David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
Gary Murr response to DHealy: (Lancer forum Tue Oct-29-02 10:06 AM) **...
You also appear to be having trouble grasping the significance of this point. You asked me how "that pesky old 8 weeks...square(s) up with the NPIC documents that have Z-frame numbers."? Well, that is the whole point. If the NPIC/CIA "textual materials" of attempted explanation for a variety of shooting scenarios pertinent to the Zapruder film are using Zapruder frame numbers assigned by Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 30, 1964, then these same "textual materials" supplied by NPIC/CIA HAD TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AFTER JANUARY 30, 1964. If that is true, and both Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter of NPIC claim that they had nothing to do with the construction of these various writings, indeed these calculations were done at a later date during the tenure of the Warren Commission, then how can these same textual materials and their Zapruder frame numberings be part of a conspiracy to alter the Zapruder film while at NPIC over the weekend of the assassination?(See the Records of the ARRB:"Contact Report", prepared by Douglas Horne, ARRB; dated 06/12/97: Also, "Meeting Report" prepared by Douglas Horne, ARRB, 06/18/97;Final Version; Topic:ARRB Staff Interview of Ben Hunter; ARRB Douglas Horne Files, Box 4, "Zapruder Film Issues.")
...
no "grasping" problem at all Gary. Quite the opposite in fact, you in the above state:
are using Zapruder frame numbers assigned by Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 30, 1964forgive me the following, a cite (a document stating same) please for the above 01/30/1964 date would be much appreciated. Or can I use you as the "official" source for the numbering date?
Also I'll make this same response to the on-going Zapruder film thread started by BKelly.
Thanks for you patience Gary,
DHealy
**= should be noted Gary Murr responded to this same Z-film frame number question/topic (of which I was involved in) here on this Ed Forum during 2007
Hi David:
I apologize for not responding sooner, but it was unavoidable as I was no where near my home and access to my materials when this thread, and related others, began. I thank you for your patience. My personal collection of documents now exceeds 300,000 pages and it took me a little while to "lay my hands" on the material I was seeking in order that I could formulate a cohesive response to your request. I am not exactly a shining example of exactitude when it comes to cataloging these materials, something I am saving for retirement! I also must apologize if I have misinterpreted some of your responses concerning the film of Abraham Zapruder and the question of alteration, in particular pertaining to the roll played, or not played, by the CIA and NPIC - but that is a matter that perhaps is best discussed, if you so desire, another time and in another thread, or for that matter, in private if you wish.
In response to your immediate request for a citation in support of my contention that Lyndal Shaneyfelt constructed the Z-film numbering system universally accepted and utilized when discussing the Zapruder film on a specific date, January 30, 1964, I hopefully have attached two images taken from Shaneyfelt's worknotes he generated in conjunction with this specific aspect of his contact with the film of Abraham Zapruder. Unfortunately, this documentation is currently only available if one travels to NARA II in College Park, Maryland, the reason being that it is from one of the massive bulky lab files generated by that division of the FBI in conjunction with their examination of all evidence given to them that related to the assassination event. Shaneyfelt and others in the FBI lab, in particular fellow agent Robert Frazier, constructed numerous files of worknotes when they were examining evidence and this surviving documentation is both historically important, relevant, and useful in trying to ascertain a wide variety of matters pertaining to the issues of evidence and provenance. The two pages from the Shaneyfelt worknotes that he constructed in conjunction with the Zapruder film can be found in: 62-109060-4199, Box097B, Folder 7, and 62-109060-4199, Box 098, Folder 3. I have also spent some time over the last couple of days searching FBI documents accessible via the internet, in particular the Mary Farrell Foundation website, in an effort to ascertain if any of this material is available to the interested researcher. I suspect that Rex Bradford and others have not had the time to reproduce the materials from these numerous bulky files generated by the FBI lab, documentation that literally goes on for thousands and thousands of pages. However, I did stumble across one page from this same series of notes and if you have access to the FBI documents generated at the Mary Ferrell website you will find it as part of 62-109060-2348, the second page. You will note, once again, Shaneyfelts distinctive "LS" scrawl and the date of "1-30-64: affixed to this page, taken from the same workbook I possess a copy of and have reproduced pages for you in this reply.
I hope you find this of some interest.
Gary Murr
Exactly what I was looking for, thanks Gary!
--finally--
Regarding the above notes you speak of, did Shaneyfelt state what film he viewed determining the numbering sequence (#0183, #0185, #1086, #1087) or a Washington based/created dupe of one of the four?
David Healy
Hi David:
In a pique of unbridled optimism, I once attempted to track or create a provenance for the theoretical in-camera original of the Zapruder film and the copies generated in Dallas on November 22, 1963 - an exercise that produced more than its share of frustration, not to mention confusion! In that regard, and in answer to your question, Shaneyfelt never identifies in his working notes just which Zapruder film copy he was utilizing in conjunction with this exercise on his part. However, my personal opinion is that it was a copy generated from Dallas dupe identified as #0186, and I will give you the reasoning behind my speculative opinion.
One thing we do not know to a certainty, and just possibly may never know, is just how many copies of the Zapruder film were generated by FBI lab personnel once they got their hands on the SS provided copy via Dallas. In my digging through the FBI lab bulky materials at NARA II there is clear indication of the existence of at least six copies of the Z film, three to be found in 62-109060-4182, Part 2, Box # 094C, Folder D, two of which are labeled as " copies of 8mm Zapruder film made from first copy borrowed from Secret Service." There are three more copies found in 62-109060-4193, Box # 102A, Folder 4, which is labeled "3 copies of Zapruder film" two of which appear to be full copies of the film, while the third is only a partial, chopped-up copy. Again documentation in this folder indicates that "the copies were made from the first copy borrowed from the Secret Service."
