David G. Healy

David,

The fact that LHO had in his possessions a Minox camera and the fact that the official record has later been altered to indicate he did NOT have one in his possession, should indicate to all researchers that this is indeed a key point in understanding who LHO was. Further, the official investigation must have had a pre-determined outcome, which did not include LHO's Minox camera.

This ranks right up there with the Odio incident and other key evidence disregarded by the Warren commission, all of which would have pointed the investigation towards a conspiracy - which of course was not part of the pre-determined single assassin conlcusion.

indeed it does, Antti..... thanks for the response.

That's been done. Until I'm told otherwise, my call on the matter will stand.

I agree. To sue someone over copyright infringement you have to show that it has denied the author of income from the work.

The forum is not clear on this.... You agree with/on WHAT, John? What exactly was Evan's call? And most importantly, who discussed suing anyone?

Praytell, how can one sue Miller for being a less than competent, unpublished JFK assassination photo researcher?

"That's been done. Until I'm told otherwise, my call on the matter will stand."

ahh, WHAT call is that, Evan?

David ... did you get Evan's permission to quote him on this forum ... LOL!!!!!!!!! Have you stopped and noticed just how stupid your complaint was concerning quoting someone as a copyright infringement ... simply ridiculous.

Bill Miller

son, you removed the nonsense from you sig block -- I suspect you got the message..... also, I was speaking to Evan not you son.... your ego no bounds.

Are the "Dangerous Curve Stripes" on the curb of Commerce St. in Dealey Plaza?

Don

I do not know the answer to that question, Don. One would need to contact the City of Dallas Streets Department. I can tell you that when I contacted Gary Mack to see if he could verify what the 40 year veteran cab driver had told me .. Gary said that a researcher for the Museum had found an old photo(s) of the plaza and the yellow curb stripe(s) were present. The photos pre-dated JFK's election, thus can we assume they were not painted on the curb with JFK's assassination in mind.

It might also be worth noting that the library there in Dallas has lots of city photos covering the history of the town. Signs of yellow curb stripes should be found in their collection, but of course that doesn't mean that you can't merely declare them all altered. (sigh~)

amazing, 6th Floor researchers "find" this material but no one delivers! Could it be the photos are now under the purview of the 6th floor Museum therefore off-limits? You and Gary share an office these day's?

dgh: thanks for your opinion Evan. Just take it up the ladder to where it counts, eh?

That's been done. Until I'm told otherwise, my call on the matter will stand.

ahh, WHAT call is that, Evan?

Has anyone (expert or otherwise) been able to broadly recreate Zapruders film footage for field of view, centred areas, illusion of uphill etc. using the B/H camera? If so could anyone supply a link to view or download.

I am not sure that anyone with Vertigo has attempted this. I will say that if you look at the Nix film and stabilize Zapruder ... you will probably see what I did and that was his movements which correlate to movements seen in the Zapruder film.

And if one will rotate their camera counter clockwise slightly so that the actual photographed image of the lamppost is leaning like the 'Leaning Tower of Pisa', then they too can make their image look like the street is running uphill.

Please cite all references in the WCR as to Zapruder suffering from "vertigo"... thanks

For the record: Utilizing 1963 optical film printing equipment, a technician can simply otate a film around the z* axis and *making the image look like the street is running uphill, gradually from x-frame to x-frame*. Quite simple, in fact.

It's no secret Zapruder film researchers would like to see **other** footage shot by Mr. Zapruder, especially film footage shot through the B&H414... (there seems to be no such footage, anywhere can you imagine that?) Are you aware of, or know where Mr. Zapruders other family films might be located...

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #23

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend

the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two

semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

*reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************

Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's

only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message

threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply

deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or

simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill

files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk

**********************************************************************

I've decided to repost this one - since no-one has even tried to answer it. If

those who believe the Warren Commission Report want to defend it - they *MUST*

answer these questions... running away from them, or claiming that they are

"dead on arrival" or have "already been answered" simply won't do the trick.

