David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
Todd, Jerry, others
A couple years ago Rollie Zavada (the Kodak product engineer who lead the teem that invented Kodakchrome II and examined the original Z -film) told me that challenging a alterationists beliefs was "like questioning someone's religion"
You might as well try and reason with a Moonie
All that Zavada confirmed was that the film was "original KODAK KODACHROME". He did not very any of the content.
Jack
David and Jack have made this false claim and been corrected enough times that continuing to make it is assign of their willful ignorance or worse. Zavada issued TWO reports. While the first issued (I think) in 1998 basically only confirmed that the film was "original KODAK KODACHROME" the second one went much beyond that.
From the 2003 report:
The goal to create a "Kodachrome original provides furtherinsurmountable challenges. Special optical effects for the cinema are
designed to fulfill story telling support in scenes rendered in such a way
that they are not obvious or disturbing to the audience. The author
wishes us to believe that unknown persons with unknown advanced
technology and film resources were able: to create a "Kodachrome
original" that would be subject to undetectable microscopic examination
and evaluation by multiple researchers. The "evidence" offered are scene
content anomalies and an a priori technical capability and expertise.
[…]
When my contract with Kodak expired, I was in a position to
express my personal views. Simply stated "There is no detectable
evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the "Zapruder in-camera original"
and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto."
The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all
the characteristics of an original film per my report. !The film medium,
manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image
characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type,
perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting
characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. !It has NO
evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge
effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.
http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf
Anyone interested should read the whole report, it's 6yearsandthere'sbeen no meaningful reply from the alterationist cult
His conclusion that what the alterationists propose was technically impossible was backed by Oliver Stone, Robert Groden and Raymond Fielding. The latter literally ‘wrote the book’ on Special Effects Cinema-photography and previously had been repeatedly cited by David Healy.
oh Len.. one would think you're trying to tear a page out of the Redd Foxx comedic amateur hour playbook.... perhaps you can explain when Roland Z. approached Professor Fielding for *a public comment* regarding film special effects why Ray Fielding turned Roland Zavada down in his newly (2006) reconstituted Zavada report (which never saw the light of day)
btw, when was the last time I cited Ray Fielding on this forum (or any other for that matter)? Of course you can give us the cite re Oliver Stone stating it was impossible to alter the Zapruder film.... so, get the xxxxx-drones busy, I'm waiting..... (even wild bill millah can't help ya on this one)
for the uninformed the below link points to the article of Len's and other naysayers Z-film obession...
http://jfkresearch.com/page3.html (third article from the top -- requires Adobe PDF reader)
-
I'm back to making a buck these days.....
LOL! Greeter at 201 North Nellis Blvd?
Or you shooting cowboys again?
we certainly understand what its like to have your studio closed, son.... tough times mean tough measures.... keep yourself together...
perhaps your new found friend and help mate Todd can drum up some biz for ya.... say McAdams doing another MC exhibition in the wilds of Wisconsin in that old trenchcoat of his, we certainly could use some better nutter-xxxxx event pics (the last series was HORRID -- do you need the link?).... LMFAO!
What is at 201 N.Nellis Blvd.? You have something on you mind, son? Out of the shadows with ya....
-
All,
Here’s my comparison of the branches as seen in the Zapruder film to the branches as seen in the Secret Service reconstruction film made on 27 November 1963.
Please note that the cameramen in the SS reconstruction film does not appear to have been standing exactly where Zapruder was – he’s close, but he’s not exactly in the right spot. We know this because of the relationship of the tree trunk on the knoll to the north edge of the Fort Worth Freeway sign as seen in both films (this doesn’t really show real well in this still, but does in the film). To get the correct relationship the SS cameraman actually should have been located more southerly (more towards Elm Street) on the pedestal. Had the SS cameraman been more southerly on the pedestal the branches in the foreground would have shifted rightwards in relationship to the background and better matched what we see in Zapruder.
The SS cameraman also seems to have been taller than Zapruder (who was not a tall guy )and thus filmed from a higher position. Had the SS cameraman been at the correct (lower) “Zapruder height” the branches in the foreground would have shifted upwards in relationship to the background and also better matched what we see in Zapruder.
Also please keep in mind that I’ve not scaled the two photographs to the same size.
