simple: the Lone Nut faithful would have us believe that a simple murder occurred in Dealey Plaza, Nov 22nd 1963. So simple in fact we're led to believe only a piece of film taken by someone (or family trust) whom made 16 million buckeroos for the piece of unchallenged piece of film... This someone (and his assistant) whom we know damn little about. While others in the dipsy cast of DP related characters (and their families) AND who their dentists are? LMFAO....
The most overused phrase I see here and elsewhere is the eye-witness reliability bullsh*t, here and elsewhere, over and over... Kinda makes you wonder why police departments have homicide detectives on staff, doesn't it? I could just see a prosecutor stand up in court when the judge gavels a trial in session: "Your Honor we don't need no stinkin' eyewitnesses, we got the 6PM news film -- you can give the case to the jury now, Your Honor...
Comments Counselor?
-
I agree with David Healy 100% that the Febuary 1964 date was when the first parts of frame alteration were completed
Oh, I was under the impression that all of this debate had to do with the Zfilm being changed that weekend or shortly thereafter.
Wonder why it took months?Gee, maybe they didn't get it right the first time--as technically astute as they were you'd think it wouldn't take so long.
BTW, I have no doubt in my mind that Ryan told that to Trask and Zavada. There would be no reason for them to lie about it. Their credibility is fine with me.
Kathy
Bloody Treason is supposed to be released as an ebook soon, if it hasn't been already:
keep up girl, Bill Miller still have you confounded? It appears nutter-trolls are in a tizzy over Doug Horne...
-
Len,
This is a very informative email I received from a friend earlier this year, who forwarded it to me, regarding Ryan:
(I've "bolded" it to set it apart from what I've written)
From: GaryM@jfk.org
To: XXXXX@aol.com
Sent: 4/16/2009 6:39:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Dr. Roderick Ryan
According to Noel Twyman's 1997 "Bloody Treason" book, Roderick Ryan was shown many frames from the Zapruder film and he issued several opinions supporting the possibility of alteration. Twyman's interviews with Ryan took place mostly from 1993-1995.
In 1999, Ryan and many other film scientists were invited to the National Archives to examine the camera original Zapruder film. Their purpose was to advise NARA about the latest thinking and technology concerning film preservation issues.
At that meeting, two attendees - Kodak scientist Roland Zavada and researcher Richard Trask - questioned Ryan about his alteration beliefs. According to both men, who repeated the details to me, Ryan admitted he was never told that alteration was thought to have happened over the weekend of the assassination or, at the most, within a few days.
Ryan insisted to Zavada and Trask that such changes, while technically possible, in his opinion, would have taken months to accomplish and they would still likely have been detectable. So based on the timing issue, Ryan, who is now deceased, recanted his opinion that the Zapruder film was possibly altered.
Gary Mack
simple Zapruder film frame alteration was completed by Feb-1964. (lest we forget the ONLY client viewing the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film was the Warren Commission, collectively, they saw the film late Feb 1964...)
There were years and years available (after the initial frame alteration) for in-depth alteration....
Gary should get off his rear-end and head for Hollyweird, that place where, when it comes to film--anything, ANYTHING is possible.... all Gary's nutter-xxxxx hanger-oners are doing him a serious dis-service....
-
Doesn't anyone want to discuss what Gary has to day?
Why do't you start Kelly, after all you are the one with the magical conversion.
light weight nutter-trolls to the rear, Craigster -- ya need a physicist till then you're dancin' chum!....
-
Healy plays games to obfuscate the truth. Did Groden handle the original, he says he did, does Dave have any evidence to the contrary? .
Did Zavada examine the original Z-film from the National Archives? That isn't in dispute, Healy knows he did. Yet he said “To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!“. When the truth isn't on his side he blows smoke and tries to fool people.
Dave - Lying doesn’t become you nor the forum!!!!
3.5 years ago and this is still heating up.... the trolls have dropped the ball, again. So where is Gary M's latest dance concerning Doug Horne's take on Z-film alteration? Rumor has it he (Gary) has broken his silence...
