David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
8 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
The fact that he appeared before a House committee does not make his analyses correct, nor does his ad agency ownership, his interview with you 18 years ago or whether he's alive or dead. You appear to be asking for citations of White's work being debunked, so.. let's start with a 17-page thread on this very forum completely invalidating his claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked. Then let's move to Craig Lamson's demolition of White-endorsed theorizing about Zapruder film alteration. Shall I continue?
focus young'en this thread concerns the Zapruder Film, not researcher character assassination. Control yourself, if that is possible.
-
3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
We explain it by the fact that Jack White's analyses are wildly off-base and have been debunked time and again over the past 30 years. There's really nothing more to it than that. Not only did he make errors in terms of syncing multiple films and photos to a specific point during the assassination sequence, he made further observational errors about these so-called "completely different people" and their positions therein.
who is "we"...
and, cite(s) would do famously well here, otherwise one might assume you're just attacking another dead guy with years of photography experience. A dead guy that appeared in front go a House of Representatives Committee studying a whole bunch 1960's assassinations that happened before you were born...
He even owned an Advertising Agency in the Ft. Worth area of Texas, for years...
and, sat for an on-camera interview with me in 2003 in Duluth Minnesota...
geeeeez...
-
23 minutes ago, Calvin Ye said:
It is obvious that you don't read books
23 minutes ago, Calvin Ye said:It is obvious that you don't read books
Perhaps Tracy is laying that George Soros and all *dem* blue-blooded shyster trap here?
-
7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
I wrote:
David sort of replied:
Firstly, David will find out what the word 'your' really means here:
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling
Secondly, I'd guess David's reply means that he does agree with Paul that all the films and photos were faked. Again: three home movies and two still photographs, plus the Zapruder film, show that the car did not move over into the left-hand lane. How did the masterminds manage to fake them all, given that:
- the films and photos came to light at different times;
- they were distributed and became publicly available at different times;
- and some of them were publicly available within a very short time of the assassination?
How was it done? Please describe the process in detail, so that we can compare the plausibility of that process with the plausibility of the alternative: the witnesses who stated that the car moved left were mistaken.
I'm not using this example just because it makes Paul and David look like a pair of credulous [deleted]. Remember, it was Paul who brought up these particular witnesses' statements in the first place. He evidently thought they were irrefutable evidence of fakery. But a minute's critical thought shows that these witnesses must have been mistaken.
Firstly, David will find a good illustration of the accepted use of the apostrophe here:
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe
Secondly, the conspiracists did not have nigh on 60 years to perform their dastardly fakery. To take just one example, the Moorman photo was shown on TV less than three hours after the assassination. Copies were distributed among journalists soon after that, at which point they must have been out of the reach of any photo-fakers.
Any alteration must have been done within a few hours. The problematic part of the photo, the police motorcyclists in the left-hand lane, occupy a quarter of the image. How was that piece of fakery done in the time available? Please describe the process in detail. Then move on to the Altgens 7 photo and describe in detail how that one was altered in the time available.
My first reply to this question would be: no idea. I wasn't there. As I understand it, no-one's even sure whether Kodak or Jamieson did the job. Sources offer differing accounts. Richard Trask speculates that they may have shared the work. In any case, my second reply would be: so what?
Now, perhaps David will be brave enough to answer the question that Paul has avoided. How could the film-fakers have been sure that no photograph or home movie would come to light in the future, containing proof that the Zapruder film was a fake?
Listen up! If you have no conception or idea what the official results of the 1964 WCR, nor what Rollie Zavada's conclusions are, forget asking any questions regarding the Zapruder Film. Buy a few books, plenty of author's hereabouts.
To end our discussion, your gamin' it, Dude. I went round and round with the gang of eight for years. So, take your Lone Nut, LHO did it all by his lonesome game to those naive enough to play.
-
25 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
David's "Technical Aspects" was very informative as far as I got. Starting with page 24 there was a problem loading statement. So I didn't get to read his conclusions.