If there are any honest LNT'ers out there - I won't hold you to trying to

justify McAdams lies about this - just answer the first question below.

23. "I spoke to Gus Rose concerning the camera. He told me that he did find the

small camera. He told me that 'the FBI came back three times trying to convince

me and Captain Fritz that what I had found was a light meter. Captain Fritz

told them on the third visit not to come to him again about the camera.' Fritz

stood behind his man and today is vindicated through Rusty's photograph." -

First Day Evidence, pg 212

"The agent-in-charge of the Dallas FBI office during the assassination

investigation was J. Gordon Shanklin. He claimed that he could not recall the

camera incident. However, an inventory list was made in his Dallas FBI office

on November 26th, 1963, of the evidence obtained from the Dallas police. It

listed "one Minox camera" under item number 375, which was witnessed by De

Brueys himself as well as Dallas Police Captain J. M. English of the Property

Bureau.

However, upon arrival in Washington, a SECOND inventory list was made by De

Brueys and another agent, Vince Drain. Item number 375 at that point became a

'Minox light meter.' Still included among the evidence were two rolls of

'apparently exposed' and two rolls of undeveloped Minox film, supporting the

fact that there must have been a camera to take the photographs." First Day

Evidence, pg 214

Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned

by LHO? Why did he own one? This was not an inexpensive camera... and it

seems cruel to mention that these were favored by intelligence operatives

because of their small size.

LNT'ers will almost certainly fall back on "simple denial" for this question,

should they be brave enough to attempt it. They may attempt to argue that the

Minox camera found in November actually belonged to Michael Paine, who at the

behest of the FBI went into his garage in Jan '64 and "found" a Minox camera -

although this raw anachronism won't affect LNT'ers...

Any LNT'er honest enough to admit that Oswald owned a Minox, and that the FBI

went to extraordinary efforts to hide that fact?

eof

'Evan Burton' wrote on 'May 6 2008, 10:00 AM'

No, I am not David - but thanks for asking.

dgh: well good for you...***

As I said, I'm not sure but to me this appears to be a case of "fair use" for the purposes of criticism. It's attributed, only a small portion used, the poster (Bill) has not attempted to claim it as his own work, it's not being used for commercial purposes, etc. I'll let John and Andy know, and they can see if they disagree.

dgh: thanks for your opinion Evan. Just take it up the ladder to where it counts, eh?

..... my goodness look at all the lurkers..... ***

Bill,

Likewise could you please remove David's quote for the moment? I don't see anything wrong with using it.... but whilst we are checking it would be prudent to remove it.

Thank you.

now I read elsewhere (in this thread) you weren't SURE -- you in Miller's pocket, son?

'Evan Burton' date='May 6 2008, 08:26 AM' post='144519'

David, is the material something you said in a post? if so, then to the best of my knowledge that is public domain.

dgh: I quote myself in posts, and give myself permission to use my material where and whenever (Miller wants to use my material, he can request permission through his staff)...NOTE the following:

a] Technical Aspects of Zapruder Film Alteration (original article) copyright 1999-2008 David Healy

b] On-camera/videotape/DVD... Segment 3: Technical Aspects of Z-film Alteration by David G. Healy Time: 1hour-40 minutes 2003 Zapruder Film Symposium Unv. of Minn -- copyright 2003-2008

for reference re series DVD's the 2003 Symposium series DVD cover

http://www.assassinationscience.com/UMinn_sym%20cover.jpg

I find it offensive and out-of-line [on a education forum no less], others may think Bill Miller authored a quote THEN attributed to me... thank you DHealy ***

If it was an image or something, we'll have a close look at it but unless it had your copyright symbol attached - and preferably a statement saying that it was not to be reproduced or used outside the forum without your express permission - then I don't think there is a lot we can do.

I'd have to check with John and Andy, but I think if you post an image in the forum, then it can be used within the forum if it is a quote, regardless of a copyright mark.

dgh: please do, thanks....

