David G. Healy

Jack, EBC has given you some good advice that might be a little too technical for you. If this is the case, then go to a computer store and by screen extensions that will allow the image to be seen in its full glory. sit-down! the above from someone who thought increasing screen resolution increased detail in the image..... LMAO! But we won't talk about that, will we?

'Bill Miller' wrote: OK - lets separate the game players from the sincere posters. [...] ************* based on my experience with you over the past 6 years, LMAO! Have a nice day! ROFLMAO! David Healy

Bill Miller' wrote: [...] The Paschall film shows Zapruder hopping off the pedestal after Sitzman dismounted it. Altgens 8 shows both of them together at that moment and Sitzman is taller because of her wearing those heels. The Bell film as I recall shows Zapruder walking away from Sitzman as she is standing at the pedestal. If Sitzman said that Abe walked away as she tood on the pedestal, then she misspoke or the interviewer heard it incorrectly. dgh: uh-huh "...she misspoke or the interviewer heard it incorrectly." when you go off on a tangent, you need to do better than that! Also, has Sitzman ever spoke of wearing high-heels on the pedestal? Consider the fact she was on the pedestal insuring Zapruder was comfy-cozy and ABLE to shoot some film -- seems kinda dumb to be up there with highheels on. If she was, I doubt Abe knew that! Little common sense goes a long way here, eh!

'Bill Miller' dronned: Like I said earlier, David ... you sat with your finger in your - er - uh - NOSE ... and never bothered to contact people like the Hester's Jean Hill, Moorman and so on so to see if they recognized Zapruder as the man they saw on the pedestal with Sitzman. By the way .... here is one such witness to seeing Zapruder on the pedestal .... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/sitzman.htmdgh: that's Thompson's interview with Sitzman ... wake up: T E S T I M O N Y, under oath....you know perjury hanging in the balance.....thought you said you do court stuff, jeez! See the previous link. dgh: McAdams url.....? oh-my, you need better Lone Nut contacts. Is this your way of saying, there is no WCR/attendent volumes testimony and/or confirmation from any person in Dealey Plaza Nov 22nd 1963 saying Zapruder and/or Sitzman was on that pedestal?

Zapruder was probably holding the camera something like this: what makes you think that? His hand is on the zoom control rod. I doubt he was looking for THAT kind of support while filming -- anyway Zaprduer himself stated he was at FULL-ZOOM. Perhaps he wasn't?

Jack - do a forum search under any related topic to Sitzman's shoes. You brought this up before and it was pointed out to you that Sitzman wore high heels on the day of the assassination. you then harped that no women wore high heels back then or something along that line and someone posted a crop from one of the films showing Sitman wearing high heels as she stood near the corner of the TSBD after the assassination. If you look closely - Zapruder is leaning and has his knees bent slightly as he is filming - the guy had verigo as you may recall. In that posture that Zapruder took - Sitzman is only about a half of a head taller than Abraham. Again, Abraham is leaning with knees slightly bent - Sitzman is standing errect in high heels. How many times does this need to be repeated. Bill high-heels? LMAO! call your agent, you're done in the majors....LOL

