David G. Healy

If you actually had a functioning brain you might actually learn to read.... We shall not hold or collective breaths. I think you've finally out-mastered yourself there Craig, one of those cases where 'give you enough rope....' And I thought we were going to see an interesting thread... ya see Craig, there's huge looming questions still out there concerning a) Elm Street, the Zapruder film and c) the alleged 3 shots/shooter(s)..... Tom Purvis has provided certain insight, (with accredited documentation) concerning those matters (not to mention certain, ah, personal experiences that may tend to better discussion). What we see in the Zapruder film simply doesn't jive with those pesky SS/FBI tests and DP topo data and a specific shooters ability(s). And all I'm seeing you do here is dance with tea kettles? I expected better of you... perhaps we need Bill Miller to assist you! (who gave him the weekend off, anyway?) Hey, when you get a chance, have John Dolva respond to my query to him concerning all that "data wiped from those Zapruder frames by Dr. John Costella" -- we really need to get that cleared up, that is a serious charge from a non-peer of John Costella. Ph.D Physics (or perhaps he is a peer, care to enlighten us, from a perspective viewpoint, of course?)

Tell us it IS so Davie... that's what I like about Lone Nutters, nearly all don't have the nads to admit, they're Nutters.... You're not going to say the public has not lost all faith in the Warren Commission findings are ya? You evidently agree re the lie, "the film is that is the single most important piece of evidence in the case, eh?" Say it ain't so Craig!

**Darryl Weatherly on the Zapruder Film... (The Hoax of the Century: Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film pg.475 (copyright 2004, Harrison Livingstone) ISBN 1-4120-4462-6 The biggest lie told about the film is that is the single most important piece of evidence in the case, when it is not possible for any artifact to have such importance. No matter what the film shows, it cannot tell us why the President was murdered, or what changed in American life and politics that day. It has never really mattered what the Zaprduer film showed. In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, all the authorities needed was to be able to credibly assert they knew what happened. Possession of a film of the shooting, and presentation of a few frames was enough. When the public lost faith in the Warren Report (if it ever had faith), the film was used as a distraction, to turn the discussion of the murder of John Kennedy into the puzzle of Dealey Plaza, an elaborate and never ending game. We humans have the unfortunate tendency to believe what we are told. We are told the Zapruder film is the"Kennedy Assassination Movie," and big and famous Hollywood directors buy this propaganda--and sell it to us,the "best evidence," and "The Film of the Century." So what else could it be? Perhaps a plaything, a toy to occupy the child in us all. A bone thrown to us dogs... **note: excerpt from the article printed in my (Weatherlys') book, Killing Kennedy, 1995. Say it ain't so Craig!

BINGO! especially, if the "Zapruder film" is altered... BINGO-BINGO? Got any evidence of that? Of course not and the closest thing to "scientific" evidence was produced by a physicist who fails physics! www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm Found that peer yet, or can we expect YOU to take on the challenge? Got the balls? just in case you don't see the 'other' thread, this response will work here, too! Craig, you're no match for me when it comes to making film or video mattes, so xxxxx for another subject elsewhere! Or, at the very least, find someone, ANYONE that'll publish you and your professional opinions! Then I'll spend some time discussing the subject with ya! Ya know, peer review and such.... Btw, are you a physicist? Ph.D. type? For that matter is John Dolva, is he qualified to render (pardon the pun) a professional critique of Dr. John Costellas' work? You certainly are not. How can some Lone Nut folks be so stupid as to think anyone, ANYONE in the know will take you seriously? Without one peer to Dr. John Costella, yet? Where are those peers, Craigster? 6 years and counting, son!