I have to stress I am unsure about what can and cannot be reproduced regarding images; that is my best estimate right now.

In the meantime, could you please remove the accusation in your signature line until we clarify the matter?

dgh: its removed....***

Thank you.

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #22

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend

the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two

semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

*reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************

Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's

only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message

threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply

deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or

simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill

files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk

**********************************************************************

I've decided to repost this one - since no-one has even tried to answer it. If

those who believe the Warren Commission Report want to defend it - they *MUST*

answer these questions... running away from them, or claiming that they are

"dead on arrival" or have "already been answered" simply won't do the trick.

If there are any honest LNT'ers out there - I won't hold you to trying to

justify McAdams lies about this - just answer the first question below.

22. Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case?

CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.

The shells at the Tippet scene, for another. Why were autopsy technicians

forbidden from doing ordinary marking for X-ray identification?

"Secrecy, deception, dissembling, and suppression characterized the official

investigations, not to mention careless haphazard handling of evidence. The

failure of the authorities to seal off the scene of the crime, to photograph

vital evidence in place, to provide an unbroken chain of possession of the

evidence, and their ability to 'lose' or 'misplace' such crucial evidence as the

president's brain and the Harper fragment, necessarily leave numerous questions

unanswered. It should be emphasized that the assassination was a crime under

Texas state law. To ensure the accuracy of the above remarks, I discussed the

evidence at length with two acknowledged authorities on both Texas and United

States law, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas and former Watergate

special prosecutor and assistant Texas attorney general Leon Jaworski. After

reviewing the evidence and its handling by the authorities, both Fortas and

Jaworski unhesitatingly declared that "VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE EVIDENCE

GATHERED BY THE AUTHORITIES WOULD EVENTUALLY HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED

BECAUSE OF THE SHAMEFULLY INCOMPETENT AND SINISTER MANNER IN WHICH

IT WAS HANDLED."

- The JFK Assassination Debates by Michael Kurtz, pg 49-50, emphasis mine.

Can any LNT'ers defend the official actions of the DPD, FBI, and Secret Service

in this case?

eof

BM apparently has not studied Bowers' testimony as he has overlooked critical Bowers' evidence, which BM has not mentioned in 20 years of research. Hence the cryptrozoological interpolations.

If something is not there, such as Big Foot, then how can Bowers ID such? [/color]

Looks like you are trolling again, Miles. you are now talking about custodians when Duncan has said several times that his alleged guy is a man disguised as a cop. If you want to help Duncan, then I suggest that you don't align yourself with him ... you know - guilt by association.

Bill Miller

speaking of guilt....

Miller knows nothing about newspaper deadlines in 1963. On a fast-breaking story like the assassination,

the front page could literally be changed within an hour, including text, photoengraving, matting, stereotyping,

changing plates for one page...with an EXTRA edition on the streets within an hour.

Jack

Jack, I learned what I did by talking to those who worked in media and have a rich history and expertise in the media coverage of the assassination. Can you cite a source for the things you just said or was it just another one of your ill-informed assumptions like the one that you had about the yellow curb stripping in Dallas and where to research them.

Bill

You are talking to someone who once worked in a newspaper newsroom, spent lots of

time in newspaper composing rooms, and for more than 40 years worked in advertising

dealing with newspapers. One of our clients for many years was the Fort Worth Star-

Telegram. What is YOUR experience working with newspapers?

Jack

he got ink on his hands once?

Where's Miller's biography by-the-way

[...]

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

I don't recall you requesting permission to use my material. Cease and desist

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #21

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend

the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two

semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

*reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************

Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's

only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message

threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply

deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or

simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill

files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk

**********************************************************************

I've decided to repost this one - since no-one has even tried to answer it. If

those who believe the Warren Commission Report want to defend it - they *MUST*

answer these questions... running away from them, or claiming that they are

"dead on arrival" or have "already been answered" simply won't do the trick.