Aspects (originally created in 2000) conclusions are simple: there was the necessary equipment, manpower, know how-expertise and TIME available to alter individual frames and the entire alleged in-camera original Zapruder Film in 1963-64.
It was not created to determine what LHO diid or didn't do on 11/22/63... but, "was it feasible to alter an 8mm film in 1963-64 with the tool's available at the time?" My answer is: absolutely-yes.
-
9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
[...]
Does David Healy agree with Paul that the car pulled to the left? If so, how would he explain the fact that three other home movies and two photographs corroborate what the Zapruder film shows?
dgh: put them side by side and show us the folly. Your making a lot of noise but, alas, where's the BEEF***
Paul implied earlier that he thought all the films and photos were faked. Does David agree with Paul about this? If so, perhaps he could provide us with a credible explanation of how this huge task was achieved, and why we shouldn't just discard the witness evidence instead.
dgh: of course some photo's/film's are faked, the conspiracist's have had neigh on 60 years to "fake" photo's. All you need to do is deliver the in-camera original NIX film (whom Nix's daughter says the film has disappeared. The Zapruder in-camera original film, best of luck with that one... as Gary Mack told me years ago: "the Zapruder film will never, EVER see the inside of another courtroom."
Now what your assignment is, put together what DP 11/22/63 films/photos (which you won't be able to verify and/or authenticate (nor will you be able to show lineage), cite and prove what the films frame rate is (they're all over the net), you can find on the internet...
Then we'll chat about DP film/photo inconsistencies.***
This is crazy.
dgh: not nearly as crazy as the events of 11/22/63. Or, suggesting film/video compositing pro's what can or can NOT be done in an optical lfilm ab and/or 4K image editing/compositing suites.****
Quite apart from the practical problem of making one fake after another
dgh: and those are?
Here, it's Mother's Day and I'm real busy, explain one simple thing to me, clearly and without equivocation: what was KODAK-Dallas's true intent in using in-came film stock for the alleged 3 Zapruder film copies instead of *dupe* stock. Now we have 4 Zapruder films 3 of them can be construed (by the faint at heart as Zaprder in-camera film masters. And this is before all films/photos of the day found there way to broadcast facilities for airing or "printing" or, KODAK New York...***
and the fact that the film contains no inconsistencies with the other films and photos, how would the fakers have got around the problem of all the bootleg copies that were in circulation long before 1975? How would they explain away all the inevitable inconsistencies?
Related to the problem of inconsistencies between films, perhaps David could have a go at telling us how the conspirators could have ensured that no film or photograph would have come to light in the future, containing proof that the Zapruder film was a fake?
dgh: blah, blab, blab where's Bill Miller when I need a foil?
-
2 hours ago, John Butler said:
David,
This is from your work.
How difficult would it be to simply change the interior contents of the cab of the p. limo? Let's say with film from another film or from an earlier part of the Zapruder film (Zapruder Gap) on the motorcade route. How easy would that be to substitute and change what we see in the cab of the p. limo? Then, add a few touches such as the Hollywood black patch or the blow up of the head wound?
105+ witnesses said shooting occurred elsewhere, in front of the TSBD mostly. This would reposition the assassination from in front of the TSBD so that Lee Harvey Oswald could be blamed for a rear head shot from the TSBD where the event actually happened earlier. Change testimony or coerce witnesses and you have supportive data for the film.
*nothing* "is easy". Removing material such as brain matter, which in this case would all be on the background layer. Adding right side skull eruption, skull skin flap plus rear head wound cover would be the foreground layeris pretty simple stuff for the optical lab pro/matte painter.
Covering the rear head wound blowout would be very simple for Hollywood types, more contrast would be especially after Z-313.
These types of effects are not a Star Wars production...
Wholesale inside (unlike above) the limo changes would be very difficult and would not pass the smell test.
And, for debris removal, I suspect frames need NOT be removed.
-
45 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17YMObID2SD96awJejHuZiTi5VzbBOGac/view?usp=sharing
There is such a thing as drooping shoulders, but in this instance:
The Zapruder film animators literally outfitted SS agent John Ready with it and a “DOUBLE’” breasted suit.
Optical printer with aerial imaging?