John, "a large percentage"? What data, and how did Costella wipe this data from the 720x480 MPI Zapruder frames? Be specific please... Pretty serious charge, guy.... You can't be this stupid? Massive interpolation, color shifts and saturation increases, to name a few. And worse yet, we don't know how he did it because he refuses to post his methods. Shame on dr. john. But then again he's busy hiding under a rock because of this: www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Find a peer yet? my gosh your ego seems to be taking a beating lately... no one seems to care re your photo expertise, your misdirection with nonsense experiments starring C stands and fingers, hell I'm surprised you didn't sneak in a 10'x10' silk in for teakettle diffusion... And now you're carrying water for John Dolva? Must be veryyyyyyy slow in Indiana these day's.... So sit and let John answer the simple question above, unless of course your trying to divert attention elsewhere because John Dolva may not have an adequate answer for the above... And Craig, you're no match for me when it comes to making film or video mattes, so xxxxx for another subject elsewhere! Or, at the very least, find someone, ANYONE that'll publish you and your professional opinions! Then I'll spend some time discussing the subject with ya! Ya know peer review and such.... btw, you a Physicist? Ph.D. type? For that matter is John Dolva, is he qualified to render (pardon the pun) a professional critique of Dr. John Costellas' work? How can some Lone Nut folks be so stupid as to think anyone in the know will take you seriously? Without one peer to Dr. John Costella, yet?

John, "a large percentage"? What data, and how did Costella wipe this data from the 720x480 MPI Zapruder frames? Be specific please... Pretty serious charge, guy....

BINGO! especially, if the "Zapruder film" is altered... BINGO-BINGO?

Is he still a member here? If not, does anyone know how I can get in-touch with him? Thank you, David Healy

good job, Chris!

You realize that one is a copy off a film and the other is pictures of a film strip - right? Have you attempted to look for any known causes for what you see?? let's cut the nonsense.... cite it, and source for each, please!

I see you are babbling again there perv.... Lots of different surface textures and reflectivity, and even quite specular surfaces like a sheet of glass is diffuse to a degree. Standard stuff for those skilled in the craft of lighting. That however leaves you in the lurch. Oh the kettle has plenty of bearing, if you had bothered to digest the information I spoon fed you. I'll ask again Tom, and maybe this time the subject of the exercise just might sink into that mushie spot between your ears. What color is the kettle? Exactly the same color as the one seen in the Zapruder film. OH! I forgot. There is no shiny reflective kettle seen in the Zapruder film, is there????? So, does your shiny kettle have a whole lot of bearing on something which is not seen within Dealey Plaza?? I won't waste your precious time in a continuation of showing additional photographs of the Presidential Parade in which, for some mysterious reason, one can continually observe the DPD logo's on the motorcycle policemen's helmets. Must be some sort of magnet anomoly within Dealey Plaza which just would not allow them to appear. What color are those logos Tom? You keep sprinting right by that question. Is there a shiny LOGO in Dealey Plaza? What color is that logo Tom? There is a LOT of information for you to digest in those simple photos of a kettle. Now I know thats NOT what you want to do. Like the good CT you are,you would rather run with some harebrained notion that someone altered the LOGOS so you can't tell which way the head are turned. Reality be damned! You gottta keep your worldview intact regardless. Whatever Tom, its just beyond you. Enjoy your fantasy, it really suits you. Whatever Tom, its just beyond you. Enjoy your fantasy, it really suits you. Correct! It is absolutely "beyond" me as to how anyone could fantasize that a singular staged photograph of the rear-end of their "whatever" as well as a similar photograph of a tea kettle serves as proof that throughout the multiple frames of the Z-film, which has ever-changing lighting conditions as well as reflective angles, one should not be able to ever see the darker image of the DPD logo's against he white background of the motorcycle policemen's helmets. Perhaps it has some bearing on the exact speed at which your tea kettle was travelling????? It SURE is beyond you. I offered illustrations to help you understand your failed positon, and you were,...well...just to ignorant to make the connections. I'm really sorry you can't, or won't understand as your continued failure to answer simple questions illustrates. Simple principles blasting right over your head. Its a shame really, but it appears you are simply beyond help, hopelessly trapped in your warped worldview. You need to REALLY observe the real world Tom, you have a LOT to learn. So I'll ask again, just for grins..were the logos shiney and what color were they? And I will ask again, what was the speed of your shiny tea kettle, exactly how many different changes in lighting scenarios did it go through, and exactly how many times did it change it's angle of reflection in regards to the light source origin as compared to the filming location. The "connections" of reflected (diffused) light from a single fixed position object, filmed from a single fixed position camera, with a single fixed position light source have little bearing on the photographic conditions which existed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. That you continue to attempt to pass off such photographic image garbage as some sort of "proof" is indicative that, although you may have spent a long time in the photographic industry, you quite apparantly did not learn too much. Any first year law student could and would make a complete fool of you in any court of law, with such completely non-corroborative evidence. You see, you still don't get it do you. I'm not offering PROOF of anything, I'm simply showing you how light and reflection work, and you are jutt too ignorant, or pig headed to understand. That really too bad. An intelligent being would have the smarts to apply the lessons contained in these simple illustrations and then apply then to the situation as we see it in the Zapruder film. Now if you can't apply that information correctly, and its clear you have no experience in the subject at hand, well then its really no longer my problem. Everything you need to know about how and why the reflections we see from the reflective, gold metallc, curved badges on the white helmets is contained in the illustrations I posted for you. I would be MORE that happy to take on the law student in a court of law, because all of the principles are correct and contained in the images. Lets review your position: You say logos have been removed to hide the direction the heads of the MC cops. Your position requires retouching the frames and you can't present any CREDIBLE evidecnce that the fim has been altered. Never mind there are still images showing the MC cops. It's simply a fantasy based on your warped worldview. Lets review the other scenario: Motorcycles head down Elm at the perfect angle for the reflective, CURVED, gold logos to be overwhelmed by a bright highlight, to the point where the logo is not visable. Even though the AOI changes as the cycles move down the streeet, the very fact that the reflective logos are CURVED allows the highlight to remain on the logo. Its also not unusual for a bright reflected highlight from a reflected surface to be much much larger than the size of the actual lightsouce, lets call that glare, to keep it simple. Its also true that when you photograph a highly reflective object, you really don't photograph the object but rather whatever is REFLECTED in the surface of the reflective object. In the case of the helmet logo, when it passes into the cast shadow, that reflective logo 'sees' the broad and bright , and very LARGE blue sky. All of these principles are illustrated in the three photos I posted. And we have not even talked about motion blur, camera blur, or the effects of the duplication process. So we are left with two options, believe Tom's FANTASY or deal with reality. I'll take the reality. PR son, you lost! Ya should of stuck with the changing of the subject re the Moorman street/grass issue! You pulled that one off, but not all of us bought it! Evidently Tom isn't dazzled by your C-stands and chrome tea-pots diversion-logic... LMFAO!