If there are any honest LNT'ers out there - I won't hold you to trying to

justify McAdams lies about this - just answer the first question below.

21. Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD?

Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed

Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid

reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you

provide it?

eof

note: > = Tom P

>Being frequently "alone" as well as often referred to as also being

>"nuts", here goes:

>1. Dr. Humes was not "forbidden" from dissecting the back/to/ neck

>wound!

That's what Finck testified to. And it's simply historical fact that the most

obvious procedure of all - the dissection of the track of the bullet through the

body was *NEVER* performed.

This falls under the rubric of "simple denial"

>2. The back wound was probed with the little finger. The ending

>point could be felt, and the bullet passageway terminated at a shallow

>depth into the back.

This is a restatement of known history, and not an explanation of why the wound

was not dissected, nor the trachea pulled out and examined.

>3. After opening of the chest and removal of the lungs, a metal probe

>was inserted into the back wound

>and the point/tip of this probe could be observed inside the chest

>cavity, pushing against the parietal pluera in the exact position at

>which there was also bruising of this membrane.

Ditto... same response as above.

It's interesting to note that the very photograph that would corroborate or

contradict this is missing.

And I consider that a photograph supporting the SBT would have a very slim

chance of being "lost"...

>4. The bruised area of the parietal pluera in which the metal probe

>could be observed pushing, correlated exactly with a bruised area at

>the apex of the right lung. However, the bullet penetration did not

>violate the membrane.

We are *still* discussing historical fact, and not explaining why the dissection

never occurred, and why they were ordered *NOT* to dissect the track of the

bullet.

>5. The determined conclusion then, as well as at termination of the

>autopsy, was that the bullet hand gone into the back only a short

>distance, lodged, and thereafter fell out of the back due to the

>resuscative efforts made on JFK at Parkland Hospital.

I should just copy/paste my commentary... none of this explains why they were

forbidden from dissecting the track of the wound, as Finck testified under oath.

(and quite reluctantly.)

>6. Since the bullet track, (as found) terminated in the tissue of the

>back, there was nothing to actually "dissect".

Again, "simple denial." The answers appear to be coming from a believer in

conspiracy, yet he/she ignores the testimony of one of the three prosectors, and

ignores the actual facts - the *FACT* that there was no dissection where it

seems most obvious.

The 'chest incisions' didn't even enter the chest, so they *MUST* have been of a

length even *shorter* than the back wound, yet *THEY* were dissected... so this

argument that there was "nothing to actually dissect" is a rather dishonest

handling of the known facts.

>7. However! This did not prevent the autopsy surgeons from taking a

>sample of the skin at the point of entrance, as well as a sample of

>tissue from the "bottom" area of the wound which they observed.

>These tissues were prepared into microscopic slide samples which were

>not reviewed until that period when the preserved brain was also

>examined.

These tissue samples also disappeared.

>In conclusion:

>Since there was no determined bullet "pathway" from the back entry

>wound to the anterior throat wound,

And because they had been ordered *NOT* to dissect this track...

>there was no necessity to dissect the neck as,

This is about as dishonest a statement as I've ever seen. Obviously presuming

that the neck wound was not recognized as a legitimate antemortem wound, this

STILL doesn't make sense. The chest incisions, which COULD NOT FAIL to have

been recognized for what they were - were indeed dissected.

But we also know that it's virtually impossible for the prosectors *NOT* to have

known that the tracheotomy 'concealed' a bullet wound.

So only the explanation given under oath by Finck can explain it - THEY WERE

FORBIDDEN FROM DOING SO.

Trying to claim that there was no legitimate autopsy reason for dissecting EACH

AND EVERY WOUND on JFK is a lie so vast as to border on requiring the listener

to be quite deficit in IQ.

>at the time of the autopsy (and it's termination), there

>was no determined correlation between the posterior back entry wound

>and the anterior throat (tracheostomy) incision.