David Healy, should I redirect folks to your excellent “Technical Aspects” document?
Enjoy!!!!!!!!!
lmao, hell Chris, even I can't find it these days... got-a-link?
And the simple fact Hollyweird is chock full of artist arteeeeeests....
😇
-
12 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
Paul has constructed a far-fetched and ridiculously complex structure out of essentially nothing but his imagination. How has he managed this?
It's because the methodology used by Paul, and by other 'everything is a fake' believers, is faulty:
- A small subset of the relevant witnesses reported something anomalous, so it must have happened!
- A poor-quality reproduction of an image contains anomalies, so the image must have been altered!
- A document mentions something anomalous, so it must be accurate!But people are fallible. They can make mistakes when filling in forms and other documents. Witnesses can make mistakes when recalling anything, let alone brief, unexpected and traumatic events such as seeing the president get shot. Witnesses to anything are even more likely to make mistakes when the events they are recalling took place years earlier. Images too are fallible, simply due to the laws of physics. Reproductions of the analogue films and photos taken in 1963 will very often generate anomalous artefacts that weren't there in the original.
Anomalies are worth spotting, because they can in theory lead to a reappraisal of the evidence. But almost always they don't. They are just mistakes: in images, written documents, and recollections. When you find an anomaly, you need to do the rational thing: see if you can come up with a common-sense, everyday explanation for that anomaly. Close to one hundred percent of the time, you will find that a simple, credible explanation exists. When you find one, use it.
Paul's enormous conspiracy relies on anomalies. A handful of people claimed to have seen something vaguely like the Zapruder film on TV in the first few days after the assassination! Wow! Someone in the CIA recalled something several decades after the event! Amazing!
And this guy was corroborated by a colleague! Incredible! And the colleague admitted that he was suffering from dementia! That makes him even more believable! Some people claimed they saw the car moving into the left-hand lane! That means it must have happened!
There are so many anomalies! Surely they can't all be worthless? Yes, they can, easily. No matter how many anomalous witnesses (or anomalous blobs in a photo) you have assembled, it's very likely that your alternative explanation, when it has been worked out in detail, will still be less plausible than any common-sense explanations for those anomalies.
The working-it-out-in-detail part is where things falls down. It's easy to state that such-and-such a film or photo was faked. It's not so easy to provide a plausible, detailed explanation of how it was done.
Paul's ginormous conspiracy requires the Zapruder film to have been faked. How was that done? The Bad Guys didn't just snap their fingers. Please describe the process in detail.
If the Zapruder film has been faked, all the films and photos that agree with it must also have been faked, as I pointed out earlier. How was that done? The Bad Guys didn't just snap their fingers. Please describe the process in detail.
One complicating factor is that the photographs and home movies that corroborate the Zapruder film came into existence at different times, and were made public at different times.
The Moorman photo, for example, was a Polaroid, and emerged as a finished picture approximately 50 seconds after the shutter button was pressed. It was seen by other people within minutes of the assassination. It was shown on NBC-TV at around 3.15pm. Copies were made within hours, and were in the possession of journalists. It appeared in a large number of newspapers the following day. In the photo, the police motorcyclists whose presence to the left of the car is a fake, according to Paul, occupy roughly a quarter of the image. How was that piece of fakery done in the time available? Please describe the process in detail.
The Altgens 7 photo, which completely contradicts Paul's claim that the presidential car moved to the left at the time of the fatal shot, was the next one to come to light. The negative was processed less than half an hour after the assassination. How was that faked, and made to match the already existing Moorman photo, in the time available? Please describe the process in detail.
The Muchmore film, which also shows the car clearly in the middle lane and not the left-hand lane, was in Muchmore's camera until the following Monday, when it was sold before being processed. It was shown on TV the next day. How was that faked, and made to match the already existing Moorman and Altgens photos, in the time available? Please describe the process in detail.
And so on, through all the photos and films. Each photo and film, as it came to light, would need to be matched not only to each corresponding element of the Zapruder film but also to each existing photo and film.
