David G. Healy

LMAO! thank you Cigdem Göle.... DHealy

praytell award it to him (DVP), AGAIN.... Mark, great recap! Tom, thanks for all your efforts.... including FBI Frazier 'testing' tid-bits.. DHealy

ah.... listen up son, you need take on Hollywood.... John Costella's work has absolutely no bearing on mine, bone up. Also, buy Hoax, give yourself a break..... and stop carrying dufuses Wild Bill Miller's water these day's.... Ah David, I read hoax, and what was it you argued? OH yea, HOLLYWOOD can do special effects! Amazing, and I don't think there is a soul around who would dispute that silly fact. What that has to do with the Z film? Actually noting since no one can show it has been altered. Great work Healy. Now back to the subject at hand which is the thrust of the selection of my post that you copied. It's not suprising you chose to try and deflect, you have been shown to be a hypocrite of the highest order. You take great pains to point out that no one has challenged Costella's work, work I must add that is based alterations to the Z frames that he can't or worn't explain. Sadly, for the both of you, your "grand master" PhD of physics stuffed up the basic physics. That is shown here: www.craiglamson.com and no one can rebut it. Now if you want ot try, please give it a go. It would be quite novel to see you actually do soomething of value ( telling us Hollywood does special effect has ZERO value) . No on will be holding their breath, we ALL know that Healy is all hot air and no substance. the last vestige of the vanquished, you really need a new script, Craigster? Oh really, you wanna tell us WHY cliffy has it correct? And WHERE is that pesky shadow? ... son, Frankly Craigster, your post interests me not.... Your arrogance however does.... I have but one question: is there ANYONE who understand composite photography whether it be film and/or photo... better than I? I think not. Facts being what they are, you can't stand in the same room as I.... take it to the bank! Piss and moan, argue nonsense, carry Miller-lite water bottles, drone on and on and ON. 6 years AFTER HOAX you find can't deal with reality..... sounds like you have a definite problem -- take this one piece of advice, write a book find a publisher, your posting addiction is keeping you from the fame you seek so desperately, the fame that Wild Bill found (he has three boards to thank for that, the rest threw him out! Such company you keep... Hi Gary, how is it going?

Craig ... the term 'idiot' can also apply when mentioning Healy's say-nothing responses. And let us remember that the hypocrite has said after reading what his Grand Master has written .... that he has NO PROOF of Alteration .... something he claims to have been saying for years. Bill ahh, the fruit appears....... evidently his reading skills haven't gathered any steam -- What-say-you Will Bill Miller?

ah.... listen up son, you need take on Hollywood.... John Costella's work has absolutely no bearing on mine, bone up. Also, buy Hoax, give yourself a break..... and stop carrying dufuses Wild Bill Miller's water these day's.... the last vestige of the vanquished, you really need a new script, Craigster? ...

On the contrary Jack valued members such as yourself have been extended courtesy over some time to publish as much bullxxxx as they care to. What is not allowed is abuse. just think Andy, without those JFK researchers John Simkin invited here you'd STILL be muttering under your breath wondering how to get folks to the Ed Forum. And THAT, would cut into precious time you dedicate chasing that white pill all over the Cliffs of Dover. That's a wicked slice you have Chum, don't stand to close to the edge now! In the event you find yourself on the (US) west coast, I can get green fees at Pebble Beach for 40% -- don't tell anyone Perhaps, but two things spring to mind - firstly I play with a draw, and secondly the many teachers we had here originally may have not run scared from this forum had there been more educational posts and less of this peculiar and repetitive nonsense. Thanks for the green fee offer - last time I was in those parts I baulked at the Pebble Beach green fee and ended up the road in some very friendly place called Pismo Beach.... happy days Pismo Beach is down the road, as in south of the Monterey (Pebble Beach) Bay area. Wouldn't want to to create a north-south positioning issue on the Ed Forum, especially when we're talking about the premiere, holy grail location in GOLF, now. And same, Happy Days to you....

