David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
Lastly, part of the key to understanding of this evidence lies in the
obfuscation of examination of the clothing of JFK in which all
evidence is in fact "Hearsay" in which absolutely none of the actual
FBI Laboratory Reports were entered into evidence to support what is
presented; the person giving the testimony (FBI Agent Frazier)
conducted absolutely none of this testing (and was not even qualified
to do so), and which testimony is in direct conflict with the actual
Laboratory Notes and examination results as completed by FBI Agent
Henry Heiberger who was the only FBI Agent to conduct any examination
of the clothing of JFK.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are those here who had best put in some "overtime", or else DVP is going to walk away with the "BONEHEAD OF THE YEAR" award a second time.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...addcac7189c8ffb
Correct!
"Kook" Purvis preferences the spectrographic analyis information
prepared and completed by FBI Agent Henry Heiberger.
And, had you bothered to examine this evidence then you would come to
realize exactly how little you actually know about the facts of the
assassination.
1. There exists TWO seperate and distictive holes/penetrations
through the back of JFK's coat.
2. That hole located approximately 6-inches below the top of the
collar and approximately 2-inches to the right of center, which hole
was created by CE399, and which penetration goes through the outer
layer of the coat as well as the inner liner
of the coat on a relatively straight "through and through" passage.
3. That hole located just below the bottom edge of the coat collar
and approximately one to one and one-half inches right of center, and
which hole penetrates the outer layer of the coat as well as the inner
liner of the coat, yet does so on an obtuse/acute angle, and which
penetration was created by the THIRD/LAST/FINAL shot bullet.
In addition, one will find, if they examine the evidece, where a
"control" sample was taken from:
1. The left side of the coat approximately mid-way down the garmet,
and which control sample was taken for comparision with the CE399
entrance point.
2. Under the coat collar slightly to the left of the actual
penetration located at the lower edge of the coat collar, and which
control sample was taken for comparison with the bullet penetration
hole located at the lower edge of the coat collar.
Lastly, if one will actually review the resulsts of Henry Heiberger's
spectrographic analysis, they will find that the sample which was
taken from BOTH of these bullet penetration holes through the coat of
JFK, was tested and BOTH demonstrated a "+" indication for copper.
So Parrothead!
Be sure and come back to visit and continue to demonstrate exactly how
little you actually know in regards to the forensic; ballistic;
pathological; and phyisical evidence.
Just as you apparantly did not know that the SS assassination re-
enactment video demonstrated the impact locations for the SECOND/aka
Z313 impact as well as the THIRD/LAST/Survey Stationing 4+95 impact
which occurred some 30-feet farther down Elm St. from the Z313 impact.
(Directly in front of James Altgens location)
And I might add, exactly where the SS on 12/5/63 as well as the FBI on
2/7/64 determined the THIRD/LAST/FINAL shot impact to be located and
had it surveyed in and placed on their survey plats.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Have we "re-learned" anything Mark???????
praytell award it to him (DVP), AGAIN.... Mark, great recap! Tom, thanks for all your efforts.... including FBI Frazier 'testing' tid-bits..
DHealy
-
You are being quite the hypocrite now David. Lets consider the work of one John Costella, work you support. Now this Costella character, a guy with NO photographic backgrond, save for some limited snapshot crap, is your "grand master" at attempting to show the z film faked. Lets consider what your 'grand master" has done in pursuit of this goal. Why he has alttered z frames by interpolation, color and density, all without telling anyone exactly HOW he did it (and he has been asked, and has refused) Then he takes these same frames and alters them AGAIN, via interpolation (and again will not release the method) to use in the process of "proving"the Z film fake. You don't seem to have a problem with that? It is interesting to note that after all of this alteration his claims fail because the physist can't understand basic physics.....
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.
Sorry David, but it IS signed , sealed and delivered. This surpasses generational issues because it can be corrolated with other images. And it's REALLY simple! Why don't you dip you toe into the water David and actually DO something for once beside crib some stuff from someone else and publish it. BTW, have you found those copyright release papers for the images you used in your "published work". I for one would really like to know if you did it all legally....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?
-
You are being quite the hypocrite now David. Lets consider the work of one John Costella, work you support. Now this Costella character, a guy with NO photographic backgrond, save for some limited snapshot crap, is your "grand master" at attempting to show the z film faked.
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?
-
You are being quite the hypocrite now David. Lets consider the work of one John Costella, work you support. Now this Costella character, a guy with NO photographic backgrond, save for some limited snapshot crap, is your "grand master" at attempting to show the z film faked. Lets consider what your 'grand master" has done in pursuit of this goal. Why he has alttered z frames by interpolation, color and density, all without telling anyone exactly HOW he did it (and he has been asked, and has refused) Then he takes these same frames and alters them AGAIN, via interpolation (and again will not release the method) to use in the process of "proving"the Z film fake. You don't seem to have a problem with that? It is interesting to note that after all of this alteration his claims fail because the physist can't understand basic physics.....
