David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
Don Roberdeau wrote:
....You, others, and myself would think that sheer common sense dictates that he *should* have re-created the standing SS agents relative to the warrenatti, supposed, "lone nut" "snipers lair" bullet trajectory (I certainly, most definitely, would have), if not for him to, try to, also eliminate the feasability of certain other suspected key assassins locations....
....or....
....Maybe he did create some re-creations that do include the standing SS agents relative to LN and the other suspected bullet trajectories, but his CAD results do not eliminate the feasability of certain locations.... and/or.... the non-feasability of certain bullet trajectories because an SS agent's head/body intercepted the bullet trajectory(ies).... so.... Myers feared presenting those other assassin locations and bullet trajectory(ies) objectively....
I have a very good friend who is a very experienced, very talented, CAD professional who stated he may help with some work with respect to this, and several other, key attack considerations....
Here is one of the several reasons I am interested in these specific standing SS agents considerations (study still in work, and not finalized, yet).... NOTE that the warrenatti, supposed, "lone nut" "snipers lair" Z-313 theorized bullet trajectory passes very, very close to the right side of the SS followup Cadillac....
[...]
3D Software package Myers used for his 3d DP/Zapruder film recreation was LIGHTWAVE by NewTek -- a polygon based modeler. Sufficient for most tv-low budget film modeling needs. Most high end industry work goes to MAYA, Houdini, 3D Studio, Softimage, etc..
Newtek has however had its share of box office hits see:
http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/
One needs his (Myers) **final** Lightwave project files (including texture maps, surrounding DP building models, topo-elevation maps [verifying accuracy of ALL], project based Z-film frames [including heads/tails lleader) addressing accuracy (the CONE) and alternative shooter scenarios, for quite sometime. Myer's isn't talking... although his commentary in the documentary "...SBT Fact not Theory..." speaks volumes.... he does have a 10,000 word FAQ at his website
I suspect the Lightwave Z-film project files found their way to ABC or the production company that hired Myers and produced the Jennings documentary...
Knowing 2D/3D animators, I don't doubt Myers has a copy of the project laying around (after all he won a Emmy for his part - had to be the animation, certainly not his on-camera commentary which was *over* produced and over emoted), in fact a project file thats compatible with the latest version of Lightwave, ver.9.2
Lightwaveprogram:
Lightwave 3D (Newtek) http://www.3drender.com/jobs/lightwave.htm
MARKET: Lightwave is a popular and easy to use choice that is widely used for video and television production around the world.
KEY FEATURES: Lightwave includes a powerful polygonal modeler that also produces polygon-based subdivision surfaces that Newtek calls "MetaNURBS" (despite that name, Lightwave does not support NURBS modeling, MetaNURBS is a trademark Newtek uses for its subdivision surfaces.) Even though the modeling lacks associativity, which consequently makes some types of revisions much slower and does not allow many undo steps, it does perform well, is simple to learn, and experienced users can get high-quality work done with it. The animation still has a lot of catching up to do with Maya or Softimage, but is a workable solution for the average company's animation needs. Lightwave's renderer is a well regarded raytracer, which also includes Image Based Lighting and (if you have time to wait) global illumination support. Lightwave's renderer has been used for many commercials and TV programs. Very few of the leading film studios use Lightwave, but it is often used by smaller companies contributing opening title sequences, monitor screen graphics, and other smaller parts of a film's CGI.
HISTORY: Lightwave was first introduced as the 3D component of the Amiga-based Video Toaster from NewTek. The Video Toaster was a pioneering product in the field of desktop video, giving people a production switcher, a character generator, 2D Paint and 3D animation, all in a low-priced box that could be hooked between two Super VHS decks for a complete editing and effects system. The first few versions of Lightwave would only run on Amiga computers that had Toasters installed, and used Toaster RAM to hold buffer information during rendering. Later, Lightwave was freed from the Toaster, sold separately, and ported from the Amiga to the PC and Mac.
eof
-
The (at least tactical) victory Bush and Blair gave bin Laden was in making a reasoned response from Muslim nations impossible. Individual Muslims around the world surely are sickened by the confrontational climate that now exists, but they aren't the people bin Laden was aiming at. Bin Laden was aiming firstly at Muslim nations (like his own, Saudi Arabia) to make sure that the cost of alliance with the US was too high for them to bear, and secondly at potential Muslim activists, to give them reasons for doing things like driving Jeeps full of inflammables into airports in the UK.