On the contrary Jack valued members such as yourself have been extended courtesy over some time to publish as much bullxxxx as they care to. What is not allowed is abuse. just think Andy, without those JFK researchers John Simkin invited here you'd STILL be muttering under your breath wondering how to get folks to the Ed Forum. And THAT, would cut into precious time you dedicate chasing that white pill all over the Cliffs of Dover. That's a wicked slice you have Chum, don't stand to close to the edge now! In the event you find yourself on the (US) west coast, I can get green fees at Pebble Beach for 40% -- don't tell anyone

Well Don, unless you now think Bentzer has been altered, there is no doubt what so ever that there was quite a large "bunch", or cupped fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket, below the jacket collar. That’s signed, sealed and delivered, despite the ignorant rantings of Varnell. Unimpeachable. This fold is large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck (that would the spinal area for the mentally challenged Varnell). You guys can argue the conflicting documents and the witnesses until the cows come home but at least up to and including Bentzer the jacket was bunched enough to support the entry point of the SBT. What happens after Bentzer is anyone’s guess, but let’s consider that this bunch made it from Main to Houston and down Elm to Z186. What’s the odd it fell after? Do you have the nads to deal in fact or are you, as your post suggests, just a puppet to a worldview? I’m going to offer you some very good advice and I suggest you take it. Forget anything Varnell has ever said in respect to photo analysis. To call him a hack would be an insult to hacks everywhere. Do your homework. I’ll even give you a hint…shadow. It’s a far better tip than “plastics.” my you've become expert overnight concerning many film-photo aspects of the 11/22/63 goings on in Dealey Plaza.... now, if you could only get the DP film-photos provenance all straightened out, might just be onto something.... But since that will NEVER happen here's your reality Craigster, you can't prove a thing, fake or not fake, as you can't prove the images your working with are 1st generation, or the in-camera original... All you alleged JFK assassination photo-film researchers need a class in, "where'd the image come from your currently working on, AND who gave it to you". (Lets at least appear to show a bit of professionalism. Is that beyond the Lone Nutter pale?) You are turning onto a excellent byte-master though.... Nothing is signed, sealed and delivered son -- you're talking through the side of your neck now, and there's enough of those fools on this board, as it is...

Craig: Not according to Craig Lamson. According to Craig Lamson my analysis is spot on. Here's what I wrote: Here's what Craig Lamson wrote below: Identical conclusions. Since the jacket rode into the hairline on Main St., but BELOW the collar on Elm St., the jacket dropped. Tweaking twits is a worthy hobby, ain't that right, Craig? What an amazing display of tortured logic there Cliff, you have outdone yourself. Since you are a twit, ans this latest post proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt, and sincey ou are tweaking YOURSELF, well then I guess you do have a worthwhile hobby. I hope it works out for you because your hobby attempting to be a photo analysis is not looking good. The depth of your ignorance is stunning! Anyways carry on, you don't need my help making you look like a fool, you are soing a bang up job all by yourself. I have jus more post for you, to put you out of your misery....keep yor eyes peeled. You might want to dig that holoe just a litle deeper, bucause it will be the final resting place for your argument. Sorry, I usually don't do things like this, but when a person with this many typos and grammatical errors accuses someone else of ignorance, it's hard to resist pointing that out. I understand that we can all make mistakes typing too fast, etc. However, if you are attampting to point out the alleged intellectual shortcomings of another poster, you really should be more careful. Btw, this is on top of the fact that your arguments are ridiculous. its called wine, Don -- the fruit that keeps on giving ......

Does anyone know what the record is for the most idiotic say-nothing-responses given by 'drunky the clown' in one thread? knew you wouldn't be far behind -- nutter-trolls are so predicable...

It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame. There, baffled? Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5 Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame? Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider: Zapruder was on stilts. The Altgens photo is a forgery. The Z film is a forgery. You missed the most important solution... Paul Rigby is ignorant of the basic principles of photography. And which "principle" of photography, oh wise one, is that? The principle by which inconvenient objects disappear? Truth to tell, old boy, you're just another Arlen Spector: speciality, political photography. Ever thought of running for the Senate? Why don't we start with ANGLE of VIEW, and since its YOUR crazy claim, why do you show use where Chaney should be visable and why. Inquiring minds want to know. (except me of course I already know the answer.) Ever thought of running for village idiot? evidently the monthly Lone Nut/SBT theorist stipend checks haven't arrived yet. Things are tough doing trailer photography, but THAT tough? Pass the hat, Craigster.... or perhaps Barb will set you up a loan... Crawl back into your doghouse, you are no longer relevent. yeah, I've noticed. So why do you respond every time I yank your Lone Nut chain? Professional courtesy, perhaps? LMFAO!