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....
Sorry David, but it IS signed , sealed and delivered. This surpasses generational issues because it can be corrolated with other images. And it's REALLY simple! Why don't you dip you toe into the water David and actually DO something for once beside crib some stuff from someone else and publish it. BTW, have you found those copyright release papers for the images you used in your "published work". I for one would really like to know if you did it all legally....the last vestige of the vanquished, you really need a new script, Craigster?
...
-
I believe that to say BxxxSxxx is a violation of forum rules. The writer should be put on moderation
for knowingly breaking the rules.
Jack
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....
-
I believe that to say BxxxSxxx is a violation of forum rules. The writer should be put on moderation
for knowingly breaking the rules.
Jack
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
-
Why give the ridiculous "bunched up" theory a moment's consideration? As Cliff also notes, such a thing is impossible. Period.
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...
-
Me:You can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about your
Betzner #3 analysis.
Your world-view won't allow it.
Craig:
No Cliiff, you are wrong and it's YOUR warped world view and more importantly YOUR MASSIVE investment in that warped worldview. There is no way on gods green earth you will very change.Heres where it stands. You base your position on your "take" that if you can see any of the shirt collar that the jacket has dropped. Sadly, for you that a false construct and the photos you post ON YOU OWN WEBSITE prove just that.
Not according to Craig Lamson. According to Craig Lamson my analysis
is spot on.
Here's what I wrote:
JFK in Fort Worth that morning -- Visible shirt collar and small folds in his jacket, similar toimage 12 which was taken right before the shooting.
Here's what Craig Lamson wrote below:
What is possible however, is that the jacket is bunched BELOW the collarof the coat and that the shirt collar CAN STILL BE SHOWING.
Identical conclusions.
Since the jacket rode into the hairline on Main St., but BELOW the
collar on Elm St., the jacket dropped.
Give it up Cliff.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
...... -
yeah, I've noticed. So why do you respond every time I yank your Lone Nut chain? Professional courtesy, perhaps? LMFAO! 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...
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...
-
Curious that when people reference photographs or films they seem to do so in an ungrounded way. The axiom seems to be that everything is fixed in time, when there is instead a continuum of time throughout the assassination. How can any claims be made for or against anything without a specifying at least a best estimate what time or frame number is being referenced? Blanket assertions don't have much meaning without it.
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! -
Curious that when people reference photographs or films they seem to do so in an ungrounded way. The axiom seems to be that everything is fixed in time, when there is instead a continuum of time throughout the assassination. How can any claims be made for or against anything without a specifying at least a best estimate what time or frame number is being referenced? Blanket assertions don't have much meaning without it.
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...
-
Thank you for the word 'transit'.
It confuses me as having done surveying (as assistant) and in that field transit is both vertical and horizontal. There is another definition that I assume is meant here.
''The passage of a smaller celestial body or its shadow across the disk of a larger celestial body''. >
''across the observer's meridian''. >
''The passage of a celestial body across the celestial meridian > (the great circle on the celestial sphere passing through the celestial poles and an observer's zenith)' For any observer, the object is at its highest in the sky at its transit of the observer's meridian.''
IOW referring to vertical elevation, or vertical angle, IOW in this instance the elevation of the pedestal and the elevation of the opening. These clearly are not in line. So this gives her cameras film frames angle from a horizontal plane, and this cannot be in the street. The horizontal transit of the pedestals edge to the openings inner edge (not the illuminated square) is less.
Is it a photograhers term? Am I understanding correctly? I feel I am, but would like a clear definition here, please?
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.....
-
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!
...
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...
-
...
Nonsense, nonsense and nonsense.
Jack
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!
-
In the post linked here,
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=165700 ....a week ago, I posted that all US major broadcast networks blacked out, David Barstow's reporting in the NY Times, beginning in April, 2008, that the networks used retired US Military generals as "consultants", in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, and until now, represented by the networks as independent military consultants retained by the networks to give expert opinions on military matters. The networks have not disclosed that Barstow had exposed the generals as being pentagon briefed propagandists bestowed with pentagon "perk" briefings and junkets, and that some were deeply compromised by political ideology and investments and directorships with military contractors.
Last night, all of these networks avoided mention of the name of the winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism, David Barstow, because the networks were at the center of Barstow's investigative reporting, and they still think they can keep the gist of Barstow's reporting from enough Americans to make the negative impact to their own credibility, worth the effort to make believe David Barstow and his reporting about their conflicts and their shilling for the pentagon and the Bush admin, did not happen:
http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2009-Inve...ative-ReportingThe 2009 Pulitzer Prize Winners
Investigative Reporting
Awarded to David Barstow of The New York Times for his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.