Bush and Blair have made sure that no-one's going to be on the side they're supporting (which leaves only passivity or bin Laden's team). There used to be a third way, secular Arab nationalism, which bin Laden's crew hated worse than they hated the West, but Bush saw to it that that option was more or less eradicated.
As we know now, Bush and his team had decided to target Saddam Hussein a long time before 9/11, which is why it didn't really matter that al-Qaeda and Hussein were sworn enemies - 9/11 was just a welcome pretext for something they were going to do anyway. Let's imagine that Bush's team hadn't had that prior agenda. Bin Laden would have attacked anyway, since the World Trade Center had been a target of choice for nearly a decade. The US government, however, needn't have launched two wars, both of which it's currently losing. As subsequent investigations have shown, there was plenty that was wrong with US law enforcement in the run-up to 9/11 that needed putting right (and still hasn't been). Most of the necessary measures are procedural and boring … but effective, rather than 'tough' and sexy, but rather ineffective.
Look at the strategic picture from bin Laden's side: the main US strength is in conventional weapons, so he has to turn that into a weakness. The way you do that is by getting the US to actually commit its forces, so that they can be tied down somewhere by asymmetrical forces (like the Taleban in Afghanistan and the various militias and resistance forces in Iraq). Bin Laden was also helped by the fact that asymmetrical warfare was also Hussein's resistance strategy (ever wonder why the tyrant distributed weapons by the thousand to his population in the weeks before the US invasion?). Asymmetrical warfare had never died down in Afghanistan, so it didn't need to be revived. Bin Laden had few strengths … but what he had was the force of an idea, an idea which Bush managed to strengthen beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams.
Way to go, Bushie! But it was an astute piece of reasoning from bin Laden's side. He was, in my opinion, well aware of the delusional nature of many Americans (nuke Makkah!) and the lack of even the basic knowledge of what they were getting themselves into. One of the first Arab proverbs I came across goes like this: "me against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world". People who feel this way aren't likely to be impressed by a bit of the kind of military grandstanding the Bushies do (like invading Iraq!) - in fact, they're likely to welcome it, since it puts a bit of backbone into their own side.
Yea right David...I wonder WHY it is that Ayman al-Zawahiri is begging Islam to stay in the fight? Bin Laden won? Not even close. It's not American's that are 'deluded' David it appears to be you and the rest of the left.
But hey, whatever.
Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11.
"Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11"?
I think thats a foolish remark, considering WW1 & 2 (Hitler, Stalin, etal.) ETO. Comprising of what, an estimated 75 million lost, countless cities destroyed, thousands upon thousands of American lives lost in those conflicts.... When it comes to geographical and lives lost, how does that compare with the World Trade Center and 3,000 (est.) dead. No, I think Europeans understand 'heat'.
Your leading with your chin...
Ah but thats a bit different don't you think David. The "enemy" was pretty easy to find and was well defined. Quite a bit different that the threat today. The question here is how do you respond to TODAYS threat. Lets see the mood of the general population of Sweden should a 9/11 happen to them. Until then the rest is just smoke....
nah, this enemy wants it ALL yearning for the good ole day's (1400-1600's). No real plan but they're ballsey enough to go for the *brass-ring*. So for now they'll settle for terrorism under a cloak of spiritual warfare w/vestial virgins guiding the way. The minute they take territory (and they do want Europe) they're done.
I suspect Bin Laden (if alive) would like to change his offensive tactics. He knows what he's put at risk. Also, the American populace is beginning to understand the KORAN, and what it means: a political manifesto, perhaps?
No, the way to clean this Bin Laden (do you suspect he has an overlord, other than Allah of course?) mess up is, make Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States, the *...stans* and Iraq, STATES (51 thru whatever)! We've invested enough in them, ALL of them -- Suspend our constitution, take'em over then nationlisze their assests. With the proceed's we could fund the United Nations, the World Bank and their band of merry thiefs, 100%! (that way cash flow won't stop, we can continue the ridiculous battle on drugs, and in the same sweep of the sword, bring gas prices at the pump back down to $0.25/gallon.....Only problem is, I can't find a NEO-CON to sell the plan to, they're gone, diminishing numbers since the ole Presidential aircraft carrier fly-in, 'Mission Accomplished' debacle....