I’ve placed a yellow dot at the most distal end of each of 15 branches that I think match up in both films. Use your minds-eye and think in 3d to make up for the slight difference, horizontally and vertically, in the two views film and keep in mind that the relationships of the braches to each other would shift slightly as well. If you start from the left side and compare each one of the dots in the Zapruder film to its counterpart in the SS film I think you can see that the branches match up almost perfectly.
I’m obviously no Photoshop Wizard, so it would be great if someone who is could improve upon my comparison. I’d gladly provide the two images I used.
Todd
Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63?
The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63
Your study is useless to me
Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work
You've got to be kidding me.
No im not kidding you
I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45
Is that to hard for you to believe?
LOL, yes it is.
Let me ask you this - You've claimed here that the bush was nice and trimmed on 22 November 1963 (even claiming that Emmett Hudson himself had trimmed it just for JFK's visit, as if you somehow know that). However the the SS reconstruction photos taken a mere 5 days later on 27 November 1963 show it is anything but trimmed - in fact it's quite untrimmed.
How much do you think that bush would have grown in 5 days?
well lookey here.... the shadow emerges fron exile.... you still posting from Wendy's there son? ROTFLMFAO!
Ah, Turtle! Do you have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion or are you the same ole' Dave I've come to know?
my pearls are simply not recognized by those that haven't a clue regarding the art of film compositing and said techniques... You keep coming back, ya hear Toddster.... and don't let the Criagster intimidate ya, he's been trying to snow the entire crowd regarding his film-photo expertise here. One of these day's I'll be bowled over by a row of chairs photo (or heaven forbid a washing machine and dryer)
Kinda reminds me of flatulence-on-parade, don't add to his show.... now you have a nice Christmas, I'm back to making a buck these days.....
-
All,
Here’s my comparison of the branches as seen in the Zapruder film to the branches as seen in the Secret Service reconstruction film made on 27 November 1963.
Please note that the cameramen in the SS reconstruction film does not appear to have been standing exactly where Zapruder was – he’s close, but he’s not exactly in the right spot. We know this because of the relationship of the tree trunk on the knoll to the north edge of the Fort Worth Freeway sign as seen in both films (this doesn’t really show real well in this still, but does in the film). To get the correct relationship the SS cameraman actually should have been located more southerly (more towards Elm Street) on the pedestal. Had the SS cameraman been more southerly on the pedestal the branches in the foreground would have shifted rightwards in relationship to the background and better matched what we see in Zapruder.
The SS cameraman also seems to have been taller than Zapruder (who was not a tall guy )and thus filmed from a higher position. Had the SS cameraman been at the correct (lower) “Zapruder height” the branches in the foreground would have shifted upwards in relationship to the background and also better matched what we see in Zapruder.
Also please keep in mind that I’ve not scaled the two photographs to the same size.
I’ve placed a yellow dot at the most distal end of each of 15 branches that I think match up in both films. Use your minds-eye and think in 3d to make up for the slight difference, horizontally and vertically, in the two views film and keep in mind that the relationships of the braches to each other would shift slightly as well. If you start from the left side and compare each one of the dots in the Zapruder film to its counterpart in the SS film I think you can see that the branches match up almost perfectly.
I’m obviously no Photoshop Wizard, so it would be great if someone who is could improve upon my comparison. I’d gladly provide the two images I used.
Todd
Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63?
The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63
Your study is useless to me
Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work
You've got to be kidding me.
No im not kidding you
I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45
Is that to hard for you to believe?
LOL, yes it is.
Let me ask you this - You've claimed here that the bush was nice and trimmed on 22 November 1963 (even claiming that Emmett Hudson himself had trimmed it just for JFK's visit, as if you somehow know that). However the the SS reconstruction photos taken a mere 5 days later on 27 November 1963 show it is anything but trimmed - in fact it's quite untrimmed.
How much do you think that bush would have grown in 5 days?
well lookey here.... the shadow emerges fron exile.... you still posting from Wendy's there son? ROTFLMFAO!
-
All,
Here’s my comparison of the branches as seen in the Zapruder film to the branches as seen in the Secret Service reconstruction film made on 27 November 1963.