The interesting thing about those FBI copies of the Z film that are classified as "complete" and do contain head leader material is that optically imprinted on the film is the printer # 0186. Understand that this is an optical/photographic imprint visible on the surface of the leader, an image generated from the actual punched-in imprint produced on this, the second first generation copy produced on behalf of the Secret Service. My study of the records of the ARRB indicate that on four occasions between August of 1996 and April of 1997, Douglas Horne examined nine "different" copies of the Z film at NARA, duly recorded in a lengthy memorandum he generated under the date of April 7, 1997 [ARRB: Memorandum dated April 9, 1997. To: David Marwell, Jeremy Gunn: From: Doug Horne. Records of the ARRB, 4-Series-Research and Analysis, Box 37, File 4.0.2. Subject Files: Zapruder, Abraham.] In his "data chart" that is part of this memorandum, Horne noted that the "complete" FBI copies of the Z film he examined had "the number 0186 photographically printed onto this film, but is not punched into the film, as it i in Secret Service Copy # 2." As I stated above, this was noted by myself during a visit to NARA in 1999. I also have communicated with Les Waffen, NNSM at NARA on more than one occasion concerning the markings on the FBI copies of the film and again, the only "identification" apparent on those copies that do contain leader is this # 0186 imprint. In October of 1996, Waffen and nine other individuals spent just under five hours, "at the request of the DOJ", in examining the original Zapruder film, Zapruder's original camera, and six copies of the Zapruder film, one of which, identified as "65 JFK .024" is stated as being "FBI copy of the Z film" with a "notes for file" in Waffen's original October 30, 1996 memorandum that states: "Textual documentation [found with 65 JFK .024] indicates this as copy made from 1st copy borrowed from the Secret Service." Apparently "this copy was received in NARA from FBI in 1995, transferred to NNSM in April, 1996." [Waffen was kind enough to supply me with a copy of his memorandum dated October 30, 1996 on this subject matter].
On February 23 and 24, 1998, Harry Livingstone and three of his associates were "provided access to various JFK assassination materials..." an event monitored by Alan Lewis of NNSM, NARA, permission granted to Livingstone by Les Waffen and Steve Tilley [FOIA, NARA]. Included in the various materials Livingstone et al had access to on February 23 and 24, were eight copies of the Z film, "segments" of which were photographed by Livingstone associate, Matt Branham, on the 24th. Included in this group of Z film copies was "65JFK24" the FBI copy with the printer # 0186 in its leader. [Letter with accompanying memorandum dated 2/25/98, from Alan Lewis, to Les Waffen, Steve Tilley: Subject: Examination of JFK Assassination Materials. Again, this document was graciously supplied to me by Les Waffen].
I hope this at least attempts to answer your question, David. As I stated above, and herein reiterate, my speculation/assumption is that Lyndal Shaneyfelt worked with a copy of Z film #0186, but this has to be identified as speculation on my part, based upon what I have written above.
Gary Murr
thanks again Gary, your speculation and assumption duly noted....
here's a bit more info as to where and how some of these Z-film dupes may of been made... (below emphasis mine)
http://www.mte.com/nysmpte/meetings/sum0004.htm (note: this link is no longer good -- surprise)
MEETING TOPIC: FILM FORENSICS AND THE ZAPRUDER FILM
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2000
MEETING VENUE: Manhattan Center Studios, New York, NY
Over 130 members and guests filled Studio 6 at Manhattan Center Studios to hear Roland Zavada, an Honorary Member of the Society, relate his investigation of the photographic evidence collected after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Until recently the American public had been deprived of full disclosure of the assassination, which clothing manufacturer Abraham Zapruder had recorded with his new Bell and Howell 8mm camera. His 26-second film of the assassination had become the most significant amateur recording of a news event in history. Yet many Americans had continued to seek answers to nagging questions about this tragic event, including the authenticity of the Zapruder film. Before discussing his involvement with his investigation Mr. Zavada set the scene for this disastrous act by mentioning the personalities and events which defined the era of the early 1960s. He spoke of the political, economic and social trends and the influence of the "cold war", the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson. It was an era when secrecy pervaded many government agencies with the result that secrecy surrounded the facts gleaned from the many investigations into the Kennedy assassination. The Warren Commission and other investigative bodies never inspected many of the documents. Evidence was sealed and stored by intelligence and security agencies for almost thirty years, resulting in increasing mistrust of the federal government by the American public. Various researchers raised questions about the authenticity of the 8mm film made by Mr. Zapruder, including the speculation that anomalies in the film frames were evidence of film alteration. There were questions about the presence of claw shadows and ghost images in the perforation area of the film, multiple exposure areas, claw or aperture flare, claw shadow and other strange images. It was, therefore, necessary not only to analyze the motion picture, but also to understand how the camera optics had recorded or imaged the film. In 1997 the JFK Assassinations Records Review Board, created by Congress earlier in the Clinton administration, contacted the Eastman Kodak Co. for help in the investigation of the photographic evidence. Kodak's former research scientist and Standards Director for Imaging Technologies, Roland Zavada, now retired, was recruited. His investigation became very convoluted because some of the evidence, including the actual Bell and Howell 414PD 8mm-movie camera, was not available to him. In the investigative process he was obliged to find and contact hundreds of people who were somehow involved with the evidence. These included people at the film processing laboratory, the optical and mechanical designers of the camera, engineers in film manufacturing and others. He even managed to obtain five identical Bell and Howell cameras that bore serial numbers close to the Zapruder camera. As a result he was able to verify the authenticity of the Zapruder film and ensure that the film belonged to the American public. Other areas of investigation, too numerous to mention here, included the permanent preservation of all the autopsy photographs of President Kennedy in digitized form and performing sophisticated digital enhancement of selected, representative images. All of the original documents of the assassination as well as the reports by the Review Board, totaling over 4 million pages, are now available to the American public in the National Archives. An illustrated synopsis of Mr. Zavada's presentation was distributed to the attendees. Additional copies may be obtained, as noted below. The entire meeting was recorded on videotape and, after editing, will be placed in the SMPTE archives. A long question and answer session included an anecdote related by Everett Hall who, in 1963, was president of Cine Magnetics Film Laboratory. He recalled that three FBI men visited his laboratory and requested that a copy of a single 8mm film of the Kennedy motorcade be duplicated. A 16mm printing machine was modified to accept the 8mm film, which was prepared with appropriate leaders and threaded up or the printing machine. When the printing operator turned off the room lights so that the raw print film could be threaded onto the machine, the FBI agent, who was watching every move, complained that he would no longer be able to observe the duplicating operation in the dark room! At the conclusion of Mr.Zavada's presentation, many SMPTE members reached an interesting conclusion. It was that because of the convoluted process of the investigation, he would not have been able to reach his conclusions without the help of the hundreds of professional and personal contacts, which he had made during his many years as a member and Engineering Vice President of the Society. The meeting facility. Studio 6 of Manhattan Center Productions, was provided courtesy of Mr. Randy Davis, President, with technical coordination by Dan Mathers, Chief Engineer of the Metro Learning Channel. Prior to the meeting a one hour social gathering and buffet supper was provided by the Eastman Kodak Co. After the conclusion of the Q and A session Mr. Mathers conducted tours of the video and audio studios and associated technical facilities. The historical venues in the building were also toured, including the recently restored Manhattan Opera House built by Oscar Hammerstein I (ca. l906) and the ornate Grand Ballroom. The latter was originally built as a Masonic Temple, and is one of the acoustically outstanding venues for music recording sessions. A brochure describing the venue as well as Mr. Zavada's synopsis are available by contacting Ed Schuller by fax only at 516 676-3895, listing your name, address and phone number.