Who has dropped the ball? UH, that would be the twinks who believe in the fairytale of zfilm alteration.... that would incude you davie.
Denial
You know that we are about to be vidicated
What are going to do when that happens? Crawl into a corn field and ask Shoeless Joe Jackson why?
Vindicated? Surely you jest. But then deano can't help himself. He is just a sheep who lets others do his thinking.
Keep believing in your fairytale. Lordy Lordy...deano BELIEVES!
Denial...yep thats deano to be sure.
Ahh, yes -- Dancing with the Stars, the Len and Craig ROAD SHOW. Then we have who Gary brings up the "physics of film" and the road show here goes to work..... nice try but no CEEEE-GAR. ROTFLMFAO! PR, it's all about PR!
May the trolls and all all other forum members (and lurkers) have a safe and sane Christmas, travel well friends!
David Healy
-
Healy plays games to obfuscate the truth. Did Groden handle the original, he says he did, does Dave have any evidence to the contrary? .
Did Zavada examine the original Z-film from the National Archives? That isn't in dispute, Healy knows he did. Yet he said “To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!“. When the truth isn't on his side he blows smoke and tries to fool people.
Dave - Lying doesn’t become you nor the forum!!!!
3.5 years ago and this is still heating up.... the trolls have dropped the ball, again. So where is Gary M's latest dance concerning Doug Horne's take on Z-film alteration? Rumor has it he (Gary) has broken his silence...
-
Well, let's see, we have Homer McMahon, his assistant Ben Hunter, and their boss Arthur Lundall, and Dino Brugioni, all high-level CIA photo technicians who enlarged two different sets of frames from two different versions of the original Zapruder film at two different times at the same place - the NPIC at Anacosta.
Two different VERSIONS? Quite a leap there Kelly. Or was it to different COPIES of the same original????
Instead we are discussing the reports of the CIA officers who saw two different films - types of films - at two different times, making two different sets of briefing boards.
Which is it, different films or different TYPES of film from the same original?
These are not CTs but professional film technicians who know an original film when they see one, and they were responsible for making briefing boards - large blow ups for the President, or the Head of the CIA, and similar to the briefing board here, which Lundahl and another NPIC official Sidney Graybeal (anybody got anything on him?) took the President during the Cuban Missile crisis.
Really? Your "professional" Brugioni had to GUESS if there was images between the sprocket holes. And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't theymake 5x7 internegatives and CONTACT prints? A CONTACT print would be NO LARGER than thge neagative it was printed from, in this case 5"x7", slighty larger than your standard drugstoe photo print. Kinda makes Horne's opinion that they need the "best possible quality" and thus the need for a full wet gate , for the briefing boards look a bit silly.
Now my questions are - why did they have two separate NPIC sessions to enlarge specific frames of the Z-film? Why didn't the first session acomplish their task?
Why not? Was copy two of the original film a different exposure that contained more shadow or highlight detail than the first copy? Was one a generation closer to the original? Lots of reasons.
Who were the breifing boards for? Who did they brief? According to Lundahl, one set was for CIA director McCone. Who was the other set for, and why didn't they use the first set in the second briefing, rather than make another set?
Maybe they focused on different frames? Ever considered that?
And what became of both sets of briefing boards? The Cuban Missile Crisis briefing boards still exist. Dino found one briefing board in a closet at NPIC and he was chastised for even having it.
Why save them?
What became of the rest of the briefing boards?
Why save them?
As for what type of equipment was needed and available at both the NIPC and "Hawkeye Works" at Kodak HQ at Rochester, NY, that question is being answered and we will know shortly.
How will you ever know? I thought you said the place was "top secret"...still.
BK
I be watching Lampoon... have you found anyONE that'll give you're Zapruder film nonsense a bit of credibility, Y-E-T
...and I'm not talking about the Lenster, whose already said he doesn't know SQUAT about film and/or film composing...
btw, have YOU ever seen or touched the alleged in-camera Zapruder film currently housed at NARA?
-
that there was a loud stall-warning alarm?
Has happened before.
that the pilots were well-qualified, the senior pilot having 5,200 hours of experience, an Air Transport Pilot's certification, and passing his FAA "flight check" just two days before the fatal flight?Similar circumstances have happened before.