Please note that the cameramen in the SS reconstruction film does not appear to have been standing exactly where Zapruder was – he’s close, but he’s not exactly in the right spot. We know this because of the relationship of the tree trunk on the knoll to the north edge of the Fort Worth Freeway sign as seen in both films (this doesn’t really show real well in this still, but does in the film). To get the correct relationship the SS cameraman actually should have been located more southerly (more towards Elm Street) on the pedestal. Had the SS cameraman been more southerly on the pedestal the branches in the foreground would have shifted rightwards in relationship to the background and better matched what we see in Zapruder.
The SS cameraman also seems to have been taller than Zapruder (who was not a tall guy )and thus filmed from a higher position. Had the SS cameraman been at the correct (lower) “Zapruder height” the branches in the foreground would have shifted upwards in relationship to the background and also better matched what we see in Zapruder.
Also please keep in mind that I’ve not scaled the two photographs to the same size.
I’ve placed a yellow dot at the most distal end of each of 15 branches that I think match up in both films. Use your minds-eye and think in 3d to make up for the slight difference, horizontally and vertically, in the two views film and keep in mind that the relationships of the braches to each other would shift slightly as well. If you start from the left side and compare each one of the dots in the Zapruder film to its counterpart in the SS film I think you can see that the branches match up almost perfectly.
I’m obviously no Photoshop Wizard, so it would be great if someone who is could improve upon my comparison. I’d gladly provide the two images I used.
Todd
Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63?
The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63
Your study is useless to me
Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work
You've got to be kidding me.
No im not kidding you
I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45
Is that to hard for you to believe?
Oh for gods sake Dean You are the guy making a comparison to a bush months after the assassination to a bush on the day of the assassination and saying the months old bush is what it looked like on the day of the assassination!
You might want to remember the first rule of holes Dean....when you are in one...stop digging!
easy spanky.....
-
...
Oh well, if Livingston is the best you have left, you are at a real dead end. BTW, exactly what are his credentials when it comes to photography davie?
you can start with Livingston extended interviews with Roland Zavada, and more to the point Harry had ALL the right questions.... something lone nut trolls (aka non-alteration wing-nuts) appear to fear. Why is that Craigster?
-
...
ANYBODY WHO HAS TO LOOK AT THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF A LONE NUT OR A CONSPIRACY THEORISTS IS TOO SIMPLE MINDED TO SEE THE TRUTH ANYWAY.
LOL!...so where does that place YOU Bill?
when ya finally put those funny cigarettes down, things clear up there Craigster.... btw, you and Colby sharing the same bowl these day's? Where one is you'll find the other, how quaint.
Anyway, ya gotta have 25,000 posts to forums you've been thrown off of and those you're still hanging on at defending the JFK assassination--LHO/DP related photographic/film record, Craig. Ya think with all the news media, documentaries, cable shows, Dallas hype, nutter-xxxxx adoration of all things 6th floor museum you guys would put the brakes on film-photo alteration incessant buzz.... can't find any pro photog's that buy into lone nut xxxxx non-alteration nonsense? Gotta be those stipends then, eh?
Where's Wild Bill Millah when the lone nuts need him, eh?
-
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.
Hey Ray,
You're aware Doug worked 'directly' with Roland Zavada whilst Roland did his investigation for the board (for those that want to call it that) re the Zapruder film, yes?
No doubt Roland Zavada certainly is the go to guy concerning KODAK double 8mm film and its physical properties. And for the record, Zavada was NOT charged by that same board with determining the Z-film content.
Harry Livingston literally took Roland apart re his book on the Zapruder film.... I doubt you'll be hearing much more from the lone nut camp regarding the Zapruder film, they've has seven years to prove their non-alteration case and have failed, miserably.
Prove the "non alteration case" WTF? You have it all backwards as usualy davie...its the"altetration gang" that has a case to prove and they have failed miserably since the first study of the "altered" Zapruder film. How many years has that been...oh yea, way too many to count.
Thanks for playing. Try again next time.
that's the way it goes Studley.... get the book and read it, you can afford it, yes? Great interview with Roland Zavada, his words only.
-
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.
Hey Ray,
You're aware Doug worked 'directly' with Roland Zavada whilst Roland did his investigation for the board (for those that want to call it that) re the Zapruder film, yes?
No doubt Roland Zavada certainly is the go to guy concerning KODAK double 8mm film and its physical properties. And for the record, Zavada was NOT charged by that same board with determining the Z-film content.