-Ed Schuller, Chair, Archival Papers and Historical Committee
eof
many interesting items in this synopsis published by SMPTE -- DHealy
-
...
The "you're either with us or agin' us" mentality has no place in good research. It has been my experience for years, that mainstream CTs and LNs largely understand this (I know some CTs who are like oil and water with some others, and CTs don't own the whole market on nuts, there are some outrageous LNs as well ) and work this way, and sometimes work involves a mix of CTs and LNs ... some post in forums, some don't, but there is a big network and many, if not most, are usually hooked up with others in work taking place through e-mail sharing, phone, private meetings, etc. Major work of some sort is always going on in the underground, there has been some great work making real progress over the last couple of years ... and I am sure there is plenty that I am not involved in/know about as well.
We don't need negative factions, we need positive actions.
...
Barb :-)
Positive Actions? What the JFK research community needs is for the old-timers to move out of the way and let the young turks take over... PERIOD! 45+ years and what have we got today? Enough documentation to choke MOTHRA and her entire clan, that's what.... Look around... It's time for the old hands (being nice here) to write books, appear on the occasional radio/cable talk show, sit in the back of the room at lectures or presentation nodding yea or nay, that's it! Their day in the sun is over! Now THAT would be a positive action! But we know the reality, specific EGO'S just won't pass the baton....... Why? There is a sect some call the self-declared preservers of Dealey Plaza history, and they can be found throughout the internet research community, and many of them are right here on this forum....
So, Why again... Because the bitter divide is ALL the oldtimers have left, that's why!
-
Thanks, Peter ... that those in the future won't have to waste time on absurdities
in the future is definitely part of the value of getting things like this taken care of ... and placed
where they can be found in the future.
Bests to you,
Barb :-)
The only "winner" that matters is truth and accuracy. Some issues in this arena cannot be resolved for various reasons, some can. The Moorman in the street issue is one that we believed could be resolved ... and those of us who worked to put together the essay believe it has been. That was our only intent ... to present a definitive essay on the claims and the facts and place it on forums where people can find it when looking into the claim that Moorman was in the street, not on the grass, when she took her photo.
The information is now available in multiple places in cyberspace, and people can make up their own minds. That claim was the only issue the essay addressed.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Methinks there were very few minds in doubt, Barb. The claim that Moorman was in the street was preposterous from the get go.
Nevertheless, bravo for the efforts of this group. Long after we have passed from the scene, others will be researching the "beast".
I've never had the patience to deal with obvious absurdities.
Thanks heavens a few do!
It will pay dividends in "time saved" for researchers venturing onto the trail in the future.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Frankly what ex-moderators from alt.assassination.jfk (Barb and Peter here) think about any JFK assassination related film-photo issue (with or without Dr. Josiah Thompson) is, how do I put this mildly, kinda like watching a play in ...the Lone Nut, Theater of the Deranged, choreography by .john McAdams... I'm not impressed!
Let me be the first to break the bad news to ya: selling the same old Lone Nut story to the same old crowd is what again? Yep, you guessed it. the same old story. Ya gotta stretch folks!
-
Gary Murr response to DHealy: (Lancer forum Tue Oct-29-02 10:06 AM) **...
You also appear to be having trouble grasping the significance of this point. You asked me how "that pesky old 8 weeks...square(s) up with the NPIC documents that have Z-frame numbers."? Well, that is the whole point. If the NPIC/CIA "textual materials" of attempted explanation for a variety of shooting scenarios pertinent to the Zapruder film are using Zapruder frame numbers assigned by Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 30, 1964, then these same "textual materials" supplied by NPIC/CIA HAD TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AFTER JANUARY 30, 1964. If that is true, and both Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter of NPIC claim that they had nothing to do with the construction of these various writings, indeed these calculations were done at a later date during the tenure of the Warren Commission, then how can these same textual materials and their Zapruder frame numberings be part of a conspiracy to alter the Zapruder film while at NPIC over the weekend of the assassination?(See the Records of the ARRB:"Contact Report", prepared by Douglas Horne, ARRB; dated 06/12/97: Also, "Meeting Report" prepared by Douglas Horne, ARRB, 06/18/97;Final Version; Topic:ARRB Staff Interview of Ben Hunter; ARRB Douglas Horne Files, Box 4, "Zapruder Film Issues.")
...
no "grasping" problem at all Gary. Quite the opposite in fact, you in the above state:
are using Zapruder frame numbers assigned by Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 30, 1964forgive me the following, a cite (a document stating same) please for the above 01/30/1964 date would be much appreciated. Or can I use you as the "official" source for the numbering date?
Also I'll make this same response to the on-going Zapruder film thread started by BKelly.
Thanks for you patience Gary,
DHealy
**= should be noted Gary Murr responded to this same Z-film frame number question/topic (of which I was involved in) here on this Ed Forum during 2007
Hi David:
I apologize for not responding sooner, but it was unavoidable as I was no where near my home and access to my materials when this thread, and related others, began. I thank you for your patience. My personal collection of documents now exceeds 300,000 pages and it took me a little while to "lay my hands" on the material I was seeking in order that I could formulate a cohesive response to your request. I am not exactly a shining example of exactitude when it comes to cataloging these materials, something I am saving for retirement! I also must apologize if I have misinterpreted some of your responses concerning the film of Abraham Zapruder and the question of alteration, in particular pertaining to the roll played, or not played, by the CIA and NPIC - but that is a matter that perhaps is best discussed, if you so desire, another time and in another thread, or for that matter, in private if you wish.