That you would shoot off your mouth in a state of virtual ignorance tells me all I want to know about Evan Burton.The fact that you have no experience in this area and try to tell people whose profession it is that you know better than them speaks volumes about your arrogance.
And given the vast number of flights that occur in the US every day, have you made any calculation of the relative frequency with which these small plane crashes take place, much less those that satisfy the circumstances I have described above?And the odds were over a million to one that two B747s could collide on the ground... but they did.
Do you even know that, when the NTSB conducted simulations with a simulator with a weaker engine and had it flown abnormally slowly, they were unable to bring the plane down? Which means that the NTSB's own data contradicted its conclusion?No, they were able to fly out of it - further evidence of pilot error.
And how many of these crashes you list were with King Air A-100s, the Rolls Royce of small planes?Oh please. As far as aircraft are concerned, you don't really know the difference between a Rolls Royce and an Edsel.
Please tell me, because otherwise I and others are likely to conclude that you are simply one more phony who posts on this forum based upon their own ignorance! There's a big difference between you and us: we know that reasoning must be based upon all of the available evidence.I'm not the ignorant one nor the phony here since I can back up all my assertions with documented examples and can prove my expertise in the field. How many flight hours do you have? Do you have piloting qualifications? As a flight navigator? As an air traffic controller? Work in the aviation field? Please - show me the qualifications.
you're dancing son..... and not well!
-
he didn't see a forged version of the Z-film altered to make it appear JFK was shot 3 times from behind.
He saw the "other film" Len
By "other film" do you mean the forged Z-film? We know the original was developed in Dallas
ROTFLMFAO.... nah, Redd isn't impressed -- try again!
-
You're right, Lampoon -- the entire Australian Army should be recalled. What was I thinking? God forbid anyone should trust their life to your works. Look how afraid you are to even address the proof of your failure as documented here. And thats not even considering the other gross failures in your boggled Zapruder film mess.
www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm
Whats the matter johnboy, Chicken?
Maybe you would be more comfortable crawling back under your rock down there in oz...much safer to be sure....
my goodness, did someone say that commercial photography of yours looks FAKE, painted instead of touched up or enhanced.... what happens when ya get to arrogant, son. So where's Zavada lets get to the bottom of it, NOW! LMAO...
Can you focus on the thread topic Craigster? Or does Doug Horne have you running in circles too? Climategate, nice and slow now, so Al Gore can hear ya....
C-L-I-M-A-T-E-G-A-T-E..... where's the .john varsity gone these day's?
-
Zavada responded to TGZFH. See here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf
He mentions Horne several times.
Cheers
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
for those that want a bit more in-depth discussion concerning Zavada (Thompson, and the rest of the nutter-xxxxx gang of 8) re TGZFH see below:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ax/lifton1.html
whomever Zavada mentions or doesn't NOT mention, take with a grain of salt.....
Note that Costella failed to refute Zavada's conclusion that for technical reasons the film he examined was an "in camera original" and note a duplicate (copy)
yeah sure, Len.... Zavada was refused access/or test the Zapruder B&H414 double 8mm camera which he requested it for testing (as a result, his formal study were based on 4 other *wind-up* B&H414 film cameras), now you're trying to tell us Zavada was given access tothe in-camera Zapruder film in-camera film original to review, when he couldn't even touch the Zapruder camera? Did he do any forensic testing on the Z-film, Len? Oh, and btw, was he, Zavada charged with determining Zapruder film content? Lots of curious minds out here
Man-o-man, Doug Horne has you guys running on circles these day's....Ya need a new day job there Len..... Redd Foxx won't be happy...
-
Doug Horne's later version of events is contradicted by his own notes of his interviews with MacMahon. No here in them was there any mention of Smith using a secret codeword for a secret lab only that they were developed at Kodak in Rochester.
The notes were published in TGZFH on pages 456 - 60
Of course if Len Colby had read the book(s) he would know that the CIA ordered the removal of the word "Hawkeye Works" from the published notes and report that Horne filed, but it is still in the audio taped interview with McMahon, one of the few interviews the ARRB "allowed" Horne to record.