Harry Livingston literally took Roland apart (re Harry's book on the Zapruder film....) I doubt you'll be hearing much more from the lone nut camp regarding the Zapruder film, they've nearly had seven years to prove their non-alteration case and have failed, miserably.
-
On 6th December, 1963, Paul Mandel wrote an article about the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Life Magazine. "The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body. Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed – toward the sniper’s nest – just before he clutches it." Jim Marrs has argued: "The account is patently wrong, as anyone who has seen the film can verify. The reason for such wrongful information at such a critical time will probably never be known, as the author of this statement, Paul Mandel, died shortly afterward."
John McAdams has argued: "Mandel’s claim was contrary to fact, which can be seen in the Zapruder film. Some conspiracy theorists claim that Mandel must have had access to LIFE’s copy of the Zapruder film and completed a detailed analysis of the film. They further implicitly assert that Mandel must have known the layout of Dealey Plaza. Thus they conclude that when Mandel discovered that the film was inconsistent with the lone assassin theory he either shaded the article to cover up a conspiracy or was coerced into doing so by the editor of LIFE, a veteran of WWII."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mandel.htm
I asked James Wagenvoord, the editorial business manager and assistant to Life Magazines Executive Editor, in November 1963, if Mandel had watched the Zapruder film. He replied: "Paul Mandel definitely saw the film. He was a major presence at the magazine, a good guy and an excellent editor-writer. He left Life to become the editor-in-Chief of the Observer Magazine in London. He continued to have total unfettered access to LIFE."
From the admirable thread “Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV on November 26, 1963?”:
Why was it necessary to suppress the first version of the Zapruder film on November 25/26, and revise it? One key element of any answer lies with the Parkland press conference. The insistence of Perry and Clark that Kennedy was shot from the front threw a significant spanner in the works, not least because their expert, disinterested, first-hand, matter-of-fact descriptions were broadcast live. How to preserve the credibility of both the patsy-from-the-rear scenario, and the similarly pre-planned supporting film?
The solution was to suppress the film-as-film, hastily edit it, and meanwhile bring the public round by degree through the medium of the written word. Here’s the latter process in action.
Note how in example 1, the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston:
John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20:“…The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President’s car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180 degrees and fired at least twice more.
A rifle like the one that killed President Kennedy might be able to fire three shots in two seconds, a gun expert indicated after tests.
A strip of color movie film taken by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8-mm camera tends to support this sequence of events.
The film covers about a 15-second period. As the President’s car come abreast of the photographer, the President was struck in the front of the neck.”
In this second example, the first shot, which now does impact, occurs as the turn is made from Houston onto Elm:
Arthur J. Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), “Movies Reconstruct Tragedy,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (Evening edition), November 27, 1963, section 2, p.1:“Chicago, Nov. 27 – With the aid of movies taken by an amateur, it is possible to reconstruct to some extent the horrifying moments in the assassination of President Kennedy.
As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway, the President rolled his head to the right, smiling and waving.
At that instant, about 12:30 p.m., the sniper, peering through a four-power telescope sight, fired his cheap rifle.
The 6.5 mm bullet – about .25 caliber – pierced the President’s neck just below the Adam’s apple. It took a downward course.”
And here’s the process completed in example 3, with the presidential limousine now “50 yards past Oswald” on Elm:
Paul Mandel, “End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds,” Life, 6 December 1963:“The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body.
Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed–toward the sniper’s nest–just before he clutches it,”
The film-as-film could not be shown while the above process of fraudulent harmonisation - of medical testimony and the lone-assassin-from-the-rear – was undertaken. More, it was predicated on the removal of the left turn from Houston onto Elm. Showing of that turn would have furnished visual-pictorial refutation of the entire elaborate deceit
To which one can add the following from Mark Lane:
Extract from: The British ‘who killed Kennedy?’ Committee, December 1964 (Pamphlet, 32pp)The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination
By Mark Lane
When that first bullet struck the President and he grasped his throat with both hands, all one has to do is examine the wound and find out if it was an entrance wound indicating the shot came from the front, or an exit wound. The doctors at the Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22nd held a Press Conference after they pronounced the President dead, and at that Press Conference, which was widely televised and broadcast by radio throughout America, the doctors made these comments. Dr. Malcolm Perry, the physician who performed the tracheotomy on the President’s throat so that a tube could be inserted in the throat said: “I followed the path of the bullet which entered at the Adam’s apple and ranged downward into the chest. The bullet did not exit, and that is the path I followed with the tube when I performed the tracheotomy.” Dr. Kemp Clark, the physician who signed the death certificate said: “The bullet entered the President’s throat at the Adam’s apple and ranged downward into the chest and did not exit.” Dr. Robert N. McClelland, Senior Physician at the Parkland Hospital, said: “Down here in Dallas we have an opportunity to examine and treat bullet wounds every single day. As a result we know the difference between entrance wounds and exit wounds, and the wound in the President’s throat was an entrance wound. The bullet entered from the front.”