In response to your immediate request for a citation in support of my contention that Lyndal Shaneyfelt constructed the Z-film numbering system universally accepted and utilized when discussing the Zapruder film on a specific date, January 30, 1964, I hopefully have attached two images taken from Shaneyfelt's worknotes he generated in conjunction with this specific aspect of his contact with the film of Abraham Zapruder. Unfortunately, this documentation is currently only available if one travels to NARA II in College Park, Maryland, the reason being that it is from one of the massive bulky lab files generated by that division of the FBI in conjunction with their examination of all evidence given to them that related to the assassination event. Shaneyfelt and others in the FBI lab, in particular fellow agent Robert Frazier, constructed numerous files of worknotes when they were examining evidence and this surviving documentation is both historically important, relevant, and useful in trying to ascertain a wide variety of matters pertaining to the issues of evidence and provenance. The two pages from the Shaneyfelt worknotes that he constructed in conjunction with the Zapruder film can be found in: 62-109060-4199, Box097B, Folder 7, and 62-109060-4199, Box 098, Folder 3. I have also spent some time over the last couple of days searching FBI documents accessible via the internet, in particular the Mary Farrell Foundation website, in an effort to ascertain if any of this material is available to the interested researcher. I suspect that Rex Bradford and others have not had the time to reproduce the materials from these numerous bulky files generated by the FBI lab, documentation that literally goes on for thousands and thousands of pages. However, I did stumble across one page from this same series of notes and if you have access to the FBI documents generated at the Mary Ferrell website you will find it as part of 62-109060-2348, the second page. You will note, once again, Shaneyfelts distinctive "LS" scrawl and the date of "1-30-64: affixed to this page, taken from the same workbook I possess a copy of and have reproduced pages for you in this reply.
I hope you find this of some interest.
Gary Murr
Exactly what I was looking for, thanks Gary!
--finally--
Regarding the above notes you speak of, did Shaneyfelt state what film he viewed determining the numbering sequence (#0183, #0185, #1086, #1087) or a Washington based/created dupe of one of the four?
David Healy
-
<snip JFetzer post for brevity>
There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.
To review a few of those :
www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm
www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm
SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.
In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....
I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?
-
<snip JFetzer post for brevity>
There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.
To review a few of those :
www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm
www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm
SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.
In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....
I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?
-
we're above your pay-grade young feller, take a seat......
Do I take it that you are not going to make a request to the NARA to allow you to put an end to the altered Zapruder film stuff once and for all ... now why am I not surprised.
Maybe this explains it ... http://rossleysignorance.wetpaint.com/page...ON+HEALY?t=anon
good, stay seated.
Thanks
-
For a long time, the Nigerian sucker con still attracted people to send their banking information to a con man. You know the one... "I am the Undersecretary for Commerce in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and need to deposit my family funds in an overseas account of undisputed integrity. If you will deposit my funds in your account I will provide you with 35% of the funds deposited for every month they stay in your account. I wish to start with a deposit of $15.4 million. Please send to the address below your bank transfer information as well as your phone number (with international country code) so that I may contact you." The word got around and pretty soon the con was so well known that no one fell for it anymore.
Why not do the same with the endlessly repeated litany of supposed z-film alteration claims?
On one recent thread, Jack White referred us all to Fetzer's site where five or six of Costella claims were outlined. Then, a week later, Craig Lamson debunked two of the claims with as nice a piece of empirically based argument you would ever want to see. We all thought that Moorman-in-the-street was a dead puppy back in 2002. And then,last fall, Fetzer resurrected it only to see it interred on this site over the last couple of weeks. The problem is that the debunkings of these claims are scattered all over the internet. What we need to do is to bring them together at some central place where any neophytes can be directed for education.
Is this a good idea? Where should we collect the claims and their debunkings? How can we assure ourselves that the work will stay up on the internet for some time? Does anyone want to volunteer to get the ball rolling? Any good ideas?
The beauty of this idea is that it doesn't depend on Fetzer at all. It all can be done without having to listen to him drone on mindlessly covering everything in sight with masses of irrelevant verbiage. And after it was done, it could stand there for good as a kind of monument to silliness.
Josiah Thompson
Possibly there could be a locked/indexed topic on this forum that gathers all the pertinent postings. People can then discuss around it at will and also fling salespitches about to their hearts content.
The topic can be mrrored as open source and linked to from anywhere.
There's no need IMO to consider any balanced opposition segment, those who think there is one have ample resources to do that in their own time.
and current thread contributors to this particular subject matter thread(s) TIME belongs to who? So look John, John Simkin denied me a locked thread on this forum a few years back when I invited Roland Zavada (which he agreed) here to present material concerning the Zapruder Film (one posting), actually involved his updated Zavada report (which never materialized), I would present (one posting) we each had one additional posting within 30 days later -- that locked thread would then be indexed. Commentary concerning content would take place in peripheral threads/posting.
Your a few years late with your idea. A side question JohnD, have you ever been in-touch with Dr. John Costella, in any way?
Hi Gary, mildwinter in the south this year?
David
-
Well, does this mean I should figure you won't consider co-authoring the end-all b-all JFK assassination conspiracy book with Jim Fetzer and David Lifton? Damn thing would probably be a NYT best-seller. I'd even pitch a screenplay of same to a few network folks I know... Now that everyone is rapidly approaching 70, best to get consensus, SOON!
David, after you finish getting that request written to the NARA to allow you to examine the said in-camera original Zapruder film which has been ongoing for a very long time for some odd reason ... Why don't you write a piece on why it was after reading and thinking through all the claims in 'Hoax' that you had felt that you'd seen NO PROOF of alteration.
we're above your pay-grade young feller, take a seat......
-
For a long time, the Nigerian sucker con still attracted people to send their banking information to a con man. You know the one... "I am the Undersecretary for Commerce in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and need to deposit my family funds in an overseas account of undisputed integrity. If you will deposit my funds in your account I will provide you with 35% of the funds deposited for every month they stay in your account. I wish to start with a deposit of $15.4 million. Please send to the address below your bank transfer information as well as your phone number (with international country code) so that I may contact you." The word got around and pretty soon the con was so well known that no one fell for it anymore.
Why not do the same with the endlessly repeated litany of supposed z-film alteration claims?
On one recent thread, Jack White referred us all to Fetzer's site where five or six of Costella claims were outlined. Then, a week later, Craig Lamson debunked two of the claims with as nice a piece of empirically based argument you would ever want to see. We all thought that Moorman-in-the-street was a dead puppy back in 2002. And then,last fall, Fetzer resurrected it only to see it interred on this site over the last couple of weeks. The problem is that the debunkings of these claims are scattered all over the internet. What we need to do is to bring them together at some central place where any neophytes can be directed for education.