Paul: if you want to make your theory credible, please describe the process in detail, for each photo and film, and for each matching element. How long did it take to work out precisely what needed to be altered in each image? How, exactly, were the alterations made in each image? How long did it take, and how many people were required, to make the alterations in each image?
You'll find that the common-sense explanations for those supposed anomalies will be infinitely more credible than the detailed descriptions you come up with.
Then there's the complication of how to deal with other images, not yet discovered. Finally, we arrive back at the question Paul (and other 'everything is a fake' believers) don't seem to have an answer for. How could the film-faking conspirators be sure that a home movie or photograph, containing proof that the Zapruder film was faked, would not come to light in the future?
The film-faking conspiracy Paul has described simply could not have happened.
with all your spare time I'm sure you can provide us a verified, in-camera original film/photo for any *suspect* image-film you feel like challenging and it might be nice to show us the correct image, eh?
Oh, and explain why film/photo effects can't be applied to the photo and, if they were applied, why are they wrong or misleading.
Once you've done the above then actual film-photo analysts here and about can verify any alleged time lines. Thanks!
by my reckoning, the alteration folks probably had until late Feb '64 to complete changes to the Z-film. That's the date I believe Shaneyfelt formerly previewed the Z-film (in motion) to the entire, seated WC.
Paul's suggestion that multiple alteration(s) more than likely occurred is correct, it's indeed possible changes may have occurred up to 1975 (and even later).
So again, get yourself formal verification and authentication, certification of any, any film/photo related to Dealey Plaza 11/22/1964. Match it up to a "disputed" image/film that's out in public or your imagination.
Then, Litwin (sp.) and you can pound the drum--till then, enjoy getting out without a mask, safely of course...
-
9 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:
While Jeremy Bojczuk breaks in his all-new, O J Groden-approved footwear, it is time for the rest of us to take one small step for research, one giant leap out of group-think.
In 1964, the task of the Warren Commission lawyers was to support the revised Z fake, first, by excluding those whose recall was deemed too dangerous and/or those whose profession and proximity (motorcycle outriders) conferred added, and decidedly unwelcome, authority to their observations; and then by browbeating the carefully willowed few in an attempt to make their testimony either conform, or merely pose no threat, to the fraudulent film. Subsequent defenders of the Z fake laboured under no such encumbrance, and the message could therefore be delivered much more simply: human memory fallible, film inerrant. But is this true? Is there a germane example that can be tested to see if this proposition is as reliable as it sounds, if only to some? There is.
Consider the periodic recrudescence of claims, many following the alleged debut* of the Z fake on Geraldo Rivera’s ABC-TV’s late-night “Good Night America” on 6 March 1975, that the film was first shown in the days following JFK’s assassination. To venture in to print, online or in hard copy, with such a supposedly defective memory was to suffer, post-1975, the condescension of an outraged orthodoxy. The latter held that this was impossible: the Z film rights had been bought by Time-Life on Monday, 25 November 1963, and the film thereafter suppressed, supposedly on the grounds of taste. A film of the assassination had been shown within that rough timeframe, though, but it was Marie Muchmore’s, not Zapruder’s.
What general impression did this film leave and how did it impact upon viewers? The best description of both was provided by Rick Friedman, in a piece for Editor & Publisher, which likely went to print on 26 or 27 November, for an edition dated 30 November 1963. According to Friedman, many viewers considered the assassination sequence they had just viewed as “too gruesome,” and had responded accordingly, with “at least one television station… besieged with protests after it had shown scenes of the President’s motorcade at the moment of the shooting.”
For comparison purposes, here are the only two known contenders for the identity of that film. I have labelled them in accordance with current orthodoxy:
Very obviously, the two are labelled the wrong way round. The Zapruder film is gruesome, the Muchmore not.
In 2007, a New York-based contributor to an online forum discussion recalled seeing, just before or after JFK’s funeral, a film of the assassination playing “over and over.” She was right, as a 26 November 1963 article, describing the first showing in the country of the film on WNEW-TV (at the unearthly time of 0046hrs), confirmed: “The film was shown in slow motion and also stopped at key points in the assassination. The scene was shown four times at different speeds and under different magnifications.” Strike 2 for human memory.