Based upon that information, the FBI and the Dallas Police issued a statement saying that the limousine was right here (on Houston Street, facing the Book Depository Building) when the first shot was fired and Oswald took that rifle, fired down Houston Street, the first bullet striking the President in the front of the throat. Well that testimony then totally confirms the medical statement that the bullet entered the throat from the front and from above and ranged downward into the chest. But there was a problem with that story.
The problem is that it’s totally false and not only that, the witnesses agreed that it was false, that the car was here, moving away from the Book Depository Building in this direction before the first shot was fired. Now among the witnesses who said that the car was on Elm Street, not on Houston Street, were such witnesses as Jacqueline Kennedy, Governor Connolly, Mrs. Connolly, and all the films that were taken showing the car there. Just before it was announced, however, just before the story was changed to version number two, the Dallas District Attorney said: “We have a map found in Oswald’s possession. He circled the Book Depository Building, and he had drawn a dotted line on the map down Houston Street, showing the trajectory which he had planned, and he drew that dotted line in his own handwriting.” However, now that the witnesses have all said publicly: “The car was here” (on Elm Street) and the films show the car was there, the FBI and the Secret Service and the Dallas Police are nothing if not absolutely flexible, and so version number one was forever erased, and we now reach version number two. Now version number two is presented with two new problems. Number one: what about that dotted line that Oswald drew down Houston Street? New York Times, November 29th: “The Dallas authorities said today there never was such a map. Any reference to it was an error.” That takes care of the map.
However, there’s another problem, how did Oswald shoot the President in the front of his throat, how did he shoot him from the front, from the back? That’s a more weighty problem. The autopsy was conducted on November 22nd from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on the very day of the assassination, and agents of the FBI were there when the autopsy was being conducted and got reports on the progress of the autopsy and immediately thereafter. After that autopsy had been completed, thirteen days later, the Federal Authorities re-enacted and reconstructed the crime, with an FBI Agent sitting in the back seat playing the role of President Kennedy, and the New York Times which observed the re-enactment reported that as the limousine came to this point, the officer of the FBI who was playing the role of the President turned completely around to face the Book Depository Building to expose his throat, seeking to explain how that first bullet entered the President’s throat from above, and from the front. “But,” mused the New York Times, then, “that’s rather curious because the pictures which have already been published widely show that the President was looking in this direction, to the front and to the right when the first bullet entered his throat.” Well, the Times, throwing its hands up at that point, said: “There is one document that will answer these questions for us: the statements made by Dr. Humes, the medical Corps Commander of the Navy who performed the autopsy on the President’s body at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, for Dr. Humes is the expert,” said the New York Times, “on the angle of entry of the bullet, so we must wait for his report.”
great summation, Paul!
-
Thanks Mark and Daniel
Craig we have come to a perfect agrement
You say I dont know anything about photography and "since you know nothing about photography your "analysis" of the photographic record is worthless."
So you have no use for me in your photographic life
And then you say you dont care about the assassination or who killed JFK, so you are worthless to me as a member of this forum
I have no use for you in my JFK research life
It was nice talking to you, you can reply if you would like but im done with this thread
Dean
Dean I was done with you on post one. I knew everyting I needed to know about you from your bio where you proclaim "I am an alterationist". Clearly you don't have the intellectual capacity to uderstand the bankruptcy of that position. Continue your brainwashing...you are the perfect subject.
LMFAO.... considering you have a difficult time grasping serious concepts, I find your post ludicrous, as usual... Carry on, Craigster!