Is this a good idea? Where should we collect the claims and their debunkings? How can we assure ourselves that the work will stay up on the internet for some time? Does anyone want to volunteer to get the ball rolling? Any good ideas?
The beauty of this idea is that it doesn't depend on Fetzer at all. It all can be done without having to listen to him drone on mindlessly covering everything in sight with masses of irrelevant verbiage. And after it was done, it could stand there for good as a kind of monument to silliness.
Josiah Thompson
associating Z-film alteration claims with Nigerian scam arteeeeeests? Bit to much winter in Bodega this year? LMAO!
Well, does this mean I should figure you won't consider co-authoring the end-all b-all JFK assassination conspiracy book with Jim Fetzer and David Lifton? Damn thing would probably be a NYT best-seller. I'd even pitch a screenplay of same to a few network folks I know... Now that everyone is rapidly approaching 70, best to get consensus, SOON!
-
Gary Murr response to DHealy: (Lancer forum Tue Oct-29-02 10:06 AM) **
...You also appear to be having trouble grasping the significance of this point. You asked me how "that pesky old 8 weeks...square(s) up with the NPIC documents that have Z-frame numbers."? Well, that is the whole point. If the NPIC/CIA "textual materials" of attempted explanation for a variety of shooting scenarios pertinent to the Zapruder film are using Zapruder frame numbers assigned by Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 30, 1964, then these same "textual materials" supplied by NPIC/CIA HAD TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AFTER JANUARY 30, 1964. If that is true, and both Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter of NPIC claim that they had nothing to do with the construction of these various writings, indeed these calculations were done at a later date during the tenure of the Warren Commission, then how can these same textual materials and their Zapruder frame numberings be part of a conspiracy to alter the Zapruder film while at NPIC over the weekend of the assassination?(See the Records of the ARRB:"Contact Report", prepared by Douglas Horne, ARRB; dated 06/12/97: Also, "Meeting Report" prepared by Douglas Horne, ARRB, 06/18/97;Final Version; Topic:ARRB Staff Interview of Ben Hunter; ARRB Douglas Horne Files, Box 4, "Zapruder Film Issues.")
...
no "grasping" problem at all Gary. Quite the opposite in fact, you in the above state:
are using Zapruder frame numbers assigned by Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 30, 1964forgive me the following, a cite (a document stating same) please for the above 01/30/1964 date would be much appreciated. Or can I use you as the "official" source for the numbering date?
Also I'll make this same response to the on-going Zapruder film thread started by BKelly.
Thanks for you patience Gary,
DHealy
**= should be noted Gary Murr responded to this same Z-film frame number question/topic (of which I was involved in) here on this Ed Forum during 2007
-
Top post
Thank you Dr. Thompson, and no, I have no idea the exact date when the Zapruder frames were numbered....I've been pointed towards a Lancer board response by one Gary Murr (this thread) to a request I made there concerning the same topic in September of 2002. After a quick review of his post (url provided by KBeckett) it appears the frame numbering system came about sometime in January '64... I'll follow up on this...
If you know (or anyone for that matter) Mr. Murr's definitive work can be found where? (or his current email address)
Thank you,
DHealy
Edit: and still no, regardless of what Mr. Murr has posted at Lancer, or here during the past 2 years concerning the numbering of the Z-film frames -- evidently Mr. Murr seems to think I'm from the school the Z-ffilm was altered while in the hands of the NPIC/CIA the weekend of the assassination, perhaps he needs to read or re-read The Great Zapruder Film HOAX...
Good point, David. I don't know and I don't know if anyone knows when these notes were actually jotted down. They may have been written later in November or even early December. You certainly are right that making enlargements and story boards (so to speak) was something that went on for some time. Do you know when Shaneyfelt numbered the frames? My guess is that this was done much later than that weekend but I don't know that. I believe Gary Murr has done the definitive work on this NPIC chapter of the case. He sent me some chapters of a larger work years ago and it was great. If anyone knows how to get in touch with Gary Murr, he knows more about this than most anybody.Josiah Thompson
This is great, Bill. One can see from these handwritten notes that the frames being looked at for possible shot impacts are approximately the frames that have always been picked in the present Z film. Hence, McMahon's claim (endlessly repeated by Fetzer) of 6 to 8 impacts is suspect. Ben Hunter's observation concerning no intra-sprocket-hole content means they were looking at the Z film copy sent to Washington on the night of the 22nd. The fact that they would pick out the same area of frames as subsequent investigators highlighted means that both NPIC and later investigators have been looking at the same film.Josiah Thompson
Doug Horne April 1997 Memo:http://www.jfk-info.com/zat-1.htm
I think the part requested is A1-1D, but I included the entire thing, because it is a fascinating, informative read.
Kathy
Thanks Kathy,
Here's some notes from NPIC.
BK
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=7
slow down Dr. Thompson.... these NPIC guys according to Horne's interview looked at the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination, and the references to Z-frames on these notes are numbered, amazing! NOW, when did Shaneyfelt say he numbered the Z-frames? After all, he is the claimed author of numbering the frames.... It had to be the day after the assassination, at the very latest, right?
Now if Shaneyfelt didn't number them, who did that assassination weekend? The NPIC? Did they number the frames? Or, are the NPIC guys lying about when they worked on (extracting frames for blow-up, talking point boards) and analyzed the Zapruder film? If they lied, why? I also believe those NPIC guys stated in the Horne interview they, or one of the two determined there were at least 4 eprhaps 6 shots (maybe more).... fired, eh? But let's keep focused on the frame numbering issue, eh?
Amazing that Dr. Thompson now finds these notes so interesting, I think these notes were published (in their entirety) 5 or so years ago in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, in a article by contributing author Doug Horne and edited by none other than Dr. Jim Fetzer... someone correct me if I'm wrong, maybe it was Murder in Dealey Plaza or Assassination Science...
p.s. I also believe one of the two NPIC guys has/had a beef about not recognizing some of the handwriting in those very notes.... CYA or F-E-A-R?
-
Good point, David. I don't know and I don't know if anyone knows when these notes were actually jotted down. They may have been written later in November or even early December. You certainly are right that making enlargements and story boards (so to speak) was something that went on for some time. Do you know when Shaneyfelt numbered the frames? My guess is that this was done much later than that weekend but I don't know that. I believe Gary Murr has done the definitive work on this NPIC chapter of the case. He sent me some chapters of a larger work years ago and it was great. If anyone knows how to get in touch with Gary Murr, he knows more about this than most anybody.