On the same day, Tuesday, 26 November, the Milwaukee Journal named the film as Zapruder’s, adding this piece of confirmatory detail: “Mrs. Kennedy then jumps up and crawls across the back deck of the limousine, apparently seeking the aid of a secret service man who has been trotting behind the slowly moving vehicle. He jumps onto the car and shoves Mrs. Kennedy back into the seat. Then he orders the driver to speed to the hospital where the president died.” The film attributed to Muchmore, even the pre-splice black and white version, has never extended this far (though perhaps we ought to give the CIA a bit more time).
One man in no doubt that Zapruder’s film (version 1) had been shown on US television – certainly by Metromedia’s stations, including the aforementioned WNEW & Los Angeles’ KTLA – was none other than Mark Lane. In the course of penning his lawyer’s brief for Oswald, printed in December 1963 by the National Guardian, but commenced on Tuesday, 26 November – he observed that a “motion picture taken of the President just before, during, and after the shooting, and demonstrated on television showed that the President was looking directly ahead when the first shot, which entered his throat was fired. A series of still pictures taken from the motion picture and published in Life magazine on Nov. 29 show exactly the same situation.”
The orthodox history the Zapruder film is bunk. And it is time for Jeremy to pass me an enormous slice of mooncake.
*At least two non-national TV showings preceded the television “debut”: at 5pm news feature on 14 February 1969, by KTLA-TV in Los Angeles; and in the late hours by WSNS-TV, Ch 44, Chicago, in 1970. The film was given to director Howie Samuelsohn by Penn Jones and later aired in syndication to Philadelphia, Detroit, Kansas City and St. Louis
thank you -- very nice, Paul...
-
2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
It is the responsibility of those who INSIST every element of the Dealey Plaza photo record has been altered to show HOW this was done, not the other way around. You are the ones alleging widespread, almost incomprehensible levels of evidence tampering and forgery. Yet you want people who question it to prove the reverse? As long as the "everything was altered" camp continues to rely on the dubious and widely discredited amateur analysis of people like Jack White, James Fetzer, Ralph Cinque and John Butler, they will never be taken seriously. And that is a disservice to serious JFK case researchers who needn't waste their time with "Billy Lovelady facemasks" and multiple Marguerite Oswalds.
dude, it's up to YOU to disprove this below, so bring your lunch.
and the above was posted originally in 2012, where ya been, Dude?
And frankly, what makes you *credible* telling anyone it's their responsibility" to do anything? Specifically regarding anything film alteration? Just curious....
-
On 5/2/2021 at 12:53 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
John Butler writes:
Oh dear. To be charitable to Mr Butler, he has at least grasped the point that if you're going to alter one photograph or home movie, there's a good chance you will have to alter another, in order to remove inconsistencies between the two. Then you may have to alter a third, and so on.
Here's a question that Mr Butler needs to answer but probably hasn't given any thought to:
How were all of these alterations made? In other words, how was it physically possible to alter "all or nearly all of the media record", given that the films and photographs were widely dispersed and many of them only came to light some time after the assassination?
Cute, here's is your dilemma (and lone nuts) and what you need to answer and show: please produce alleged, 11/22/63 DPlaza, in-camera film originals of JFK motorcade so comparison(s) between films can be made. Simple chore, right?
Let me get you started in this endeavor: The Nix Film *origina*l has disappeared, gone, poof... The *alleged* Z-film under tutelage and control of the Dallas, Tx., 6th Floor Mausoleum... there, your on your way... get back as soon as possible with your results...
-
22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
Lansdale later made a famous quote about all this. It went something like: people should not complain about a lack of democracy when I was sent to create a fascist state.
there's an eye opener for a Monday morning...
-
3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:
It would have brought suspicion by doing so, the public critics would have expected it to be the Rosetta stone of evidence to make their case.