I see you are babbling again there perv.... Lots of different surface textures and reflectivity, and even quite specular surfaces like a sheet of glass is diffuse to a degree. Standard stuff for those skilled in the craft of lighting. That however leaves you in the lurch. Oh the kettle has plenty of bearing, if you had bothered to digest the information I spoon fed you. I'll ask again Tom, and maybe this time the subject of the exercise just might sink into that mushie spot between your ears. What color is the kettle? Exactly the same color as the one seen in the Zapruder film. OH! I forgot. There is no shiny reflective kettle seen in the Zapruder film, is there????? So, does your shiny kettle have a whole lot of bearing on something which is not seen within Dealey Plaza?? I won't waste your precious time in a continuation of showing additional photographs of the Presidential Parade in which, for some mysterious reason, one can continually observe the DPD logo's on the motorcycle policemen's helmets. Must be some sort of magnet anomoly within Dealey Plaza which just would not allow them to appear. there appears to be a full court press diverting attention away from possible Zapruder film alteration, Tom. And seeing that most of the Nutters have finally come to the conclusion that IF Oswald was the shooter, or one of the shooters, that simply fine with most CT's. The Nutters simply have no place else to go. Minutae, studio 'C' stands, chrome tea kettles, irrelevant comparisons and a ton of time to waste.....

son, this entire topic has given you new meaning in life, who are you kidding, your having a bad dream..... LMFAO! Now, as far as getting anything straight, forget it...... when one has no conception at all as to what film matte making and printing entails or what optical film and aerial printing entails you get that dazed look. For that matter all Lone uts on this and other boards suffer the same....Just why do you think I withdrew my recommendation for your employment at Adobe Systems... You'd be laughed right out of the bldg..... Ahhhh, stifle opinion, the latest Lone Nut scourge, what a bane you are to this community. Do your parents know where you are, son? Lamson get over here! We need the Lone Nut Varsity.... for every step you take forward, Miller drags your rear-end back about 5, we want an enlightening debate.....