-
Your certainty ("I'm sure") is the result of blind reliance on authority
No it isn't. I used to believe in a consipiracy. After reading numerous books on the subject I changed my mind, and now I believe that LHO killed JFK and acted alone. I used my brain, you see. I'll change it back as soon as someone comes up with some hard evidence that proves otherwise. To date there isn't any.
What books have you read that changed your mind?
"Reclaiming History" or "Case Closed" im sure will be your reply
I have some books for you to read
Lets start off with a nice easy to read book that while small it packs a big CT punch, "Cover-Up" by Stewart Galanor
When you are done with that you need to break out the big bucks for this one, "Bloody Treason" by Noel Twyman
After you have read those two books I would love to talk to you about them
Then you can move on to the three books from Fetzer starting with TGZFH
Just wondering, if TGZFH is so good, then how did Dr. John get it soooo wrong?
www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm
www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm
And if Jack White does such a good job at 'photo analysis' how did he miss the above error and how did he make this whopper?
ENVY will get you nowhere, Craigster.... surely you know that.....
-
I believe that LHO killed JFK and acted alone.
And since you seem to have no doubt about that, the purpose of your involvement in this forum of inquiry is hard to fathom.
"Where there is no doubt there can be no inquiry" (Charles Sanders Peirce)
LMFAO.... perhaps he could explain to our readers, why the Warren Commission Report doesn't stand up to even the merest bit of scrunity? Yet, the small lone nut community (of the educated variety, and a few lawyers I might add) and their supporters are willing to go to the wall for one of the biggest joke-investigations in near recent-history.... Next, we'll be hearing the upstarts espouse assassination is not a political move.....
Lest we remind folks that up to 90% of the American public thinks the 1963 murder of JFK was part of a conspiracy. After all these years... hmm...
-
Gary Mack:
Zapruder and LeGon didn't FORM Nardis of Dallas, they were employed by the long-established firm, which was so large that the odds of them even knowing each other are small. I recall one Dallas history source suggesting the company had more than 100 employees. So before anyone starts a conspiracy theory based on Nardis, they need to research the company.
wow, now THOSE are surely Fortune 500 number, 100 employees.... LMAO!
-
Darkening the back of JFK's head to mask the rear exit wound blowout. Sanitizing the view by reducing number of frames in which blood spray appears, making temporal wound seem an exit wound. Painting in an overlarge temporal wound skull flap to disguise frontal entrance. Making the timing of the shots harder to establish. Masking wounding of JFK with overlarge Stemmons Freeway sign, now undamaged by rifle fire miss.
Two important questions to consider:
1. Why did 'they' leave the apparent rearward headsnap in, which gave fuel to the conspiracy fire when the film was first shown on American TV in 1975?
2. How did 'they' ensure that the altered Zapruder film was consistent with the entire photographic record of events in Dealey Plaza on that fateful day? (Please spare us any reference to any of Jack White's 'studies', all of which have been debunked).
I'd be interested to read sensible answers.
Paul.
what we need Paul are your replies in a public, face-to-face forum (with cameras rolling). A forum where you can't hide behind aliases, thus certifying your experience, capability and viability answering/commenting on technical questions, especially film composing techniques regarding case relate films-photos. And lest we forget, your blanket approval of *known* WCR failings. Till then, son you're just another lone nutter-xxxxx with an opinion demonstrating not a clue concerning the photographic record of the JFK assassination.
Carry on (as I'm sure you will in that typical nuuter-xxxxx inane way)
-
Oswald could not have been in position to fire the shots.
I bet he wished he'd never bothered taking his rifle into work that day.
The perpetrators were certainly smart people. They even had the power to alter the weather at the last moment to ensure that the bubble top on the presidential limousine was removed.
It is too obvious.Take a look at the evidence Peter. It all points to a rather obvious conclusion. Some might even say it's a no-brainer.
my goodness, a young lone nutter - how quaint.... So, one and ALL, hear this now: the SBT/WCR/LHO did it all by his lonesome nuttter-xxxxx legacy will live for another 90 days. Cheers.... LMFAO!
-
I'm hoping to present Part 1 of a series I'm writing that will provide evidence taken exclusively from the 26 volumes of Warren Commission testimony that will show that the Dallas Police attempted to frame Oswald for both murders and that attempt to frame him IS the proof that he was innocent.