Where's William Kristol when you need him? evidently nowhere.....
Just curious David, where does the satire begin?
"No, the way to clean this Bin Laden...."
-
Age: 45
Education: BA English, Iowa State University, 1985, BS Computer Science, Iowa State University, 1987
Business: Senior Software Engineer
Present Interest: JFK Assassination
Dan,
Darlington Group a familiar name?
David Healy
-
The (at least tactical) victory Bush and Blair gave bin Laden was in making a reasoned response from Muslim nations impossible. Individual Muslims around the world surely are sickened by the confrontational climate that now exists, but they aren't the people bin Laden was aiming at. Bin Laden was aiming firstly at Muslim nations (like his own, Saudi Arabia) to make sure that the cost of alliance with the US was too high for them to bear, and secondly at potential Muslim activists, to give them reasons for doing things like driving Jeeps full of inflammables into airports in the UK.
Bush and Blair have made sure that no-one's going to be on the side they're supporting (which leaves only passivity or bin Laden's team). There used to be a third way, secular Arab nationalism, which bin Laden's crew hated worse than they hated the West, but Bush saw to it that that option was more or less eradicated.
As we know now, Bush and his team had decided to target Saddam Hussein a long time before 9/11, which is why it didn't really matter that al-Qaeda and Hussein were sworn enemies - 9/11 was just a welcome pretext for something they were going to do anyway. Let's imagine that Bush's team hadn't had that prior agenda. Bin Laden would have attacked anyway, since the World Trade Center had been a target of choice for nearly a decade. The US government, however, needn't have launched two wars, both of which it's currently losing. As subsequent investigations have shown, there was plenty that was wrong with US law enforcement in the run-up to 9/11 that needed putting right (and still hasn't been). Most of the necessary measures are procedural and boring … but effective, rather than 'tough' and sexy, but rather ineffective.
Look at the strategic picture from bin Laden's side: the main US strength is in conventional weapons, so he has to turn that into a weakness. The way you do that is by getting the US to actually commit its forces, so that they can be tied down somewhere by asymmetrical forces (like the Taleban in Afghanistan and the various militias and resistance forces in Iraq). Bin Laden was also helped by the fact that asymmetrical warfare was also Hussein's resistance strategy (ever wonder why the tyrant distributed weapons by the thousand to his population in the weeks before the US invasion?). Asymmetrical warfare had never died down in Afghanistan, so it didn't need to be revived. Bin Laden had few strengths … but what he had was the force of an idea, an idea which Bush managed to strengthen beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams.
Way to go, Bushie! But it was an astute piece of reasoning from bin Laden's side. He was, in my opinion, well aware of the delusional nature of many Americans (nuke Makkah!) and the lack of even the basic knowledge of what they were getting themselves into. One of the first Arab proverbs I came across goes like this: "me against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world". People who feel this way aren't likely to be impressed by a bit of the kind of military grandstanding the Bushies do (like invading Iraq!) - in fact, they're likely to welcome it, since it puts a bit of backbone into their own side.
Yea right David...I wonder WHY it is that Ayman al-Zawahiri is begging Islam to stay in the fight? Bin Laden won? Not even close. It's not American's that are 'deluded' David it appears to be you and the rest of the left.
But hey, whatever.
Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11.
"Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11"?
I think thats a foolish remark, considering WW1 & 2 (Hitler, Stalin, etal.) ETO. Comprising of what, an estimated 75 million lost, countless cities destroyed, thousands upon thousands of American lives lost in those conflicts.... When it comes to geographical and lives lost, how does that compare with the World Trade Center and 3,000 (est.) dead. No, I think Europeans understand 'heat'.
Your leading with your chin...
Ah but thats a bit different don't you think David. The "enemy" was pretty easy to find and was well defined. Quite a bit different that the threat today. The question here is how do you respond to TODAYS threat. Lets see the mood of the general population of Sweden should a 9/11 happen to them. Until then the rest is just smoke....
nah, this enemy wants it ALL yearning for the good ole day's (1400-1600's). No real plan but they're ballsey enough to go for the *brass-ring*. So for now they'll settle for terrorism under a cloak of spiritual warfare w/vestial virgins guiding the way. The minute they take territory (and they do want Europe) they're done.