It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame. There, baffled? Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5 Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame? Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider: Zapruder was on stilts. The Altgens photo is a forgery. The Z film is a forgery. You missed the most important solution... Paul Rigby is ignorant of the basic principles of photography. And which "principle" of photography, oh wise one, is that? The principle by which inconvenient objects disappear? Truth to tell, old boy, you're just another Arlen Spector: speciality, political photography. Ever thought of running for the Senate? Why don't we start with ANGLE of VIEW, and since its YOUR crazy claim, why do you show use where Chaney should be visable and why. Inquiring minds want to know. (except me of course I already know the answer.) Ever thought of running for village idiot? evidently the monthly Lone Nut/SBT theorist stipend checks haven't arrived yet. Things are tough doing trailer photography, but THAT tough? Pass the hat, Craigster.... or perhaps Barb will set you up a loan...

No, I was referencing the surveying instrument. It this case Larry, Curly and Moe used the instrument as a small telescope, and not actual as it was intended to be used. It was pseudoscience, as passed off by the 'lettered" Shame on them. its become quite evident -- you really don't know what the hell your talking about when it comes to determining line of sight, do you? to allow the user to visually establish a line of sight along a level plane now what don't you understand about that definition? Wait, I see another "essay" in your future.....

... David, you had read this stuff before telling the members of this forum that you had seen 'NO PROOF of alteration ... something you had been saying for years' - RIGHT??? Certainly when you had made that remark ... you had actually read and was aware of the contents within 'HOAX' - CORRECT??? ... Son, what amazes me most is your complete lack of understanding (and comprehension of) the English language. Now YOU keep coming back, eventually it does get better -- perhaps Dr. Thompson (or the Craigster when he gets back from a few day's off) can suggest a few correspondence schools...

Jack, They're all going down with the Lone Nut ship, way to much invested..... I wouldn't waste another second on them.... let them "essay" themselves down Elm Street!

This is probably the most blatant example of how compromised US network news is, that has ever been documented....PROVEN! It should give all LNs pause, because it speaks volumes of how unreliable the establishment press actually is. In the 1960's and 1970's there was no internet. If the networks think they can cover up Barstow's exposure of them as government propagandists, even in this mature age of internet information distribution, imagine how bold network executives must have felt they could be, before the internet? http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...tzer/index.html http://mediamatters.org/items/200904210002?f=h_latest http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904200029 Barstow wins Pulitzer for military analysts story; will networks notice? Published Mon, Apr 20, 2009 3:52pm ET by Jamison Foser the networks are on the way out.... in another 5 years their numbers will look like todays basic cable news network numbers.... (as will their spot ad rates) -- excellent story, btw! Thanks.

More than standing in Dealey Plaza was done. But since you've got that far, maybe you are catching on. Play some serious catch up, Pamela. Why not actually read the essay? LMFAO! Sorry..... so says the Oregonian rain goddess....

Hey John, While I am still anxious to hear from all the Zapruder film advocates on what ITEK studied and concluded, I will post the opera cable in the Venezuelan Arms Cache thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry165973 BK If I correctly remember my alteration lore, ITEK is a CIA shill, so not reliable? [sarcasm]In any case I did read the 10 page summary, and it sure seems like CIA shill stuff to me [/sarcasm] A bit off topic, sorry Bill: have you Craig, ever started a thread of your own (other than one showing off limited photo & lighting skills, of course)?

Yep Toast. Photo analysis is just not your bag. Might Interpretive Dance be a little more your speed? Take a look again and I'll throw you a bone, it's around Newman's neck and shoulder. If something is exposed as WHITE on reversal film and then a second exposure is added, how in heck could it change colors...its REVERSAL film! BTW, you ready to explain the process of multi exposure for us yet or are you hoping your ignorance in this regard will just fade away, and no one will be the wiser? Perhaps if you UNDERSTOOD the process you would not look so foolish, or then again maybe not. You were doing so well with the teapots, c-stands-fingers, bumpers and logos. Now when to comes photographing or filming, videotaping Interpretive Dance, I doubt they'd even allow you in a studio, that takes pure talent, dealing with extreme contrast ratios is no day at the beach dealing with Dealey Plaza imagery.... btw, how'd you earn a moniker of photo analysis? Not the same way Wild Bill Miller did? You're leaving us with the illusion that your a photo analyst.... what is it, a photog or a photo analyst?