Josiah Thompson
Josiah,
Thank you for the information on Gary Murr's study. I was able to find this posted by him regarding the date of Shaneyfelt's numbering :
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search
Kathy
tnx to Gary Murr... a step closer
-
This is great, Bill. One can see from these handwritten notes that the frames being looked at for possible shot impacts are approximately the frames that have always been picked in the present Z film. Hence, McMahon's claim (endlessly repeated by Fetzer) of 6 to 8 impacts is suspect. Ben Hunter's observation concerning no intra-sprocket-hole content means they were looking at the Z film copy sent to Washington on the night of the 22nd. The fact that they would pick out the same area of frames as subsequent investigators highlighted means that both NPIC and later investigators have been looking at the same film.
Josiah Thompson
Doug Horne April 1997 Memo:http://www.jfk-info.com/zat-1.htm
I think the part requested is A1-1D, but I included the entire thing, because it is a fascinating, informative read.
Kathy
Thanks Kathy,
Here's some notes from NPIC.
BK
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=7
slow down Dr. Thompson.... these NPIC guys according to Horne's interview looked at the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination, and the references to Z-frames on these notes are numbered, amazing! NOW, when did Shaneyfelt say he numbered the Z-frames? After all, he is the claimed author of numbering the frames.... It had to be the day after the assassination, at the very latest, right?
Now if Shaneyfelt didn't number them, who did that assassination weekend? The NPIC? Did they number the frames? Or, are the NPIC guys lying about when they worked on (extracting frames for blow-up, talking point boards) and analyzed the Zapruder film? If they lied, why? I also believe those NPIC guys stated in the Horne interview they, or one of the two determined there were at least 4 eprhaps 6 shots (maybe more).... fired, eh? But let's keep focused on the frame numbering issue, eh?
Amazing that Dr. Thompson now finds these notes so interesting, I think these notes were published (in their entirety) 5 or so years ago in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, in a article by contributing author Doug Horne and edited by none other than Dr. Jim Fetzer... someone correct me if I'm wrong, maybe it was Murder in Dealey Plaza or Assassination Science...
p.s. I also believe one of the two NPIC guys has/had a beef about not recognizing some of the handwriting in those very notes.... CYA or F-E-A-R?
-
I have a dumb question on this subject, just to get up to snuff?? How many copies of the Zapruder film were supposedly made, and who all did it change hands through before becoming public?
get up to snuff? Always heard that as 'getting up to par'
offically: 1 in-camera double 8mm original Kodak film AND 3 optical film prints of the alleged aforementioned Zapruder in-camera original double 8mm Kodak film. Printed a Jamison Film Dallas ALL processed at Kodak Dallas
reality: who knows how many prints, perhaps hundreds....
Simply, there is no chain of evidence document for the in-camera Zapruder film, for that matter the 3 optical prints of same... who knows who possessed or handled them
There's been books and hundreds of articles on the subject, some authors are on this board... Google is your friend
-
I love it, the only one around who says he can't prove a film is altered is me.... and all you pantywaist WCR supporting tarts start moaning and heading for the Lone Nut Heights, meaning Super Barb, Josiah, Mack the Craigster. FWIW, I think I do a fine job dragging some of you dufuses out of the woodwork for all to see. Especially the one that still sees ghosts growing in Dealey Plaza bushes... (even Gary gave up on that.....
) Now THAT friends and neighbors is yanking Lone Nutter C-H-A-I-N. As Wild Bill Miller knows quite well when he don's one of his alt.conspiracy.jfk aliases (of which he has 4 or 5) dontcha there laddie? 
LMAO, So Wild Bill ya can stop trying to impress the girls, we know how Craig has lambasted you on more than one occasion, and on more than one board about cameras, lenses AND film makeup... So sit quietly at the knee of the masters, we'll ring when ready for you! Carry on, hon!
So, master, whatcha got to say about Jack & Fetzer's latest "powerful proof" based on their claim that Zapruder and Sitzman are at varying heights
up on the pedestal? :-)
Hon, ask Wild Bill Miller, he be yo-leada AND self-acclaimed expert photo analyst... Jack White and Dr. Jim Fetzer have been batting you Lone Nut preservers of DP history -- protectors of the DP assassination photo record guys around, for years, why should I intrude or take away from their fun.
What I really think is this Barb: you'd get much more mileage getting to the bottom of the DP rain sensor mystery, perhaps Bill Miller can finally deal with a DP sidebar mystery he can handle.... I'll also tell ya, I withdrew his nomination for entry level production assistant at ADOBE (Photoshop) Software. The Chairman of the Board always a nice guy over these many years felt he could find a spot for the lad. Had to tell John, "forget the reccommendation, the lad bought a house and went over to the darkside, he now lives in Dallas, scared to fly." So much for public service!
-
Well David, Costella has just had his hat handed to him...shown to be the kook he really is. It appears that David only wanted to be sure that you remembered him as a kook, as well. You must admit that he is the man to go to for non-real world experience.
Now don't hold him up ... he needs to get that request to examine the said in-camera original film turned in so we can put to rest the alteration nonsense. You see, he tends to get easily distracted. This causes him to forget that he has said that he has not seen any proof of alteration, which by using his warped logic - it makes him a 4 star General for LNrs. (sigh~)
I love it, the only one around who says he can't prove a film is altered is me.... and all you pantywaist WCR supporting tarts start moaning and heading for the Lone Nut Heights, meaning Super Barb, Josiah, Mack the Craigster. FWIW, I think I do a fine job dragging some of you dufuses out of the woodwork for all to see. Especially the one that still sees ghosts growing in Dealey Plaza bushes... (even Gary gave up on that.....
) Now THAT friends and neighbors is yanking Lone Nutter C-H-A-I-N. As Wild Bill Miller knows quite well when he don's one of his alt.conspiracy.jfk aliases (of which he has 4 or 5) dontcha there laddie? LMAO, So Wild Bill ya can stop trying to impress the girls, we know how Craig has lambasted you on more than one occasion, and on more than one board about cameras, lenses AND film makeup... So sit quietly at the knee of the masters, we'll ring when ready for you! Carry on, hon!
-
Done! Multiple times on this forum.