I suspect Bin Laden (if alive) would like to change his offensive tactics. He knows what he's put at risk. Also, the American populace is beginning to understand the KORAN, and what it means: a political manifesto, perhaps?
No, the way to clean this Bin Laden (do you suspect he has an overlord, other than Allah of course?) mess up is, make Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States, the *...stans* and Iraq, STATES (51 thru whatever)! We've invested enough in them, ALL of them -- Suspend our constitution, take'em over then nationlisze their assests. With the proceed's we could fund the United Nations, the World Bank and their band of merry thiefs, 100%! (that way cash flow won't stop, we can continue the ridiculous battle on drugs, and in the same sweep of the sword, bring gas prices at the pump back down to $0.25/gallon.....Only problem is, I can't find a NEO-CON to sell the plan to, they're gone, diminishing numbers since the ole Presidential aircraft carrier fly-in, 'Mission Accomplished' debacle....
Where's William Kristol when you need him? evidently nowhere.....
-
The (at least tactical) victory Bush and Blair gave bin Laden was in making a reasoned response from Muslim nations impossible. Individual Muslims around the world surely are sickened by the confrontational climate that now exists, but they aren't the people bin Laden was aiming at. Bin Laden was aiming firstly at Muslim nations (like his own, Saudi Arabia) to make sure that the cost of alliance with the US was too high for them to bear, and secondly at potential Muslim activists, to give them reasons for doing things like driving Jeeps full of inflammables into airports in the UK.
Bush and Blair have made sure that no-one's going to be on the side they're supporting (which leaves only passivity or bin Laden's team). There used to be a third way, secular Arab nationalism, which bin Laden's crew hated worse than they hated the West, but Bush saw to it that that option was more or less eradicated.
As we know now, Bush and his team had decided to target Saddam Hussein a long time before 9/11, which is why it didn't really matter that al-Qaeda and Hussein were sworn enemies - 9/11 was just a welcome pretext for something they were going to do anyway. Let's imagine that Bush's team hadn't had that prior agenda. Bin Laden would have attacked anyway, since the World Trade Center had been a target of choice for nearly a decade. The US government, however, needn't have launched two wars, both of which it's currently losing. As subsequent investigations have shown, there was plenty that was wrong with US law enforcement in the run-up to 9/11 that needed putting right (and still hasn't been). Most of the necessary measures are procedural and boring … but effective, rather than 'tough' and sexy, but rather ineffective.
Look at the strategic picture from bin Laden's side: the main US strength is in conventional weapons, so he has to turn that into a weakness. The way you do that is by getting the US to actually commit its forces, so that they can be tied down somewhere by asymmetrical forces (like the Taleban in Afghanistan and the various militias and resistance forces in Iraq). Bin Laden was also helped by the fact that asymmetrical warfare was also Hussein's resistance strategy (ever wonder why the tyrant distributed weapons by the thousand to his population in the weeks before the US invasion?). Asymmetrical warfare had never died down in Afghanistan, so it didn't need to be revived. Bin Laden had few strengths … but what he had was the force of an idea, an idea which Bush managed to strengthen beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams.
Way to go, Bushie! But it was an astute piece of reasoning from bin Laden's side. He was, in my opinion, well aware of the delusional nature of many Americans (nuke Makkah!) and the lack of even the basic knowledge of what they were getting themselves into. One of the first Arab proverbs I came across goes like this: "me against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world". People who feel this way aren't likely to be impressed by a bit of the kind of military grandstanding the Bushies do (like invading Iraq!) - in fact, they're likely to welcome it, since it puts a bit of backbone into their own side.
Yea right David...I wonder WHY it is that Ayman al-Zawahiri is begging Islam to stay in the fight? Bin Laden won? Not even close. It's not American's that are 'deluded' David it appears to be you and the rest of the left.
But hey, whatever.
Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11.
"Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11"?
I think thats a foolish remark, considering WW1 & 2 (Hitler, Stalin, etal.) ETO. Comprising of what, an estimated 75 million lost, countless cities destroyed, thousands upon thousands of American lives lost in those conflicts.... When it comes to geographical and lives lost, how does that compare with the World Trade Center and 3,000 (est.) dead. No, I think Europeans understand 'heat'.