It's about a 30 minute presentation, so I'm hoping I have enough time for it.
www.blackopradio.com
9PM EDT
oop's I thought it was next week.... I dropped you a note!
David
-
Why you have been so obtuse and defensive in the second half of your response is beyond me. I will however give you the pleasure of a response. Not only administrators of this site can see IPs - moderators can - perhaps the penny will now drop
Hadn't realised I was being either of those things
. I will however know where to come for lessons in grace and charm in future.
You are correct about moderators they can see members IPs and use simple search tools - only root admin can do much more than that however.
Sorry you have cause to 'deplore' things - that must be tiresome - however I think you may be overeacting a tad - it is common knowledge I live in Dartford, Peter lives in Prague and whatsherface lives in N Sydney - its in their bios for goodness sake.
It is NOT in my bio! On my signature [short version and long] it says Europe. I consider where I am private as I was a target at one time of dirty tricks by entities you'd not even admit/believe exist! Len tried endlessly to put my location on this Forum and then finally got away with it via his finding [amazingly instantly after it was put up and before me or my friends found it] a youtube piece on me that mentioned where I lived. His post of that youtube I firmly believe was to hurt me by giving my location. Your repeating it here is also malevolent. How would you like it if someone found out personal details about you and put them up on the internet?! I think Andy you are getting fairly close to breaking your own rules and fairplay/decency here.
If you want to keep your location secret then perhaps you might want to consider NOT posting on forums like the one you did in Prague. I had no problem finding it a few years ago by doing a simple google.
On that forum the people there claimed that you were a person to stay away from, that you did not pay your rent (you posted looked for a place to live IIRC) that your dog smelled and crapped in the house. In the thread about you it was the basic claim that you were less than a sane person and should be avoided like the plague.
I can't say the folks there were correct or not, but thats what I found with a SIMPLE google .
Your complaints fall on very deaf ears.
More:
-
Correct. It has been proven repeatedly that threads or posts were not removed or censored (except when they violated Forum rules)......
I personally know this to be a disingenuous statement based upon my experiences with you on this Forum.
Michael... great to see a post from you... you've been missed. Hope all is well!
David
-
Correct. It has been proven repeatedly that threads or posts were not removed or censored (except when they violated Forum rules)......
I personally know this to be a disingenuous statement based upon my experiences with you on this Forum.
Michael, could you cite an example of this? I don't think it is true but am always willing to admit error if I am wrong.
uh-huh... yeah, sure
-
Last year several members of this forum stormed off to start an alternate, the Deep Phertilizer Forum. One of the principle reasons given for their exodus was the supposedly favored treatment afforded me (and to a lesser extent Craig) by the administrators and moderators especially Evan. A big fuss was made over the fact that on other forums I use the “nom de web” LenBrazil even though this forum makes no restrictions on use of aliases elsewhere, a restriction which would effect a large percentage of forum members, and it doesn’t take a lot of brains to figure out that “LenBrazil” and some guy named “Len [Colby]” in Brazil with the same interests, POV and writing style were the same person. Calls were made for me to “prove” who I really was. Most of the people leading that hysteria formed the DPF. One of the ones who crowed the most was “Maggie Hansen”, she wrote:“Mr 'what document do you have to support this claim' Colby is being let off with out being required to provide any proof of his own or being called to explain.”“Doubt has been created about the identity of some one called Len Colby. I and others here have asked that this be clarified. I would ask the same of any other member if the circumstance were the same.”“David, Jack, Charles and Jan are totally right to bring up the matter of the identity of Colby/Brasil in this forum. What he or any other member does on any other forum is not relevant but what he does and who he is here does matter a great deal.”
Bill wrote:
“…the problem isn't with Charles, it's with Len Colby Brazil, or whatever his name is.He is always asking for posters to cite sources, and now it is important to know if Len Colby is his real name.”To which she replied “My thoughts on this matter too.”