Again, merely reciting historical fact doesn't excuse or explain the orders

given that stopped the prosectors from dissecting the track of the bullet.

>After the autopsy was completed; JFK's body removed, and everyone

>pretty well sent home, Dr. Humes spoke with Dr. Malcolm Perry at

>Parkland Hospital and found that JFK had a small anterior throat

>wound.

A fact that he almost certainly knew of during the autopsy. We only hear of

this story after Oswald was killed - and indeed, it was the killing of Oswald,

and not this phone call, that certainly prompted the revising of the autopsy

report.

>Thereafter, a "meeting of the minds" between the three autopsy

>surgeons took place, and it was then determined (in absentism of the

>body) that the bullet which struck in the back had exited the anterior

>neck.

Yep... speculation absent medical evidence. But once again, this fails to

explain why they were ordered not to dissect, and conveniently, the photograph

(hmmm, and X-ray, come to think of it) that would have proven or contradicted

transit disappeared.

>Dr. Humes; Dr. Boswell; as well as Dr. Finke, were under the

>impression that they had completely botched the autopsy (which is of

>course not that far from being correct),

There's *ZERO* evidence for this attack on the prosectors.

Since the entire chain of command at Bethesda was also in attendance, and one of

doctors assisting was the one who ROUTINELY did autopsies day in and day out,

and the Surgeon General of the Navy was also there - you are, indeed, simply

indicting military medicine as incompetent.

Sadly, although the prosectors all had long and quite ordinary careers, no-one

who has proclaimed their incompetence has been able to document this

"incompetence" - despite the fact that documentation on those in the military

VASTLY exceeds what a civilian doctor will have in terms of documentation of his

ability or lack thereof.

>and thereafter the original

>autopsy notes (which would have stated that CE399 merely lodged in

>JFK's back) were destroyed and the autopsy results changed to make the

>anterior throat wound a correlative factor associated with the exit of

>CE399.

This is indeed the "official" story... and if you can swallow the incompetence

of the military, then it seems almost normal and believable.

But the *truth* is that the change of the autopsy report almost certainly was

caused by Oswald's death. And even *then*, it wasn't good enough - for it was

certainly changed again the following year. (See the executive sessions for a

reference that couldn't have come from the autopsy report we now have - it's

also covered in the 45 Questions, #35)

>This is why when the autopsy was ended, those such as the FBI, etc;

>left with and documented the results which state that CE399 merely

>lodged into JFK's back.

This was the most accurate results we have - although even here, we have

unanswered questions due to the way the autopsy was controlled.

>And, since JEH and Company are most assuredly smart enough to

>recognize not only how CE399 came to exist, as well as what could

>cause a 2,100/2,200 fps Carcano bullet to penetrate only an inch or

>two into the human body, we still have JEH & Company telling the

>truths in regards to CE399 and the first shot.

>Might I also add that JEH & Company were also smart enough to make the

>small 0.9 grain, cone-shaped; flat-based (4.5mm width) fragment of

>lead which exited JFK's throat (which came from the base of CE399) and

>was once a portion of CE840, as well as the tree limbs, disappear.

After you replace what the FBI took out of CE399 - where's a fragment big enough

to trace a non-existent path from the brain to the neck, and make a wound that

medical opinion held to be an entry wound?

>Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear!

Yet there's still enough evidence to put much of this together. To deny that

the military tightly controlled what could, and could not be done during the

autopsy is to ignore the evidence, and swallow the mythology of the WCR.

I've often come across those who appear to support conspiracy, yet strangely

treat the eyewitnesses, and the photographic evidence, (indeed, *all* evidence),

ENTIRELY the same way that LNT'ers do.

As I have no idea of the posting history of whomever responded, I can't make an

accurate judgment - but I have a sneaking suspicion.

David - just to clarify I'm a documentary producer and director. I have shot stuff but I always prefer working with a professional camera crew. Same with editing: I spend weeks of my life sitting in an edit suite with an editor.