Your leading with your chin...
-
Craig, there's plenty of historical evidence that a more reasoned response than the one Bush orchestrated would have worked much better. Take the 'Anarchist' terrorist attacks in the first decade of the 20th century. When they actually happened, the various police forces of Europe were well equipped to deal with the actual attacks. It was only when idiots of the Bush calibre (in this case the Austro-Hungarians) got going that disproportionate responses led to catastrophe.
Bin Laden certainly knew his US psychology: he knew that a very cheap operation would result in the US giving him the kind of over-the-top response he needed to galvanise his Muslim constituents. It's a sign of how protected the US has actually been from what's been going on all over the world for centuries. It's just a shame that Blair got involved with such naive and delusional people. It's always been very tempting to think that you can screw other people around from afar without suffering any consequences at all, but it just doesn't accord with reality.
Tim, 'nuke Hanoi'! Do me a favour! The US weren't the only people with nuclear weapons at the time, you know. And the population of Vietnam at the time was around 50 million, if I remember correctly. And that was 50 million people who'd been living under war conditions since the early 1940s. Another of the US delusions, I'm afraid, to think that that was a viable policy.
Lets deal with RECENT history. Your "more reasoned response" was a miserable failure. The lack of direct and HARSH action resulted in the attacks of 9/11. Please tell me why more of the same would have changed the current situation? And the fact that others in the world are willing to bury the dead and move on...a sure sign of weakness of will if you ask me...is not our problem.
And you are wrong about the what Bin Laden actually got for his efforts and what our response has brought...recent polls of Muslims are finding that they are REJECTING radical Islam in droves. Seems they are less willing to die for the cause now than before we went on the attack.
Sorry but your "more of the same" is a proven failed policy.
"...lack of direct and HARSH action resulted in...9/11"
Perhaps a more measured response (better policy?) would of been a tactical battlefield nuke perhaps? Capital of Saudi Arabia (you guessed it I can't spell it) or Medina, Mecca during the Haj? Certainly would of got the Muslim faith attention as well as the Vatican's -- but that's another story.
Not that I disagree with you assessment but I'm curious what those from mid-America, the Christian conservative breadbasket if you will, think about such a alternative response...
btw, lobbing 70-90 cruise missles announced BClinton's intentions, I'm sure he was advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff!
These recent polls, who sponsored them?
A few nukes would have made an impression to be sure. What exactly were Clintons intentions? A little wag the dog? Bill would have NEVER put boots on the ground.
The poll was a Pew poll, and while I'm not a big fan of polls, it was instructional.
nukes tactical or otherwise certainly would make an impression. What about those mid-America, conservative breadbasket types, would they buy it? could the GOP-NEOCONS sell it? Those neocons have certainly disappeared from Cable TV (most notably FOX_CRAP-Cable TV) Could they (the breadbasket) or WOULD they consider the thought of one puppies going off in say, Indianapolis, Indiana?
Now we know we can light a few off, we understand the consequences, we've done it under wartime conditions. Your impression of where our military could/would we set off a few tactical nukes. And the net positives?
-
Craig, there's plenty of historical evidence that a more reasoned response than the one Bush orchestrated would have worked much better. Take the 'Anarchist' terrorist attacks in the first decade of the 20th century. When they actually happened, the various police forces of Europe were well equipped to deal with the actual attacks. It was only when idiots of the Bush calibre (in this case the Austro-Hungarians) got going that disproportionate responses led to catastrophe.
Bin Laden certainly knew his US psychology: he knew that a very cheap operation would result in the US giving him the kind of over-the-top response he needed to galvanise his Muslim constituents. It's a sign of how protected the US has actually been from what's been going on all over the world for centuries. It's just a shame that Blair got involved with such naive and delusional people. It's always been very tempting to think that you can screw other people around from afar without suffering any consequences at all, but it just doesn't accord with reality.
Tim, 'nuke Hanoi'! Do me a favour! The US weren't the only people with nuclear weapons at the time, you know. And the population of Vietnam at the time was around 50 million, if I remember correctly. And that was 50 million people who'd been living under war conditions since the early 1940s. Another of the US delusions, I'm afraid, to think that that was a viable policy.