Horne, as a 20 year Navy veteran and a miliary records analysist who was investigated, certified and approved to read classified material, dutifully excised the word the CIA wanted to keep classified, and has maintained his status, - if he was in the Mafia, as "a Stand Up Guy."
As for the recorded interview with McMahon, they wouldn't let him record most interviews or even let him talk to some of the lab technicians who were then still alive but are now dead.
And do indeed consider the intellectual honesty of the writer, and compare that to what we know about Craig Lamson's intellectual honesty, as well as Colby, for writing all that junk without bothering to read the book they are trying to tear apart.
And also consider the intellectual honesty of those who claim Doug Horne is a pot head, is writing a book on UFOs and failed to conduct himself himself as a responsible, professional Senior Analysist of Military Records.
The best part of Horne's book is that he answers almost every objection that has been raised thus far.
Read the book, and then come back and try to argue.
And for those who don't want to follow the lead to "Hawkeye Works," at the Kodak plant in Rochester, New York, then just be happy knowing that there is no such place.
Bill Kelly
Poor Bill, wanting to talk about intellectual honesty and then to post such blatantly dishonest stuff like this. You sound SO desperate!
"And do indeed consider the intellectual honesty of the writer, and compare that to what we know about Craig Lamson's intellectual honesty, as well as Colby, for writing all that junk without bothering to read the book they are trying to tear apart. "
Please show me exactly where I have tried to tear "the book apart"? I've simply made comments on the published excerpts, which I should remind you that YOU posted. I've also commented on the blatant and very silly speculation contained in these excerpts and utttered by an ignorant Bill Kelly.
I sure can understand Kelly's desperation. He is claiming that Hawkeye Works is some super duper, state of the art CIA lab whose name must be scrubbed from existance, and here we find that Eastman Kodak published the name Hawkeye Works on thier company website! And photos exist of the Hawkeye Works in Rochester!
Super Secret? Now thats funny!
Please keep it up Bill, the entertainmnet value you provide is priceless!
Running from Horne, are we? How lone-nut xxxxx utterish!
Keep that WCR faith, the only thing the trolls have left... LMFAO! -
Now if someone could find a copy of Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" it would help.
Thanks Michael,
The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.
How come I missed this?
Ah, yes, now I remember, I got to the part about me and John Judge meeting Don Norton at University of Dayton, but here its says here it was in Toledo, a minor mistake, but still one that should be corrected.
Was David Lifton's article "Pig on a Leash" published anywhere else before or after TGZFH?
Is it available on line in full, rather than in this version, which is missing half its pages?
I take it that the references to the Hawkeye Works is on p. 387 and 388 but 388 is missing.
Can someone copy these pages and references and post them?
Someone should also copy the entire article and post it if it to be part of the record, even if only a footnote.
It should be called a biography of Bob Groden.
And hey, the pig was real, it wasn't fake.
Bill Kelly
Zavada responded to TGZFH. See here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf
He mentions Horne several times.
Cheers
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
for those that want a bit more in-depth discussion concerning Zavada (Thompson, and the rest of the nutter-xxxxx gang of 8) re TGZFH see below:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ax/lifton1.html
whomever Zavada mentions or doesn't NOT mention, take with a grain of salt.....
-
'Craig no hard data Lamson' said...
WOW, you know the CIA had its own K-whatever line? How about a cite for that one davie?So what if its "questioned" Questions and speculation are a dime a dozen. How about some hard data instead? Maybe your "scientist" friends can help you with that.
Oh wait thats not working too well for you now is it...
best get a partner if your gonna dance the night through there chum.... actually you're in desperate need of a Ph.D. physicist, of any stripe... LMFAO! Man, does Doug Horne have you nutter-trolls churning the midnight oil...