However, I couldn't produce & direct films if I didn't understand a lot of the process - and the challenges - of filmmaking.

understood.... re "optical film printing" reference, think 2D After Effects compositing app from Adobe

'Jan Klimkowski' wrote:

David - how far ahead (time and/or distance) of JFK's limo was the "lead car" you mention?

[...]

I suspect 10 seconds, at least.... sufficent time and unexposed film remain running at 18.3fps... (notice when Zapruder picked up limo, it was well past the turn onto Elm Street)

as for Miller's nonsense concerning: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration" That is something I've stated for years", simply dumb to go on the record saying the film is altered until the extant Z-film undergoes forensic testing.

I've been out all day, but this thread is very interesting. Thanks to all involved.

David - if the lead car was indeed 10 seconds or so ahead of JFK's limo, then that does seem to provide enough time for Zapruder to pan and follow the lead car, and then return the camera to its near original position to then pan and follow the Presidential limo as it comes into shot. Given how close in real time these two hypothesized pans would have been, the background imagery (eg positions of figures on the grass) and the light would have been very similar in both pans. It is entirely possible that if such a pan did take place, that that first "lead car" pan would have provided some useful material for any compositing that may have taken place.

dgh: SAME film type, SAME camera, SAME camera/lens settings, SAME camera position, SAME sun position, SAME cameraman, SAME natural light, NO artifical light, all film processed one time, SAME roll ALL filmed sequences, hence the soup is SAME. Perfect! A effects director couldn't call it any better. As we used to say a NO-BRAINER

Re: the generation issue. Presumably in all Hollywood special effects compositing, images from separate original film sources are combined to form a new master film (which is then copied again when various prints are made to be shown in the world's cinemas). What kind of generational loss takes place firstly in this routine compositing process when originals are combined to form a new master? And then secondly in the printing of copies from that new master for cinema audiences? Also is any grading possible on these new "masters", or would that be detectable?

dgh: If the original Zapruder film footage was destroyed, gone, fini.... who knows... simply, there is nothing to compare a 35mm 1st generation composite down to a 8mm KodacolrII dupe to. Simple as that. In general it depends on the stock your blowing up to, the light house settings, optical printing lenses, etc... Bump the entire in-camera 8mm original Z-film to 35mm negative, you're pretty much free to do as you wish...

Finally, I'd like to raise the question from posts 22 & 23 again. If Zapruder stopped filming between frames 132 & 133, and switched the camera off and on, as a non-professional in a handheld stance how was he able (as near as possible) to maintain a locked-off frame? I would have difficulty doing that in a handheld stance on a modern lightweight camera with a highly sensitive on/off button which I was highly familiar.

dgh: amazing isn't Zapruder for a klutzy amateur cameraman? Today we'd need a computer controlled pedestal or a jimmy-jib at the very least recreating something like that. With no guarantees...

pssst, Jan.... expect a few off-board emails from Gary Mack, now that he knows your a docu producer, director, editor, cameraman....

Mark Knight' wrote:

I don't know what this "panning uphill/downhill" stuff may or may not say about Z-film alteration.

dgh: little inside the trade lingo, s'all

BUT...could it possibly just be the result of Abe Zapruder being lousy at panning with his camera?

dgh: sure, makes me and a lot of others wonder though, how this klutz with a film camera, filming no-less. Zapruder standing on a pedestal, a woman holding him up, in a free fire zone, with a shot coming from behind him and have the sense and bravado to continue shooting film? Even after viewing a head expolde in his viewfinder....