Jack said in the past that getting the frames - enlarging them to be altered - and then adjusted and put back into a film would require dark room work. I agree! I have seen nothing that you have presented that shows your work so it can be tested. Just as it was your right to post that you have seen no proof of alteration ... I have seen no proof that you know what in the hell you are talking about. A this forum is public for all to see. Bill Miller read the Great Zapruder Film HOAX William, when it comes to film composition you really need to get educated. Perhaps one on your hapless sidekicks can dig you out of this one.... Carry on! Can't be Craig, he's busy going over the abyss edge....

frankly my dear Watson, I think you're running from Tom's evidence that the final shot occurred further down Elm Street. Which of course does not appear in the Zapruder film. Soooooo, I think your doing a marvelous job, with all these nonsense posts attempting to change the subject, and shy away from a possible altered Zapruder film, eh? You're losing ground and credibility. And now the teapot: here's another one, called THE *3D* TEAPOT... been around since '84 http://www.sjbaker.org/wiki/index.php?titl...y_of_The_Teapot I can deliver it in chrome if you'd like? Complete with a 'C' stand with matte black finger flags (and disappearing shadows ask Dave Wimp).... C'mon Craig, get back to the topic at hand, willya! herte's a good one: tell me where the reflections came from... http://www.okino.com/slidshow/teapotx1.htm

might just be a *tad* much perspective for a certain camp....

Frank, Z pans the car down Elm. At 10mph or less, the focal point is almost out of the frame, directly in front of him. As Craig likes to say, test it out yourself. Bill, Still working on a solution to: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=165150 I see. I know enough to bring Hester out of the shadows with what you refer to as grainy/lousy film. While you're at it, let us know the distance traveled between Z161-166. Craig, I guess in your perfect world, I wouldn't have to rotate(.5CW) this frame to get it to conform to your specs. But common sense to most dictates that they are sprocket holes and frames from a 8mm camera. So sorry they are having such a detrimental affect on you. chris No effect on me at all, they are your frames. And thanks yet another example of the inconsistency of the evidence you post. One really never knows what to expect from you. Pretty hard to do any work with frames that change size and shape from one to next. Gotta wonder about your skills as a "photo analyst" if you can't even spot such gross error like these: Don't give up your day job anytime soon. when you have to take a studio, to a client, then, spend all day posting to JFK assassination related boards, one can safely asssume one has begun to lose their day job... things THAT bad, eh?

speaking of *fooled* by that odd angle of incidence thingy, AGAIN! Looks like a reflectance texture map off of a simulated metallic surface making up the logo... the entire image looks like a (3D) file.... and don't think I can't spend the next 3 weeks feeding you 3D photo-realistic imagery depicting exactly that.... one of the latest POV artists: not a single element or thing in this image exists, only in the 3D universe... http://www.ignorancia.org/en/index.php?page=Bulbs So, what color is the bulb Craig? Answer: whatever color under the sun -- or what one wants it to be.... magenta, blue, chrome texture too (we simulate plastic and every type of glass too!), all coded in a bastardized version of 'C' with radiosity lighting effects, particle effects and atmospherics added... Look around this one particular artists site, he's even created a insert stage complete with simulated product lighting (3200 - 5400K) all in plug-in form to a 3D ray tracing program.... the client provides the product (label) artwork.... well, you get the idea....