Dance sweet gloria, D-A-N-C-E
-
da 'Craigster Lamson' stated
So Bill, exactly what kind of film was processed by Hawkeye for the Corona project? Did this special lab have a Kodachrome line as well? Since Corona was a b/w imaging system as far as I can tell, why would there be a Kodachrome line ( and remember kodachrome is a real bitch to process).who cares if its a real bitch? The CIA can't develop a simple piece of 8mm film? Who are you feeding this line too?
the alleged 1963 in-camera original Zapruder film and its authenticity is questioned laddie and there's not a damn thing you can do about it except whine of course.....
-
da 'Craigster Lampoon stated:
So, to cut through the Healy bs, Livingstone has ZERO film/photos credentials, and using your own yardstick, his work is worthless. Thanks for clearing it all up.just like you my lovely, but we always knew your credibility didn't we..... Have a nice new year too, I'm sure you'll need all the best wishes thrown your way --
One can safely bet Doug Horne has all you nutter-trolls wound up tighter than a double-8mm Bell & Howell 414 camera these day's, tsk-tsk!
-
Here's a link to the complete interview:
Thanks for posting this Bill. Doug seemed to be on solid ground until he got into Z-film alteration:
The story that Homer and his assistant Ben told us was that, on the weekend of the assassination, they had a film brought to them by the Secret Service. The agent said his name was Bill Smith, which I firmly believe is a pseudonym because we ascertained from a roster of employees that the Secret Service had no special agent named ‘Bill Smith’ onboard in 1963....Assuming that the two CIA men (Homer & Ben) are honest, are they relying on their own unaided memory for the name of "Bill Smith"? If they are, they could be simply misremembering the name, which is a VERY easy thing to do. Also, Did the SS roster show anyone named Smith who had a status other than "special agent?"
They said that Bill Smith brought what he represented to them as being the original Zapruder film. He did not come from Dallas. He came from Rochester, New York, where he said the film had been developed. And he used a code word for a classified film laboratory that the CIA had paid Kodak to set up and run in Rochester, their headquarters and main industrial facility.The implications of this are off-scale
I think Doug is taking an enormous leap here. Homer and Ben NOW say that Smith SAID the film had been developed in Rochester. Apart from the memory issues, if the film had really been clandestinely processed in Rochester (when the official story has it processed in Dallas) Smith would have to be a foolish conspirator indeed to spill the beans to Ben & Homer.
Of course Smith and the film could both be legit, with Smith simply having been misinformed about where the film was processed.
I hope Doug has something a helluva better than this to support the theory of Z-film alteration, assuming that is part of his book.
Quite true Ray, but many people uncritically accept any evidence, no matter how shaky which supports their views. Elsewhere there is mention of some supposed super secret CIA/Kodak lab in Rochester. It must have quite secret indeed because even nearly 50 years later no evidence it ever existed
DAVID,
You keep referring to the Livinstone interview with Zavada as if it proves something but never quote the passages which supposedly prove something which leads me to conclude you're just exhaling a cloud of fine particles suspended in a gas from between your legs.
well Len, perhaps you should break loose a few bucks and buy the book, eh? Show some real support for the Lone Nut, SBT, non Z-film alteration crowd. Time to keep up.
The HOAX of the Century
Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film
by
Harrison Livingstone
copyright2004
ISBN 1-4120-4462-6
when you're done with the above perhaps Doug Horne's 13 year undertaking will whet your appetite for detailed discussion... Till then, have a safe and sane holiday season.
Still curious David, what exactly are Livingstone's film/photo credentials? I can't seem to find ANY. Perhaps YOU can enlighten us, given thats your standard point of reference when it come to persons discussing the assassination photos/films.
probably about the same type of credentials as Zavada's were/are concerning Zapruder film content, Craig -- however, he Livingstone did have extended interviews with Roland Zavada. AND having been in the presence of and studied the alleged Zapruder film (multiple times) at NARA. I was invited for one of these NARA gigs, unfortunately I was out of the country at the time. Also, having NYT Best seller to your (Livingstone's) credit does attract those in need of explaining themselves. Even if its about 1960's era assassination film... (read all about it in Livingstones book)
To remain on topic, I find it interesting that Doug Horne worked closely with Roland Zavada during his Zavada's ARRP foray into the Zapruder film. Roland Zavada never mentioned that to me during a conversation. Frankly, I never thought to ask.....