With no internet access for the public to understand the nascent video techniques of the early 1960’s, they’d have been reliant on the odd book or Hollywood expert. If you were an expert back then, you may have been useful to the security apparatus, as being able to deceive what human eyes see would be a real asset to the Pentagon etc. If you were an editor of motion pictures back then, would you have come out and screamed fakery when the Z film was finally shown? Or might it have been less injurious to stay quiet about your suspicions? If you add the power of media in the 60’s and 70’s and the public naivety of what could and couldn’t be done in video editing. Plus you have this shaken up old man called Zapruder who hadn’t come out and said he saw something different with his own eyes vs the video, the Dulles/Angleton manipulation of the public would have been child's play. We forget, with no YouTube, how many of us would have watched it hundreds of times looking for glitches or signs of manipulation, most people might have caught a quick clip on TV or stills in a newspaper or magazine (the prominent media of the time).
By the time experts here were able to point out multiple possible manipulations, Dulles and Angleton were dead and it was too long after the event to do anything about it. They probably were cognisant that the WC report would crumble in time with enough analysis, as long as they were long gone it would be no problem, as it wouldn’t be in government interests to overturn it, like it still isn’t today.
Just my thoughts anyway.
Chris
some found Doug's Horne's book interesting (5 book series in the release)... he goes into the Zapruder Film alteration issues thoroughly...
-
Once the first 8mm, 16mm & 35mm (bump) of the in-camera Z-film original are created, there is no need to keep the original around, as I said years ago its probably at the bottom of a landfill somewhere. Was discovery of the Z-film a problem? Maybe... Problems are turned into assets all the time. Just like people...
Authentication and verification of the alleged in-camera original Z-film (at NARA) has never been attempted to the best of my knowledge. Why?
-
On 4/28/2021 at 8:54 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:
This "scholarly" forum should be able to easily refute Hank's assertions. Instead, they want to chase him off. Or perhaps they are brewing up a scheme to try and get rid of him like they did Von Pein. Why not just debate him? A debate is more informative than and echo chamber.
it did, about 6 months after it got underway... we obliterated and certainly created LHO doubt re the 1964 WCR results. Couple that with Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, even Fetzer's post Zap film Hoax contributions, now better informed JFK assassination related web sites such as K&K, JFK Facts, Black Op radio, etc. The current demise of AAJ and .John, the only thing left is whining on Nutter's part... louder and more dramatic the better... Time to retire Tracy?
-
3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
This "scholarly" forum should be able to easily refute Hank's assertions. Instead, they want to chase him off. Or perhaps they are brewing up a scheme to try and get rid of him like they did Von Pein. Why not just debate him? A debate is more informative than and echo chamber.
why?
-
16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:
First: It's Sienzant.
Second: I am citing - repeatedly - the testimony and the supporting evidence and then, only in response to claims brought up by others. What falsehoods do you think I posted? Please, by all means, enlighten me. Just claiming I am posting falsehoods is inadequate.
So can you name three errors on my part that you can support with evidence?
Now, I am not looking for your opinion - or the opinion of some other critic - but the facts. That is, things you can confidently assert and back up with actual evidence. Not opinion. Not argument. Evidence. Got any?
All the best,
Hank
The 1964 WCReport is opinion, Hank Sienzant (alias I suspect).
Still smarting from the spanking Ben Holmes administered on ACJ? tsk-tsk.
-
21 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
I think that was the mother of all Gish gallops.
well, the link would of been fine... however, you weren't there so of course, it's Gish-gallop.
And of course, you weren't asked to look into or investigate anything concerning the Kennedy assassination... Bruised ego ring a bell, maybe?
-
33 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
I will once again beat a dead horse here and point out the clear flaw in this argument. How could the plotters ensure other conflicting films and photographs of the assassination wouldn't surface in the future and thus expose the altered Zapruder film as an obvious forgery? The answer is that they couldn't ensure any such thing, which is why, John Butler's dubious photo analysis notwithstanding, the photographic record of the assassination is a self-authenticating whole.
lone nut jibberish and word salad...
-
On 4/22/2021 at 8:45 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:
there will never, EVER be a "Final Word" concerning anything JFK... Neither side of the brouhaha would stand for that... Too many attention seekers (not to mention amateur sleuth's and writers who have all the answers) out there... Who are you trying to kid?