But when she started the DPF, which also requires that members use their real names she did so as “Magda Hassan”. The difference between ‘Magda’ and ‘Maggie’ is not significant, the latter is an obvious short form/nickname and it is common for people to adapt given names to the country they live in, my name is really Leonard not Len and here in Brazil I’m known as “Leo” or “Leonardo”. The use of different surnames is harder to explain though. I suggest that so as to not be blatantly hypocritical the good folks at the DPF oblige “Maggie”/ “Magda” immediately explain this discrepancy and suspend her if she doesn’t. But the thing is I really doubt no one there noticed until now so the hypocrisy is all round. It seems like they only believe the rule should be applied to people who hold contradictory views.
Unbearable? For who? I don't see much pain and suffering there... sounds like a bit of Len whining... What would Redd Foxx have to say about this, eh?
-
...may sound like something Peter, Jack or even the appalling Drago might have said - they didn't, although they do share a number of important psychological traits with the actual author – good luck
Quadruple bogey? Had one of those, once upon a time.... Makes you want to lash out, eh?
-
Being passed over at DPF really has your bean out of joint, doesn't it? Have your professional talents gone to waste? What do you think Redd Foxx would have to say 'bout that?
Translation: It seems Mr. Healy either has information that Ms. Becket(t) applied for and was turned down for membership at the Deep Political Farum, or that he is making an assumption that this occurred. He feels that this is a cause of consternation and envy for Ms. Becket(t) ("your bean out of joint"), and suggests that she is now afraid not being able to be a member there means either that she will not be able to rub elbows with the finest top researchers on earth, or alternatively that she will not be able to practice her intelligence agency tradecraft (presumably in spreading "lone-nutter" disinformation?). Mr. Healy then enigmatically asks what a man who's been dead for some time would say about this situation; presumably this is some obscure allusion to the comedian Redd Foxx as having a foul mouth?
Good translation except I think this part was addressed to me. He keeps bringing up Redd Foxx because I caught him plagiarizing the comic here. He'd would have you believe they played poker together (or something like that)
plagarizing? Redd Foxx? You silly man you, you certainly don't know him or his material as well as you think you do.... and of course that part was for you! What on earth makes you think Ms. Becket is going to waste much of my time (she isn't Wild Bill Millah, ya know - or is she?), you too for that matter?
BTW, NO my Redd Foxx autographs are NOT for sale. See if I impart any more of Redd's poker table witticism to you in the future.
You 'still' shaken from Roland Zavada putting you in your place (concerning an issue on this forum) a few years back? So, how are your thumbs, son? Granted, I felt 'slightly' embarrassed for you, I got over it in 10 seconds though, but thanks for asking.....
and NO Mr. Dunn I'm not a Vegas dealer, spent many, many years there.... and a mighty partake of it's fruits, if you will!... No blushing Ms. Becket(t)!
-
Acj, years ago, had some good debates. Now, it is one of the most vile newsgroups I've ever seen...The only thing exposed over there is who has the more vulgar mouth, and all that does it make the poster look bad.
Sounds even worse than the DPF, however unlike the latter it sounds like it allows opposing viewpoints.
at acj it's a known fact CT's trounce lone nut-trolls on a regular basis, which is why xxxxx cowards stay away, they don't know the evidence, they can't debate same, pure and simple! Evidently, Ms. Becket seems is under the sophomoric impression that vulgar mouths, tough attitudes have no place in today's society? Yet trashing lone nutter-xxxxx, disinformation deweebs is beyond the pale? Hang tough at Lancer, girl....
btw, who said ACJ was for debate? Such a foolish, naive, nutter-xxxxx idea?
Being passed over at DPF really has your bean out of joint, doesn't it? Have your professional talents gone to waste?
What do you think Redd Foxx would have to say 'bout that?
What do you think Redd Foxx would have to say 'bout that?
What is this in Z frames?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
"July 20, 2004 - Dec 21 2005 " hmmm, was that around the time you injected yourself as the self-ordained spokesperson for Roland Zavada here on this forum? I believe Zavada told you in uncertain words to f**k off, right? You have read Harry Livingstone interview(s) with Roland Zavada, haven't you?
All you really need to do is find a film special effects guru that will go "on-the-record" stating the 8mm film bumped to 35mm film (during 1964) can NOT be recut in 35mm format the dumped to 8mm utilizing 1964 techniques, manpower and equipment. .... all your past and current lone nut posturing is foolishness of course.
Thanks Len.
p.s. what am I talking to you for when you've displayed not one iota of competence and experience concerning the current topic? Hell, even Craigster knows what end of a camera to look through...