Bang------------------------------------------------------Bang-------------------Bang
Z204/206-----------------------------------------------Z312/313--------------Z349/350
Tom, the Z-film reveals blood in Connally's armpit around Z-340, well before you think he was hit. In your theory, was this added to the film by the government?
if the Z-film was altered, you, I nor Tom Purvis has any idea what that particular frame number represents in the actual in-camera Z-film (if in fact it was Zapruder who shot it, for some, that's for another day). Anyone ever get a straight answer as to when the Z-film frames were numbered by the FBI super sleuth Shaneyfelt? And can prove it!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm
Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?
Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.
Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was----
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Almost let the cat out there Specter!
first time I've seen or heard anything about Connally seeing a film while he was still in the hospital. What film, the Zapruder film?
-
Yes, quite some interesting stuff there.
For instance the questioning of Ruth Paine, Eugene Boone, and Edwin Lopez particularly,- just to mention a few.
Yes Tryve, I also found the Tom Tilson testimony incredible, and funny at the same time.
Duncan MacRae
Is there a transcript where you can read what they say, or do you have to watch it?
BK
Von Pein, Bugliosi's USENET shill ask me to forward this bit of info to you, Bill (there's piece in the url for Duncan also)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...de936fa1?hl=en#
In short, there is no transcript effectively available of the entire mock trial, well over 1000 pages (how convenient). BTW, How do you try someone whose dead and can't testify? What am I missing?
-
Until Life got their hands on it, the original z film was likely never altered, except in being transformed into a viewable reel as all such films are and then through repeated back forward at different speeds and in stepping fatiguing it and fraying the sprocket holes,
Lifes' alterations are multifaceted. They must have used one or more of the copies to reconstruct the broken film. In the process who knows which copy/ies they used, or whose hands it had been through and even exactly how they reconstructed it. Hypothetically it could be, as we have it today : a portion, made up of segments from a number of copies, so I don't think there is a clear answer to your question with regards to that.
A viewing of the SS copy first sent to them from Dallas to Washington that evening may answer a lot of questions.
If Life had the original and one copy, then the other two copies and their offspring should not have the alterations, unless it can be shown that Life also had access to the SS copy and the one retained by Zapruder.
From what I understand, the SS had multible copies of their copy made, so there would have had to be an accounting of these as well.
Where did the Garrison copy come from and where did the Groden copy come from?
Thanks,
BK
fwiw, one way I heard it is that the FBI borrowed a 8mm dupe from the SS to have their own copies made.
Here's the problem:
One of the original dupes at NARA is in horrible shape all cut up, frames missing, sprocket holes stripped, etc at NARA, another the Jamison/Kodak control number is missing, well worn and out of reach, the third in the hands of the 6th Floor although it may be at NARA by now, who knows -- you've got no dupe film or access to match same frame-by-frame with the earliest known prints....
I think it was Doug Horne that did a complete inventory on these the 3 original Jamieson dupe/prints (a few years back). Doug also assisted the Zavada report. Perhaps someone has a url for the inventory, its out there somewhere, I've read it more than once.
-
...
Where did the copy that Groden got come from?
BK
...
LIFE requested Moe Weitzman (Groden's boss) owner of a NYC film lab to bump the alleged 8mm in-camera Zapruder film to 16mm. Somewhere along the line Moe felt he could get the 8mm Z-film direct to 35mm (no mean task for the day - but he did it, one frame at a time) with no interceding step at 16mm and THEN to 35mm.... LIFE wanted that. Groden came into his 35mm Zapruder film copy through Moe's lab where he, Groden worked as lab assistant (?). This info is public information on-the-record HSCA hearings, I believe Groden presence was requested and he gave testimony, and Moe Weitzman certainly gave testimony during the proceedings. As did David Lifton who by then also had a 35mm copy, which he got through I believe a Producer at a Public Televsion Station (?) station in New England (which he, Lifton donated to NARA, I believe).... The damn things were all over the place, in 35mm, 16mm, 8mm color AND b&w format even...
Frankly I don't believe for a second LIFE would of sent the alleged in-camera original anywhere for any purpose especially if they purchased and had in their posession a 1st generation dupe of the original (one of the three Jamison Lab prints control number #0185-6-7) the camera original #0183 (I'd really like to know what #0184 was used for)
I understand that LIFE dupe may be the print that was turned over to the 6th Floor a few years back..... who knows what the control number was for that film dupe...
-
wow, that 16th generation Z-film animation with brightness removed, contrast added and saturation over-driven explains a lot.... LMAO! Kinda like that photo analysis with the ghost in the bushes your famous for..... and that's Bill O'Rally of FIX news, btw.
Ahhh ... taking a break from preparing that request to examine the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film, David - good man! Its been over a year now ... you must have one detailed examination request for the NARA. How about a peek at what you've got done so far ... ???
Oh yes ... one more thing. The images were said to be from the 'NIX FILM' ... not the Zapruder film. Maybe you should learn the basics pertaining to the photographic record before trying to critique it.
Bill Miller
ya know Wild Bill, I almost got in there (NARA) with Harry Livingston and David Mantik they had a session with the alleged Zapruder film sometime back, but I couldn't make the date they had scheduled, perhaps I'll regret that someday, till then... oh well.
So, if I look real close at your current animation (sic) I think I see Zapruder on the pedestal and Sitzman wearing what again -- could you lighten it up a bit for us so we can make sure.....
-
Bill Kelly wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for your interest and response to all this.
Do all four versions, original and three copies contain all of the anomalies, or are they only in one or more of the copies?
dgh: I've heard it stated they do, but I've never seen a side by side frame comparison of all 4 films. I have seen (Zavada report) samples of frames depicting alleged bracketing when the copies were printed, that's it.****
I don't think they made three copies and Z kept the original, and then nobody watched them until the Warren Commission saw it many months later.
dgh: of course not, we have Roland Zavada stating at a SMPTE conference in 200 at NYC a buddy of his printed copies of the Z-film in their NYC plant I think for the FBI, copies of the film (in 8mm and 16mm) were all over the place...***
The Secret Service officials in DC certainly watched it as soon as they got it.
dgh: damn right and they made MORE copies...***
I don't know if Zapruder watched it or if he allowed anyone to watch his copy, but TT has told me that the difference between the original and the three copies is pretty evident.
dgh: probably the alleged bracketing, which I don't believe is the difference. According to Zapruder testimony he had no original or copy to watch after Saturday.... (note: his partner has disputed that, he thinks the final film Zapruder film left Dallas the following Tuesday or such...***
If alterations weren't made in the original before being copied, then the cat was out of the bag once the copies were out.