My FINAL....
-
17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
There is another conversation going on about the Thompson book by Mark Tyler.
I wonder, does he agree with both the book and Mili Cranor that there was a shot past 313?
I think that evidence is pretty good. And today, that is agreed to by Groden and Mantik as well as Cranor.
Secondly, I think Mark is convinced by the Dave Wimp presentation also about the blur illusion.
there isn't one film anomaly in the extent Zapruder film (currently at NARA) that can not be created if post film production, PERIOD! That includes blur and film "shakiness"... Also, I suspect Dr. David Mantik can affirm Dr. John Costella's (both with Ph.D's. in Physics) presentation on the Zapruder Film, way back in 2003 at Duluth, Minn. I was at that presentation.
Dave Wimp is not an unknown entity in Z-film alteration, nor is Gary Mack, Thompson and the remaining Gang of 8 we became so fond of at that 2003-2004 time...
see: https://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/blur.html
and then there's this: https://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/healy.html.
My contribution to possible Zapruder film alteration and Wimp/Durnovich assault, And I haven't heard from Wimp since... the Zapruder film presentation is still available on YouTube, been there since 2004. Costello, Fetzer, White, Mantik, Lifton and myself segments included...
-
15 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
You have missed the point. I don't HAVE to convince anyone of anything. I can go home right now and Wikipedia will still say what it does. You guys really should read Uscinski's book. The "Epistemological authorities" (as he calls them) like Wikipedia are who you need to convince, not each other which is all you are doing here.
lmao.... Dude Wikipedia is like dust on my doorstep (don't track it in the house)... Now, Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, that's another story.
As I said: lone nut's can't close the WCR conclusions deal. It's simply impossible to sanctify lies...
-
2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Why is it a howler? are you disputing, for example, that Wikipedia says this? Let's take a look:
Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was a former U.S. Marine who assassinated United States president John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
The majority of the media, historians, academia, scientists etc. say this. Even the HSCA, who theorists never tire of quoting regarding their "finding" of conspiracy, believed this.
So, you folks need to find something big that will get them to change their minds. That is my point. Or you can stay here in your sandbox and assure each other that you have solved the case and everyone would know this if it wasn't for the worldwide media conspiracy that covers it up. If you really cared, you would be doing something to change the verdict of history with the people that matter which should be very easy to do with all the "overwhelming" evidence you have.
ya been on this nutter gig for around 30 years now, that I know of. Ya could drop this comment of yours right into the middle of R.DellaRosa's JFKAssassination Research forum 25 years ago and there's not one bit of advancement/change of the Nutter/Warren fantasy you visualize today... Ya "debate" (and I use that term loosely) case evidence and you simply can't support Warren Commission conclusions with critic's PROOF, therefore, there is NO debate about 1964 case evidence...
Talk of someone's sandbox, lmao. Dude, you haven't emptied the first post 1964 pail of critic's provided evidence yet and that, is illuminating.
Say a rosary for .John, they'll be another research college savior wagon you can attach to soon.
Present your LHO did it all by his lonesome case. If you have one. There is still an abundance humor on the critic's side of the case for CONSPIRACY.
Attrition will not denied.
Lone Nut's can't close the WCR deal, simply incapable of doing so...
Have a nice Sunday.
What prevented Dulles & Angleton from destroying the Zapruder film?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
lmfao! show us your film example(s) son, show us the in-camera originals you studied son, you're a newbie here son - what are your credentials to even discuss assassination photos/film... who are you to demand anything, justify anything to you? Who are you Jeremy? Why the Kennedy assassination, Jeremy?
You do understand Zapruder film alteration is a distraction don't ya, Jeremy?
Ya do know a *conspiracy* murdered JFK, right, Jeremy?
What I love about 1964 died-I-the-wool WCR believers, they post by the pound especially when a sentence or a simple paragraph will do. Elitism and arrogance can't escape it... punctuation and spelling too... lol.
Have a nice day Jeremy, or whomever...
Character attacks on Jack White have no place here...