Try this while sitting in front of your computer...tilt your head slightly to the left, and then simulate panning a camera from left to right. With your head tilted to the left, isn't the natural tendancy, when attempting to pan horizontally, to actually move"uphill"?

dgh: ahh, you try it, son -- nonsense***

So maybe old Abe, who claimed to be unsteady, unconsciously had his head tilted slightly to the left as he was panning...thus the "uphill"motion.

dgh: Unsteady? With gunfire around him, continuing to film, an amateur? LMFAO.... Displaying his skills that day as a camerman--knock off a few rough edges, I could get Abe assignments in combat zones as a network news cameraman -- Beruit comes to mind***

And since there's no clear motion picture of the position of Zapruder's head, then NO, I can't prove that's what happened. But I can't prove it didn't, either.

dgh: Zapruders head position is irrelevant when it comes to filming and gunfire in and around your camera position.... I've seen a cameraman hands blown off while filming, holding a camera above the top of a barrier he was hiding under/behind. His head was two feet from the cameraviewfinder and he knew the terrain --- His blind footage looked fine till the last moment***

Lots of still photographers manage to cut off subjects' heads and feet in their work; it's not too big a stretch to wonder if Abe wasn't just a bit of klutz with a movie camera, is it?

dgh:How many other camerapersons (amateur or pro) do you know who filmed a presidential assassination cutting off subjects heads and feet? None I suspect.

For the record, even professional cinematographers need the aid of optical film printing techniques, fixing film problem areas whether it be composition problems or outright screw ups... Abe was NO Klutz... he did have the sense to negotiate one excellent financial package for himself, at the expense of LIFE magazine of course.... The Zapruder film has kept on giving over the years..... The final balloon payment coming 5+ years ago to the tune of 17 million taxpayer dollars...

Nah, old Abe was no klutz, Abe was cold and calculating, a dressmaker none-the-less***

perhaps its one of those: Zapruder (while filming the Elm street limo) should be panning left-to-right downhill right. It appears his pan was [left-to-right UPHILL right.

Going to fast for you?

I guess the less than vertical lamppost doesn't tell you anything, so I will wait here while you figure it out. On second thought ... that may never happen so I will tell you that the leaning lamppost tells anyone with an once of sense and the slightest powers of observation that Zapruder DID NOT have his camera level and because of it ... someone like yourself might think the limo panning is running uphill.

Bill miller

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

perhaps you've answered the alteration question with a silent, of course the film is altered. Can't have it both ways, son!

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #20

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend

the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two

semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

*reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************

Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's

only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message

threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply

deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or

simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill

files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk

**********************************************************************

I've decided to repost this one - since no-one has even tried to answer it. If

those who believe the Warren Commission Report want to defend it - they *MUST*

answer these questions... running away from them, or claiming that they are

"dead on arrival" or have "already been answered" simply won't do the trick.

If there are any honest LNT'ers out there - I won't hold you to trying to

justify McAdams lies about this - just answer the first question below.

The last two posts have been "ignored" by the trolls... let's see if I'm on a

roll or not:

20. Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they

actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts? (Interestingly,

this same pattern happened again in the RFK murder case - although here it was

the LAPD that took to harassing CT journalists and researchers.)

See

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=954...

for citation...

Everyone knows that intelligence consists of finding out what the other

government doesn't want you to know, but the other side of the coin that isn't

as well known is that intelligence *ALSO* consists of putting out the story that

you want the other side to believe. So what interest did the CIA have in

promoting the WCR, and harrassing CT authors? Does anyone believe their

essentially "patriotic" excuse? Can anyone propose a reasonable

non-conspiratorial explanation for their interest and involvement?

eof

Part 2 of the segmented film.

Remember, the car is going Downhill.

chris

What's your point?

perhaps its one of those: Zapruder (while filming the Elm street limo) should be panning left-to-right downhill right. It appears his pan was [left-to-right UPHILL right.

Going to fast for you?

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #19 Take 2

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend

the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two

semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

*reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************

Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's

only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message

threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply

deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or

simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill

files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk

**********************************************************************

I've decided to repost this one - since no-one has even tried to answer it. If

those who believe the Warren Commission Report want to defend it - they *MUST*

answer these questions... running away from them, or claiming that they are

"dead on arrival" or have "already been answered" simply won't do the trick.