dgh: no time to make changes before the copies were printed...***
Life could altered their copy, and apparently did, but the other copies went in differnt directions, so the alterationests would have had to track them down and bring them all together in order to alter them, right?
dgh: great idea but when have you viewed one of the three prints struck from the original Z-film..... no one that I'm aware of can make that claim (not even Dr. Josiah Thompson). I'd be damn interested in knowing one who viewed one of the 3 original Zapruder films laced up on a projector and ran.... yeah, I'd be interested of knowing who, hell I'd be interested in hearing from one of those that sat in Zapruder office on Saturday morning and watched the damn film, too!***
If the original was altered then, we can narrow down the time and place at which it could have been altered, and that's before they made the copies, unless you can show that the copies were re-corralled someplace at a later date and altered together?
dgh: the intended audience for the Zapruder film was the Warren Commission, that's it! FINI! The film was not meant for public consumption. Conclusion: SINGLE assassin, PERIOD! No conspiracy. Me, I can show nothing... I haven't viewed any of the early dubs, I have no idea whats on them. I can say, you have 4 films that need to be under control... any film dupe made for whatever purpose would need to checked against either the alleged in-camera original or one of the three original prints. I personally have never heard of anyone doing that after ALL these years, even the 6th Floor Museum has not publicly announced they've undertaken that task. The organization I would expect to be the first folks to scream, "hey we got film dupes created within 60 days after the assassination, they all look the same to us when compared to the (hiccup) in-camera original or the original dupe we have here under our control." What I do find interesting though is, the only group I'm aware of that is collecting Z-films of every film gauge is the 6th Floor Museum, wonder why are they doing that? Early Spring cleaning perhaps?
***Maybe Zapruder was part of the plot? He was a White Russian who worked with DeMohrenschildt's wife, and had an office in the Dal-Tex building. Did his office overlook Dealey Plaza?
dgh: I know nothing other than Zapruder is/was the least investigated major person associated with this assassination... he came out of a black hole and went back to it, lied about what he made, then his estate collected 16million big ones from the US taxpayers...***
The way I look at it, if was altered, the original Zap film had to be altered while in Zapruder's hands, before it was copied.
dgh: nah.... you're buying Tink-Mack time line restraints... simply find out when Shaneyfelt numbered the Z-frames. I said it once, I'll say it again, for all we know the original in-camera Z-film is sitting at the bottom of a Texas landfill, who'd know? Who can dispute that? ***
If not, then when, where and who had access to the original and three copies at the same time in order to alter them?
dgh: start with LIFE and/or government agencies... LIFE makes more sense to me and NYC-and-Hollywood is to the left and the right, just down the street...***
Show me where I am wrong and I'll follow you to the alterationists, so we can arrest them for tampering with evidence.
dgh: hell, I'm not going to say your wrong.... I don't know if I'm right, what I do know? It's a foolish assumption to assume the Zapruder film could not be altered, that's FACT...***
I'm still waiting to hear from some more non-alterationists, on what the unaltered Zapruder film shows us if it is an accurate portrayal of the murder.
dgh: more? they've actually responded, someone who knows about film compositing? Not Miller? the guy who sees heads in bushes... please I can't take that seriously, You're gonna wait for a longtime, I've waited for 5+ years all I hear is noise... Take care, Bill Kelly***
Thanks,
Bill Kelly
-
methinks you should retire and take this endeavour up full-time. And a few of us do understand why J.Dolva is at extreme odds with John Costella Ph.D Physics...
and by the way: your sig on your website says "30 years of real world experience", have any un-world experience? Frankly, I find these blistering attacks on John Costella ludicrous, much ado about nothing... the GANG was soundly defeated in 2003-04, on the 3D front to boot (you do remember Dave Wimp and company regarding the PovRay fiasco?)
Unless you can come up with someone w/credentials from the professional film industry, who'll counter whats already out there concerning possible film alteration and the Zapruder film, your simply blowing smoke. Your website is nice, graphics fair, but completely irrelevant as to whether the Z-film is altered or not.... so get back on point, man.
If anyone is tired of this nonsense its me, you Lone Nutters have flounder all over the place and have achieved nothing. Wasting bandwidth while playing to your choir. B-O-R-I-N-G. Who cares about Elm St. poles, street signs, highway directions, yellow curb stripes, ghost in bushes..... man, circa. 1963-64 Hollyweird Special Effects is in town, best film compositors, glass painters and matte artists in the world. Anything goes champ..... You spent way to long in that still studio, the craft went flying by you.... And for the record, the 20 second Zapruder film isn't a 208 minute, King Vidor directed War and Peace! Piece of cake with the adequate time....
Say, when did FBI/SA Shaneyfelt number those Z-frames, again? Ya wanna debunk Z-film alteration, start there.
) Now THAT friends and neighbors is yanking Lone Nutter C-H-A-I-N. As Wild Bill Miller knows quite well when he don's one of his alt.conspiracy.jfk aliases (of which he has 4 or 5) dontcha there laddie? 
) Now THAT friends and neighbors is yanking Lone Nutter C-H-A-I-N. As Wild Bill Miller knows quite well when he don's one of his alt.conspiracy.jfk aliases (of which he has 4 or 5) dontcha there laddie?
Cemetery for Z-film alteration claims: A Beginning
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Is it correct the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm Street was taken a few day's AFTER JFK's assassination, then put back up a few day's later? A simple yes or no is fine, thanks.
and btw, the Lone Nut's along with the preservers of the current Dealey Plaza film-photo record might do themselves well if they could find a Physicist with a bent towards *optics* to comment concerning pedestal parallax issue(s).
There seems to be a real shortage of lettered Lone Nut experts commenting on these very important issues.... TGZFH was first realeased in 2003, Dr. Thompson inadvertently came across a copy of the manuscript 6 months before that, after 6 years and counting, we still see no Lone Nut effectual scientific commentary by anyone concerning lenses and/or overlays other than Craig Lamson a commercial still photog. Mr. Lamson has been commenting on lens aberration on cameras other than B&H414 Producers series 8mm camera (used by Zapruder) and Moorman's Polaroid.
I'm goiving your parallax post here a 1.5 shovel, that's shorthand for DOA!
The issues here are issues as to what was captured through the lens of Marry Moorman's Polaroid, Zapruder's/Nix 8mm film cameras