The Yeti has a totally different looking foot that the Giganto-pitheicus which is thought by many Ph.Ds to be what is still being seen and labeled the Sasquatch. In your attempt to try and appear like a wise guy - your misstating the evidence exposes your ignorance on the subject. I also made some references in my previous post that you did not address ... I hardly call that going toe to toe. Now what images did you composite in a dark room that you can show us??? Bill Miller Wild Bill, I could care less whether you recited The Apostle Creed in previous post. Simply get yourself a public forum with cameras, buy myself and my second round trip plane tickets, cover all expenses for 3 days, and lest I forget, bring your lunch, you'll need it: Film and Photo Composition is the topic.... So anytime you feel the courage.... LMFAO! Gee, I kinda like doing all bold, makes me feel important like Wild Bill here p.s. you don't make film composites in a darkroom, clod. Bad, bad sign for your side -- better get Craig back in here, you're in trouble already You don't make film composites in the darkroom? What are you smoking these days? Added on edit: I've made a good percentage of my "film" (as opposed to digital) based composities in the darkroom, and I think your choice of phrases leaves lots to be desired. that's right Craigster, you ever see an optical film printer in a "darkroom"? Ya got special kinda stuff there in Indiana? (on another note: how close are you to David Von Pein aka Dave Reitzes?) Now back to biz, I'm going to call you to task here concerning your website, do you have any client testimonials referring your professional work, composites in particular (photo or film)? And what publications has your work appeared in? Throw-away (mail order) catalog work, if so, which ones? Any commercial *spot* :30, :60, :90, :120sec. advertisements still or motion? Mucho lookey like stock photo stuff, tell me it ain't so! Strange, no client testimonials, no awards -- all this from a marketing pro? Odd. Gave up smoking 10 years ago Craigster. And haven't touched a doobie in 37 years, you?

The Yeti has a totally different looking foot that the Giganto-pitheicus which is thought by many Ph.Ds to be what is still being seen and labeled the Sasquatch. In your attempt to try and appear like a wise guy - your misstating the evidence exposes your ignorance on the subject. I also made some references in my previous post that you did not address ... I hardly call that going toe to toe. Now what images did you composite in a dark room that you can show us??? Bill Miller Wild Bill, I could care less whether you recited The Apostle Creed in previous post. Simply get yourself a public forum with cameras, buy myself and my second round trip plane tickets, cover all expenses for 3 days, and lest I forget, bring your lunch, you'll need it: Film and Photo Composition is the topic.... So anytime you feel the courage.... LMFAO! Gee, I kinda like doing all bold, makes me feel important like Wild Bill here p.s. you don't make film composites in a darkroom, clod. Bad, bad sign for your side -- better get Craig back in here, you're in trouble already

David, I know enough about composition to have made an ass out of you each time we have danced. After all I used a reference that Fetzer made to Disney's 'Mary Poppins' movie and I looked at it. Disney was said to be the best in the industry and yet under frame by frame examination I could clearly see the editing. Other than yourself, I know of no one else who makes the claim that you do ... are there no more compositors out there that think like you do? Exposure came for you when after you had went on for years about all this 'composition' knowledge of yours and how you'd be able to get this alteration debate settled once and for all if the NARA would let you examine the camera original Zapruder film. Then we find that your sorry behind had not even attempted to fill out a request to get the job done. That pretty much told the story ... did it not! You didn't even believe in your own nonsense enough to make an attempt to help move the case forward. You talked about what you could do, but won't ... you no longer have any credibility in my view. Wild Bill you haven't found an alarm clock to set early enough... LMAO! Say, are you still running around the woods and forests looking for 8-10' creatures naked but for hair, I think they call them Yeti in some cultures? You finally give that career up when you determined there's more fertile ground to plow in the JFK assassination film-photo area. Bill when you feel you want a public, face-to-face debate concerning film composition let me know, railing away on a forum such as this is a waste of time, andIF you have talents - wasting those TOO! You're hiding son, the entire CT world knows it! p.s. how do you know I didn't fill out a request, Wild Bill?

Well then, I guess that since John Costella, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and David Mantik don't pass the educational muster you impose on Bill, they are pretty much worthless players too. Good work there davie. By the way, has Costella the physicist figured out the gravity of his basic physics mistake yet? Frank, who has a degree in physics, has... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm there's no need to attempt to prop Miller up, Craig, a lost cause... Now, as far as Frank goes? Hey, as I've said countless times, everyone is free to opine. To continue, Frank has shown us what when it comes to film-photos of Dealey Plaza? By his own admission he doesn't participate. (probably for good reason - see below) I say not bad: 3-Ph.D's, 1-M.D. 1-Masters Degree.... 2-Ph.D's in Physics (1 of which is also a M.D.), 1 Masters Degree in Physics, ALL published authors, 2 in the field of Physics, 1 a NYT best-seller. Can ya tell me Franks bio, degree and publishing history, Craig? Better yet, Frank? And Frank, these guys are wont to throw the unsuspecting under the bus.... You're getting too old for this Craig! A 3 week and counting good-bye, lordy.lordy, LORDY! You should be ashamed leading lurkers on like this.....