Lets deal with RECENT history. Your "more reasoned response" was a miserable failure. The lack of direct and HARSH action resulted in the attacks of 9/11. Please tell me why more of the same would have changed the current situation? And the fact that others in the world are willing to bury the dead and move on...a sure sign of weakness of will if you ask me...is not our problem.
And you are wrong about the what Bin Laden actually got for his efforts and what our response has brought...recent polls of Muslims are finding that they are REJECTING radical Islam in droves. Seems they are less willing to die for the cause now than before we went on the attack.
Sorry but your "more of the same" is a proven failed policy.
"...lack of direct and HARSH action resulted in...9/11"
Perhaps a more measured response (better policy?) would of been a tactical battlefield nuke perhaps? Capital of Saudi Arabia (you guessed it I can't spell it) or Medina, Mecca during the Haj? Certainly would of got the Muslim faith attention as well as the Vatican's -- but that's another story.
Not that I disagree with you assessment but I'm curious what those from mid-America, the Christian conservative breadbasket if you will, think about such a alternative response...
btw, lobbing 70-90 cruise missles announced BClinton's intentions, I'm sure he was advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff!
These recent polls, who sponsored them?
-
[...]
But again the arrogance behind such sentiments as "only my position is correct and any rational person understands that" is exhibited very strongly by Bugliosi and others of his ilk as well as by some on our side of the conspiracy question. (By the way, I do not see that kind of arrogance from Professor McAdams.)
perhaps you need more seasoning.....
-
And, as an ole "coon hunter", Jethro would also know that a normal entry of a bullet through clothing, does not remove fabric from the clothing as it merely pushes the fabric aside as it passes through.
Exactly like the top left photo of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet through the cloth fabric of a shirt.
Therefore, a normal wound of entry would not have fabric from the worn clothing carried down into the wound.
However, Jethro is smart enough to recognize that the clothing (shirt shown) as worn by JFK had an oval "Punch-type" section of the fabric removed, and Dr. Boswell has clearly stated that the "atypical" wound of entry into the back of JFK had considerable fabric from the clothing carried down into the wound.
You see, Jethro knows that a "paper punch" not only punches out the nice neat little round hole in the paper, but it also carries the removed portion of the paper down into the little "catch tray" which is a part of the paper punch.
My oh My, what they are teaching these sixth graders nowadays.
not leaving many options -- wound made after death?
-
Len --if Im Mr. Kettle your Mr. Pot. re: Ad Homs. Check my track record.
admittedly I used the words diplomatic evidence a bit broadly.
What I meant by that is
A) records of US contacts and communications with foreign intelligence agencies and diplomatic offices.
b History of previous warnings by US intelligence agencies and actions that corresponded to these warnings
C) records of communications between US intelligence agencies and branches of gov.
As you know there was a lot very disturbing and suggestive evidence presented in the mainstream US and foreign press concerning 9/11 from roughly the period 9/12/2001 until roughly November 2002. Then it was dropped down the memory hole, while americans were told to click on Popular Mechanics like a rat pushing for a food particle.
Among these facts this one stands out: of the 1,734 (please check me on that number, but Im almost postive this is correct) FISA requests made by the FBI between the last modification of the FISA process in late 1995 and 9-11-01, only 1 was turned down: the Minneapolis laptop. This combined with hundreds of other facts, presened in context with similar occurances over a broad range of time, seemed to me a far more convincing means of arguing the need for a real investigation, than debating about the melting points of various metals without a physicist beside you on the sidewalk.
It deserved an investigation and there never was one. Surely you don't call the Official 9-11 Conspiracy theory a true investigation!!!!!!!
If I seemed snide, I apologize, but it was only because I perceive so many of your comment to be snide. Imagine that.
Besides, I can't spell well enough to be snide.
By the way, I never credited you with being a deliberate agent.
even Roland Zavada had to remind ole Len who was in-charge, he wasn't snide either
(inside joke).... -
Does someone know the original source material? Thx.
Perhaps James Richards or Jack White can help you
-
'Michael Hogan wrote:
[...]
Although the thread follows tendencies and occasionally strays off-topic, there is some very good information posted by members. Robert Charles-Dunne makes some particularly outstanding points about Oswald's wallets.
I've missed Robert's participation and insightful analyses of late. I hope he is well.