Have a nice holiday, too, Craig.
-
Here's a link to the complete interview:
Thanks for posting this Bill. Doug seemed to be on solid ground until he got into Z-film alteration:
The story that Homer and his assistant Ben told us was that, on the weekend of the assassination, they had a film brought to them by the Secret Service. The agent said his name was Bill Smith, which I firmly believe is a pseudonym because we ascertained from a roster of employees that the Secret Service had no special agent named ‘Bill Smith’ onboard in 1963....Assuming that the two CIA men (Homer & Ben) are honest, are they relying on their own unaided memory for the name of "Bill Smith"? If they are, they could be simply misremembering the name, which is a VERY easy thing to do. Also, Did the SS roster show anyone named Smith who had a status other than "special agent?"
They said that Bill Smith brought what he represented to them as being the original Zapruder film. He did not come from Dallas. He came from Rochester, New York, where he said the film had been developed. And he used a code word for a classified film laboratory that the CIA had paid Kodak to set up and run in Rochester, their headquarters and main industrial facility.The implications of this are off-scale
I think Doug is taking an enormous leap here. Homer and Ben NOW say that Smith SAID the film had been developed in Rochester. Apart from the memory issues, if the film had really been clandestinely processed in Rochester (when the official story has it processed in Dallas) Smith would have to be a foolish conspirator indeed to spill the beans to Ben & Homer.
Of course Smith and the film could both be legit, with Smith simply having been misinformed about where the film was processed.
I hope Doug has something a helluva better than this to support the theory of Z-film alteration, assuming that is part of his book.
Quite true Ray, but many people uncritically accept any evidence, no matter how shaky which supports their views. Elsewhere there is mention of some supposed super secret CIA/Kodak lab in Rochester. It must have quite secret indeed because even nearly 50 years later no evidence it ever existed
DAVID,
You keep referring to the Livinstone interview with Zavada as if it proves something but never quote the passages which supposedly prove something which leads me to conclude you're just exhaling a cloud of fine particles suspended in a gas from between your legs.
well Len, perhaps you should break loose a few bucks and buy the book, eh? Show some real support for the Lone Nut, SBT, non Z-film alteration crowd. Time to keep up.
The HOAX of the Century
Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film
by
Harrison Livingstone
copyright2004
ISBN 1-4120-4462-6
when you're done with the above perhaps Doug Horne's 13 year undertaking will whet your appetite for detailed discussion... Till then, have a safe and sane holiday season.
-
Todd Vaughan wrote:
Robin,The Cancellare photos are actually not a true square format.
Cancellare 1 is taller than it is wide. I think have a full-framed sized image at home that I will try and find and post.
Cancellare 2 is wider than it is tall.
So it seems Cancellare turned his camera as the scene dictated, like a veteran cameraman would.
Also, as far as Cancellare being identified as Rickerby by Shaw and Harris in Cover-Ups, are you sure about that? What page is that ID?
Thanks.
Todd
Jack White wrote:
I believe this is wrong. Cancellare was using a square format camera.Jack
Twice in the same thread Todd has to be corrected.... the more things change the more they stay the same, eh? Have you noticed attendance on this board has sharply decreased during the past month or so.... then Todd shows up here THEN Wild Bill Miller makes a half-baked return?
-
Robin,
Awesone job IDing Underwood.
Todd
tune up.... I believe Al Healy deserves the credit, what say you?
-
"I've always been interested in conspiracy theories. I am fascinated by the Kennedy assassination. I know how that happened. I won't tell you. But I know exactly what happened. This is a story for another time....."
Jesse Ventura interview with ESPN's Lynn Hoppes, December 1, 2009: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...e=hoppes/091201
thanks Mike Hogan...
DHealy
You're right, Lampoon -- the entire Australian Army should be recalled. What was I thinking? 
Keep that WCR faith, the only thing the trolls have left... LMFAO!
SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Kathy-- you keep coming back ya hear....and what you term ridiculous is in fact, reality, on many boards (how many do you monitor daily? 5-10?)... unless Bill Miller has told you otherwise ya might want to do a little deep research....