David, we hold the same conclusions as you do concerning not seeing any proof of alteration. The difference is that we look at what was claimed about the photo or film that was said to be impossible, thus proving alteration. So we test those claims and find out that if there is alteration afoot ... its not because of the reason the claimant gave. I think it would be great to show alteration, but it must be true alteration and not because some boob has misread a photograph by using a poor fuzzy lesser quality print to achieve their goal. Not speaking up and pointing out these errors would help the conspirators even more for it makes the rest of us look as if we too, are too whacked upstairs to read a photo correctly and even worse ... incompetent to know how to investigate it so to know. Now what could really stick it to those conspirators is for you to actually make that written request to examine the in-camera original Zapruder film like you have been complaining about for well over the last decade. If you would put just 1/10th of the effort into making that request as you do writing the vulgar low-life gutter talk replies I have read on those web pages dedicated to exposing your sick behavior ... you might surprise a few folks and actually do something constructive over authenticating or exposing the Zapruder film with something real about it being altered for a change. Bill Miller Now Miller (so even a child could understand) you hold no conclusions I do. NOW your a reader of minds? LMFAO! You have no conception of film and photo composition and/or alteration. You may begin to redeem yourself by placing right in this thread your professional experience in film and photo composition, anything short of that reverts me to a simple position, that of your teacher in such matters. And quite frankly, you have no qualities I'd expect to see in a student of the art-form.... so your current lone nut conversion are meaningless to this and any other film-photo alteration conversation.... Don't bother responding, see if you can hold your water for 36 hours, we'll see how far the Dealey Plaza addiction has traveled.... Hi Gar!

the above is **precisely** the type of posts that continue the personal attacks on DP film/photo alteration researchers.... your posts included, Frank. Are you a lone nut? Frankly, I could care less who is or isn't, that's for the private eyes amongst us to determine.... The best thing about your posts are their humor value, can you point to which part of Frank's post constituted a "personal attack" Then you should stop posting on such threads and tell your buddies to stop dredging it up LOL - This from the guy complaing about personal attacks You are of course aware that the inventor of the filmstock used did precisely that. LOL - This from the guy with no known experience with FILM compositing who wrote a chapter on the subject. I guess you find your collegues arguments as unconvincing as the rest of us. oh sitdown dufus, I dealt with your nonsense back in the Rollie Zavada era.... your a complete waste of time when oitcomes to film alteration, nearly on a par with Wild Bill (I done seen the Nutter light) Miller..... Don't you have some sort of international scam to expose or sump'in, Len? Damn, this is one long good-bye Josiah's got going here. Hey you guy's we're doing the 45 questions on acj (alt.conspiracy.jfk) again, If you can nad up, you're more than welcome to give actual evidence a shot.... leave Miller at home though, he needs to retain some sort of reputation

Don, I still feel that my observations are valid concerning the Backyard photographs, but that doesn't mean that I have not misunderstood something in my reading of a particular two. I don't have those images with me so to comment on them or to looking into the points Craig raised. people can be wrong and pass lie detector test because they truly believed that what they said was the truth to the best of their ability. I am only saying that I am open to listen and check out what I am told to see if I missed something. For instance I can say that the Zapruder film shows JFK's car going in a straight line, but I know that in reality it did not because the road bends. It would be wrong for me to deny the bend in the road just because I had earlier said the Zapruder definitely shows the limo coming straight down Elm Street. I would also be another Fetzer if I just started barking that Craig is wring without first testing the data that he has offered to see if it applies at all to the changes I saw take place in the BY photos. I am happy that you remembered the work and approach I took on looking at those photos. Bill Friends that's what we call the Lone Nut Shuffle.... distance yourself from position, feign ignorance, fall in line with and clarify the underwriters position, blame other CT researchers for your ignorance thren declare your convergence -- and wallah..... instant lone nut! (we've seen it more than once) And guess what, Wild Bill can't dance, either..... ROTFLMFAO! Another joke on the community! Carry on!