***************
Michael,
I was thinking the same thing...
-
I sent Chris's study to John Costella for his opinion.
He did a quick vector analysis of this and adjacent frames, and assures
me that the leaning curb mark appears in other frames and is consistent
with panning blur of the background.
These factors make understanding Z blurs difficult:
...panning movement of camera (blurs background)
...movement car (blurs car and occupants)
...vertical jiggle of camera (makes erratic blurs)
...combinations of the above (makes complex blurs)
Costella made a year-long study of Z-blurs and found that the blurs
were manipulated with almost mathematical precision...WITH A FEW
EXCEPTIONS which he has previously described. He reiterates his view
that the background grass is from a separate film than the foreground,
joined at the straight curbline.
I must defer to John's superior expertise, though I still do not quite
visualize how a scanning blur makes the line SLANT instead of
just a horizontal blurring.
Jack
Jack,
Thanks for sending that to John.
Since John ran a vector analysis on those previous frames, I guess we could treat the CURB as a vector.
Watch the shadow angle of Altgen's feet, change on the curb.
With the camera movement involved between these two frames, why doesn't the CURB move in accordance?
As John stated, I too believe the background and foreground are on different layers.
chris
Just curious Chris, exactly how do you think the curb SHOULD look based on the amount and direction of the blur?
what better spot for a matte line, eh? the grass edge where it meets the curb...If the camera was focused on the limo, the curb become one with the foreground (lower portion of the image, hence same level of blur (perhaps slightly more) and blur direction as the limo....
-
'Kathleen Collins' wrote:
Well, I know of one person who shouldn't debate Bugliosi: Jim Fetzer. I just saw him interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on youtube.com. I don't know if I'm allowed to say this on the Forum, but he came across like such a pussy! No substance to him! At least try to talk over O'Reilly. He sat there like a mummy. I also think he should have dressed better. Oh, and I was surprised he's a retired Professor. Didn't they throw him out for some reason? Harrassing a woman or something?
[...]
***************
you're out of line, Kathleen, and don't let the facts get in your way.... Also, when one reaches the age of 65, retirement is certainly a choice, won't you agree?
-
What is the objective? Conspiracy in the murder of JFK? -or- SBT-LHO did it?
-
For Messrs. Gratz, Lane, and White:
Thanks for carrying on this important exchange
I wish to be clear on the distinction between "debate" and "confrontation" as I reference it for our shared purposes.
As I've previously noted, the former term carries with it the implication that both points of view under consideration, while oppositional, are equally worthy of respect as intellectually honest positions expressed by rational advocates.
Yet by definition, a ratonal human being who is reasonably well informed regarding the evidence in this case who yet defends the LN position is NOT being intellectually honest when doing so.
Further, and again by definition, such an individual cannot be an advocate for truth and justice in the case of the unsolved (in terms of "who" and "why"), conspiratorial homicide of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Accordingly, a "debate" with Bugliosi would serve only to fortify -- for the culture and for history -- the proposition that the LN "argument" is as likely to be factual as is the conspiracy position.
And again, the prime targets of opportunity for Bugliosi's masters are ... the culture and history.
However ... A "confrontation" with Bugliosi (or Posner, or any of their ilk) that begins with an unambiguous statement of the thoughts and sentiments expressed above and further is comprised of a mixture of unassailable fact, blunt contextualization of the opponent's failings and motives, and mercilessly cutting humor, simultaneously reveals and champions the truth and denies to the liars the high ground upon which they depend for protection: history's level playing field.
Debate? Never!
Confrontation? Until the battle is won!
Charles Drago
you're absolutely correct...!
-
Anyone who has read Breach of Trust knows that Professor Gerald McKnight would quickly prove that Bugliosi's most basic assertions about the Warren Commission's findings are nonsense.
If he were still alive, Harold Weisberg in a tailored suit could do the same thing masterfully, without breaking a sweat.
GREAT call, Michael!
-
Robert Charles Dunne, Forcefull, factfull and erudite.
yep, I forgot about Robert...
So I'd make my selection to Mark Lane & Robert Charles Dunne (Robert hasn't posted for a while has he?)
-
Hands down, Mark Lane...