No, it appears you DON'T understand, or else you could have answered this simple question from upthread. "Light to dark, dark to light...hows that work again????? Inquiring minds want to know. Why not EXPLAIN it to us Chris, after all you have the IDEA of how much more can be captured...right?" But then again maybe now you have the answer. So tell us all how multiple exposures work on a single frame of reversal film. Then you can explain the differences between the ghost image as formed in your frame and the ghost image as formed in Vapruders. In fact a explaining how YOU made a few multiple exposures with your own still camera and reversal film would be really enlightening as well. You have done that, right? If you can't you really have no business making any comments on what should or should not be seen in the Zaprider frames in regards to ghost images. Inquiring minds REALLY want to know. well.... what are you waiting for, you support the unsupportable, the WCR so get on out there and prop up the DP films and photos -- duplicate what we see on the extent films.... your deal champ! As we say out here: get'er dun....

simply put: if it comes from McAdams site, it's nonsense (including Myers and his foolish cartoons that he passes off as animation)

So thats what you think your silly resizing and rotations are doing? Fricking amazing. You make Jack White look like a genius! Just admit your errors Chris and move along. Your 15 minutes is up. We have your number, and it's zero. wow... you're THAT sensitive when it comes to a cable/tv presentation? Here all along I thought you supported the EMMY wining, Dale Myers cartoon type of approach. Silly me!

"Chris spewed" Why the invective, man? No sense becoming a xxxxx. Josiah and his club gets batted around a bit and one of the troops goes off the deep end... Perhaps no business is effecting you more than you realize, why get all knotted up, man! Chill! The Z-film is going no where, this film analysis is going to go on, and on, and ON. BTW, you ever find a Physicist to debunk John Costella Ph.D-Physics findings (and please, forget hackneyed photog's from Indiana please, carries absolutely no weight in scientific circles.)

Should it give others an IDEA of how much more can be captured? Really? And is that based on the priciples of mulitple exposures on a single piece of reversal film? Do you even UNDERSTAND the process? Light to dark, dark to light...hows that work again????? Inquiring minds want to know. Why not EXPLAIN it to us Chris, after all you have the IDEA of how much more can be captured...right? Dazzel us with your photographic brilliance. now you're pulling a Zavada..... is this the required KODAK moment? Next we'll be hearing Zapruder's camera was the only B&H film camera in Dallas that day. B&H made such inferior equipment nearly every news organization in Dallas that day and the succeeding days used B&H equipment. Horrible lenses, claw assemblies, gates and wind mechanisms. LMAO! Listen, you want to make headway, get a few 4x5 trannies of authenticated Z-film frames form the alleged in-camera original, put those frames side-by-side of the 3 1st generation 4x5 trannie dupe frames.... then we'll have something to talk about -- perhaps you'll dazzle us with your film gamma brilliance (I can see Wild Bill running for the Zavada report now ) Ya gotta focus, what this is all about (regarding inquiring minds) is an altered Zapruder Film. Do you want to duck and run from the real issue? Gary has access to the Z-frames.... hey, why didn't the 6th Floor Museum allow Zavada to use the Zapruder's B&H 414 double 8mm camera for his testing? We could of eliminated all this nonsense, and you know it! But noooooo -- here we are.

The most obvious answer would be Costella's partner - Bud Abbott! One of my all time favorites of theirs was 'Who's on the pedestal'. The other person who we must assume has peer-reviewed Costella's work would be David Healy. Since Healy has long since claimed to 'have not seen any proof of alteration', then is it not fair to say that he/himself had investigated and reviewed Costella's claims and found them unfounded. Below is one of Costella's examples of his work. He merely pasted his body seen in profile next to Moorman and Hill and scaled them to his liking. His technique seems to be lacking something and he doesn't seem to understand what it is. 1) There is nothing in the photo that shows how he scaled the two. In fact, Costella doesn't mention anything in this illustration where he used any object within the Zapruder film to show that something was not in scale. 2) He doesn't see that Hill and Moorman in the Zapruder film are in line proportionately with Brehm who is just a few feet east of their location. This also means that he didn't consider that if everyone within the film is proportionate to each other according to known data that it may be that he has a flaw in his approach ... one obvious one already mentioned. 3) Costella has since re-tracted his conclusion that Moorman was standing in the street and was in the grass above the curb. This means that the data he used to create his illustration was born from an error he had originally made from the onset. It is these things in my view is why Costella doesn't seek peer review ... because he couldn't get the support he needs. Bill Miller I hope you were sitting down when you typed that, wouldn't want you to strain yourself...... now, as far as peers go: listen son, you're not in the league with anyone that familiar with the Zapruder film, not even in a minor league ballpark. Best if you continue to carry Gary Mack water pail and wallet 'nother 5 years. Then you'll be ready to assist Kathy, that's if you stay on your game! But we already know the ruse..... You're not running from the Daryll Weatherly quote too, are you? Last chance....