If there are any honest LNT'ers out there - I won't hold you to trying to

justify McAdams lies about this - just answer the first question below.

19. Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the

government had control of them... John McAdams has denied that any photo or

X-ray have disappeared, but to do so; he must call the eyewitnesses liars - and

beg ordinary people to suspend common sense. The prosectors described only

*TWO* injuries inside the body - one to the trachea, which they were prevented

from removing, and one to the tip of the lung - WHICH THEY STATE THAT THEY

PHOTOGRAPHED. A photograph that has never been seen. (Interestingly, this also

happened in the RFK case, missing photographs... although the controlling agency

in this case was the LAPD)

This is reposted just for amusement's sake. It's funny to note that the very

photos that would *PROVE* the SBT beyond any doubt are missing. Of course,

these same photos would far more likely prove that there could *NOT* have been

an SBT - for they almost certainly proved that there was *NO* transit of the

body by the bullet that struck the back, or the bullet that struck the neck.

If these photos had supported the official theory - they certainly wouldn't have

gone "missing" - and LNT'ers know this. Hence, the complete lack of any

response to this bit of factual history.

For no non-conspiratorial explanation that would be believable to the average

person can be concocted - and the converse is readily understood.

eof

[...]

Are you even aware that you contradict the things you have said in the past. You have posted, and truthfully so, that with each generation copy print from the original comes a loss of clarity. The original film will be sharp and the colors correct for the type of film being used. But with multi-generation copies comes a noticeable loss of clarity and color shifting. I have never seen you address these processes that would allegedly cause an expert to not spot the differences.

And that expert is? Groden, perhaps? LMAO! ! ! For 7 years you Lone Nuts haven't been able to discount my scenario, why should anyone believe you could pull a film expert out of your as....er, ear now?

How do you spell film-gamma, eh? Please define it for the lurkers... tell us the comparative differences and gamma properties re the in-camera extant Z-flm and the Z-film 1st generation-1st day Jamieson prints..... Then we'll be getting someplace...

Call Roland Zavada, son.... Perhaps he'll get you up to speed. Hurry.... time is running out! And above all, think 'S' curve!

as for Miller's nonsense concerning: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration" That is something I've stated for years", simply dumb to go on the record saying the film is altered until the extant Z-film undergoes forensic testing.

I find it funny that nowhere in the Hoax book did you mention that position.

As for Kodacolor II film gamma issues? Pure nonsense! Not one person with optical film printing experience buys into gamma problems when the process goes from 8mm-35 then back down to 8mm for final (especially if the original in-camera Z-film was destroyed after alteration)... Not an issue, a Lone Nut canard -- I mention that to Roland Zavada too!

Zavada disagrees with you ... Groden disagrees with you ... the many experts that Mack has met and worked with have not agreed with you .... maybe you can just tell us what experts agree with you on your data concerning Kodachrome II Film? How about at least telling the forum where the data can be found in support of what you just said???

all you have to do is have Gary Mack provide the name of one, ONE expert he's spoken to concerning the issue. One who can define what gamma properties exist in the 8mm Zapruder film. Including examples and comparisons re the in-camera original Zapruder film (better known as the extant version housed at NARA). Till then son, your blowing smoke. I doubt Gary Mack knows your bouncing his name around here.....

I recall at one time you set out to provide examples of generational film gamma differences, unfortunately you failed to even define what film gamma is, much let alone show examples of same. As a result you were laughed right out of the box, what has changed since then, son?

So do us all a favor, find one of these Gary Mack experts (with posted credentials) and his "KodacolorII gamma examples" You've been pulling this chain for so long, you fail to realize this, my article has been on the web for over 7 years and you lone Nutters have yet, YET to find one expert willing to publicly (or privately) dispute it. Where are those film gamma experts? But you sure do whine about it.....

So why is film-gamma a Lone Nut canard? No Lone Nutter (including Bill Miller) can define what film-gamma is let alone explain Z-film gamma properties....

Try again son....