-
Actually Eugene a few of us think he's vieing for a position at the TSBD! Imagine that, if you will. I graciously noted to Bill Miller some time ago, that I'd write him a letter of recommendation concerning his graphics and composing abilities. I haven't heard back, yet. [sigh]
David, more propaganda I see? Those few of you that you speak of - are they the same few who think the lawn sprinklers in the plaza are listening devices?? Or would they be he same few who say Altgens 6 is genuine while also saying Moorman and Hill are in the street??? Or would that be the same few who have said that they believe the Zfilm is altered and elsewhere have said that they have seen no proof of alteration???? Yes, I want a letter of recommendation from you alright.
Bill Miller
just the facts son, just the FACTS! So run along, do something constructive, make a .gif or something... Seeya round the hood, Champ!
-
Eugene B. Connolly wrote:
Miller!!
You total waste of space! Why do you continue to expose
your absolute stupidity and total lack of intelligence?
Are you some sort of masochist or what?
[...]
EBC
************************
Actually Eugene a few of us think he's vieing for a position at the TSBD! Imagine that, if you will. I graciously noted to Bill Miller some time ago, that I'd write him a letter of recommendation concerning his graphics and composing abilities. I haven't heard back, yet. [sigh]
Also, a few years back I told Bill I 'd recommend him for a job with ADOBE (you know, the Photoshop folks), I did some on-camera work with John Warnock, CEO and founder Adobe, Inc., way back in the early Adobe ILLUSTRATOR (Adobe's first image software package) days, what 20 years ago, maybe more.... I could hook him up, alas -- he refused! My good will has run the limit, and I see yours has too!
KUTGW!
David Healy
-
Craig Lamson: wroteIf you can't post it, you ain't got it...
My my David, the subject matter IS over your head. Poor boy.
I've no need to post anything. I did the work to satisfy Bills material for myself. It seems YOU are the one making all the noise about Bills research. Why not YOU prove him wrong for a change? The work beyond you?
I've given you the place to start and heck I'll even give you another clue to move you along.
Why not shine a light of truth on the subject for a change.
Now if you can prove that Bill is wrong (which would be a major change for you davie) then we can talk.
Until then you are irrelevant.
ouch..... oh-wee LMAO, you know we CT's don't trust you Lone Nutter any further than we can throw your sorry asses.....
Again, if you can't post your proof, you don't have PROOF, period! 53", 58" 64" or higher which is it? Show us the methodolgy, documentation and verification, till then your claims are empty words, like nearly everything you post...
Not until THEN, when it comes to the case related pictorial evidence, you are irrelevant.
Seeya around the hood, champ!
-
If you can't post Lamson's measurements-evidence w/affidavit there's nothing to talk to you about. I could care less if Harley of Harley-Davidson told you anything... somebody told me so-so, I posted on so many forums.... yadada, yadada -- nonsense, doesn't prove a damn thing.... Just post your proof with affidavit, that the left rear motorcyle cop closet to the north curb of Elm Street as depicted in the Moorman 5 photo, that to the top of THAT windscreen is 58" from the street surface.
Whats the matter davie, the subject matter to deep for you? You have been told WHERE to find all of the evidence you need to check Bills claim of the windshield height. Why not do so?
I'm not suprised to see you yelping like a rabid dog, seeing that White is going down like a stone in deep water. But as usual LOTS of words from davie but not a bit of work to back up the bluster.
just post the 58" evidence Craigster -- regarding your "rabid dog" comment; you do indeed have a magnificent imagination just like most of your postings -- there's no need for hot wind, Craigster, just your proof, please. If you can't post it, you ain't got it...
Those NASA photo kids must be handing you your hat, again?
-
'Bill Miller' wrote:
[...]Now that I have your attention and while I am waiting for Gary Mack to get into the office[...]
Bill
sharing an TSBD office these day's? LMAO? btw, Why don't you ask Gary Mack about Badgeman, he's the co-creator of Badgeman, who better to ask, than the TSBD museum curator?
(inside joke)....
Tim Gratz and the Iraq War
in Political Conspiracies
Posted
'Tim Gratz' quoted
Gott'a love right-wing logic when it comes to IRAQ and a conflict the Neo-cons HAD to wage: if the conflict is lost, its the Democrats fault. If the war is won, Repub-lo-crats are the heroes and big OIL won the day! This for a war that need not waging?