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.
-
A theory about Moorman's line of sight for her photo can logically be developed by standing in Dealey Plaza. It can't be verified by the Z-film.
If you believe her photo was taken at Z316-17 those frames can logically be compared and contrasted to her photo.
Anything more than that seems to be apples and oranges.
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....
-
Bill, could you tell how to get a copy of the 25 page opera cable, please?
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)?
-
Toast!!! Such a harsh statement.
Just a few more questions.
Perhaps Craig can explain what the white area (red arrow) in the upper ghost image area is.
Or, perhaps that changed colors due to multiple exposures on film.
Interesting that it didn't change the white colonnade support column, in the lower ghost image area
chris
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? -
I understand.
As difficult as it is, to decipher the top of a building. How far away is that building? How far away is Newman?
Post 49.
chris
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....
-
These points have a "new" notation on them. I just bet that gets the attention of readers of the website! As many of you know, this website has one of the highest rankings when searching for the Kennedy Assassination. Since many people do read this nonsense first, their first impressions are made by it.
Here are those "new" developments:
"Zombie assassins? The notion that "Manchurian candidate" assassins might be "programmed" to commit murder has been a recurring one. Most often invoked in the murder of Robert Kennedy, it has also surfaced in the JFK assassination. British author Mel Ayton explores this issue in his essay "Bogus Manchurian Candidate Theories."
A recent book by Abraham Bolden tells a most interesting story about the first black Secret Service agent who supposedly knew about conspiratorial goings-on in Chicago, and who was (he claims) framed, convicted and sent to jail on charges of corruption. The media have been rather credulous about his account, but in fact he was almost certainly guilty as charged. Indeed, when the House Select Committee examined his claims in the late 1970s, they found them to lack credibility. While the mainstream media is suitably skeptical when the conspiracy card is played, they suspend that skepticism when the race card is played.
Garrisonites are a rather peculiar and paranoid cult among conspiracy believers, and Joan Mellen's book A Farewell to Justice is the latest to defend District Attorney Jim Garrison, whose ill-conceived campaign to convict Clay Shaw of the JFK assassination was the subject of the movie "JFK." Yet, like the movie, Mellen has fallen into the trap of believing the most incredible sources and adopting the most outlandish theories in an attempt to vindicate the DA, as Patricia Lambert shows in this review of the book. In another essay, Dave Reitzes discusses Garrison's central, critical witness, a fellow named Perry Raymond Russo. Mellen accepts his testimony, which Reitzes shows was vastly unreliable. Finally, Lambert shows how Mellen blew off the testimony of a key reliable witness, one Dr. Frank Silva, when it conflicted with the Garrison version of events.
When a reputable historian publishes a JFK assassination book with a reputable academic press, it should be judicious in its use of sources and prudent in its judgments. But, alas, David Kaiser's book The Road to Dallas turns out to be just another conspiracy book, not too different from scores of others. Read a review by webmaster John McAdams on the e-zine Washington Decoded.
Ed Hoffman is a witness who claims to have seen an actual Grassy Knoll shooter -- as well as an accomplice who dismantled and concealed the rifle. Is Hoffman telling the truth? Researcher Duke Lane does an intensive analysis both of witness testimony and the terrain of the area in "Freeway Man."
Nothing about the assassination is more important than the issue of when the shots in Dealey Plaza were fired. Pick your timing, and it may be consistent with or entirely debunk a single shooter in the Texas School Book Depository. A new essay by Kenneth R. Scearce supports a new theory about the timing that puts the first shot far earlier than anybody has heretofore theorized. Of course, this theory has generated controversy, so you might want to check out a reply from computer animation specialist Dale Myers."
simply put: if it comes from McAdams site, it's nonsense (including Myers and his foolish cartoons that he passes off as animation)
-
Perhaps you're familiar with this technique.
chris
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!
-
...
I have NO respect for Costella, a hack to be sure, but since Tom is using the Costella frames as his reference and since the MPI as posted by Chris is the wrong aspect I just went with, sorry if that offends you, oh wait, no I'm not.
Chris spewed:
...
"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.)
-
Tom,
I find it rather amazing that Z's camera couldn't capture the ghost images with more clarity.
I don't believe it's too difficult to figure out this ghost image is the top of the building.
This, coming from my same camera with the sprocket hole alterations. You know, 45 years later.
Should give others an idea of how much more image capture capability(outside the main frame) this camera really had.
chris
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.
-
BTW, WHO peer reviewed Costella's work?
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....
......
You're leaving us with the illusion that your a photo analyst.... what is it, a photog or a photo analyst?
Jokes
in News, events and member notices
Posted
LMAO! thank you Cigdem Göle....
DHealy