Bill Miller dronned: It is little wonder why lone assassin believers call CT's "BUFFS". It is bad enough that one has the Zapruder film that somehow got in Zapruder's possession immediately following the assassination - and that every film and photo showing he and Sitzman on the pedestal show a man and a woman and not some Negro in a white shirt as someone foolishy stated, but now you raise a question as if it is some conspiracy that no one took a good clean film of them while they stood on the pedestal ... have I got that right? Below is a crop from the Willis photo as seen in Groden's book "TKOAP". If someone cannot make out that there is a man in a dark suit and a woman on the pedestal instead of it being Jesus, then they need to find some other part of the assassination to study because their interpretation skills "SUCK"! Then there is the 'Baghdad Bob Healy's' who wish to promote paranoia anywhere that they can and in this case they make claims that there is no proof that Zapruder or Sitzman were on the pedestal or were even in the plaza for all that matter. I recall this nonsense coming up over a year or two ago, so at that time I posted the clip showing Zapruder filming Sitzman from the rear as she talked with the Hester's near the bench near the eastmost shelter. That sequence was filmed before the motorcades arrival and most people have forgotten that it existed. As the clip runs - Sitzman in her black scarf and dress spins around and looks right at Zapruder's camera. But was she on the pedestal they ask? Well, some forum xxxxx like Healy will mention that there is no film or picture clearly showing that it was Zapruder on the pedestal. Well, dah ... Zapruder had a damned camera in front of his face, so how can there be such a clear image of him? They forget that the photographers who did get images of Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal were amateurs and the quality of their images are testimonial to this. The Willis and Betzner photos are not sharp when it comes to the stationary people along the north side of Elm Street ... is that Zapruder's fault? Then there is the occassional idiot that says that no one was on the pedestal, but then they have to be repeatedly reiminded that Moorman's photo shows the same two people on the pedestal that all the other films and photos show and that her photo was still in her possession when filmed for TV not 30 minutes after the shooting, making alteration impossible that soon following the shooting. As I said before, Altgens 8 shows this man and woman with their backs to the camera as they leave the pedestal. But who is this mystery woman in the black scarf and dress ... well it was Sitzman and here she is being talked to near that pedestal ... the image is not photo studio quality, but does it have to be to see if it is Sitzman or not. ***************** As I posted to 'Baghadad Bob Healy' over a year ago - go get a copy of Trask book called "National Nightmare" and see these images ... he obviously hasn't bothered to research the matter, but maybe trolling takes up too much of his time. It's the mentality that if one leaves the lights off - he or she can continue to pretend that the hat and coat on the rack is an intruder. In that same book is a lightened version of a photo taken of the people inside the shelter and if that is not Zapruder's face, then he had a twin brother. dgh: perhaps this inchoate moron can tell us what page this picture of Zapruder is on certainly isn't pg.92... then you can point me to witness testimony saying: yes, I saw Zapruder on the pedestal that noon hour on Nov 22nd 1963.... bet we're gonna have to wait for a longtime, if EVER, right Bill? I might add once more that these clowns that keep trying to make it appear that there is no proof that Zapruder and Sitzman were ever on the pedestal are the same jokers who have never bothered to get Trask's book, have never bothered to check with the Hester's when they had the chance to see who Beatrice and Charles claimed were on the pedestal and who they had met with in the shelter immediately after the shooting, they never bothered to check with Jean Hill or Mary Moorman who by the evening of the assassination had seen Zapruder on TV and could say whether he was the man on the pedestal, and the list goes on. They do not address how it is that Zapruder's family home movies are on the original film just prior to the plaza film. Half of the time these same jokers will claim Zapruder and Sitzman were oin the pedestal so to promote film editing with the "other film" and the other half of the time they say no one was on the pedestal. It's the same old sorry assed research that led to Altgens 6 being said to be genuine while claiming that Moorman and Hill were standing in the street. Maybe us merely being called "BUFFS" is letting us off easy. dgh: then simply point us to given, recorded """ T E S T I M O N Y """. Not hearsay, conjecture -- given testimony he was recognized on that pedestal,. should be simple as pie! Btw Willie, its B A G H D A D, get your Bob's straight! Bill Miller

Well David ... have you even watched the Wiegman film? Compare my image to the frames of the Wiegman film and see how far they are off. silly, silly boy -- of course I've seen the the film, all three parts, not only that I own 3 Bell and Howell 16mm Filmo's, the same make/model camera Weigman used, along with the same 'alleged' 10mm lens. any more silly questions....? Wait, I have one for you, is there any photo anywhere that positively I.D.'s Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal? Hell, even a eyewitness accounting that relates to: yes, it was Zapruder and Sitzman were on that pedestal and that Zapruder was indeed filming the event?

The explanation for Zapruder and Sitzman's absence off the pedestal in the Wiegman film is due to a combination of severely blurred frames and the limited color tones of a B&W image. Bronson's slide captured Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal - Bronson's film, Nix's film, Moorman's photo taken and photographed for TV not 30 minutes following the assassination all show Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. The Willis and Betzner photos show Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. Patsy Paschall's film captures Sitzman at the pedestal as Zapruder is hopping down from it. Altgens takes a photo showing Sitzman and Zapruder starting to leave the pedestal. So someone tell me why in the hell there is a need to think that something might be up when a blurry balck and white film doesn't show the detail needed to separate Zapruder and Sitzman from the background of the knoll? Below is the Betzner photo - add motion blur to match that of the Wiegman film and Zapruder/Sitzman/and the BDM all disappear. Is anyone keeping track at how many times this has had to be explained?!! Bill ahh....don't you think that's a *tad* bit more motion blur than necessary? LMAO! Not to mention its evenly displaced across the entire image -- Bad EXAMPLE, just another altered image to add to the mix.....

312-314 hmm, interesting -- looks like a matte outline around the back of Kennedy's head where witness said a hole was located... These Groden images?

TOP POST EXCELLENT post, Ashton -- E X C E L L E N T! How is that for a oneliner? You could usefully put the vitriol away, also. I keep the bottle of vitriol handy only as an antidote to condescension and apply it in direct proportion. I have exchanges with people here in this forum that one easily could mistake for an English garden tea. One lump or two? Okay. You seemed to know the article, since you knew the name of Beek100 (who worked with enormous industry and resources to sabotage it), and the name of the article has since been changed from its original "Watergate first break-in" (as I recall) to the fictional "Watergate burglaries." It has therefore been so thoroughly sabotaged and fictionalized that I feel certain any attempt to make it reflect fact is beyond hope at this point.And it is fiction masquerading as "fact." And that's a fact. It's fully documented in these forums. It also is my perception and belief that you will not address this on the facts, ever, but will steer the discussion toward such things as whether you had the right title or not—a complete go-nowehere merry-go-round, of course, since the title has been changed to propagate the CIA fiction. What I described was not a "page move." It was a significant title change to propagate a CIA fiction. Propaganda by redefinition of terms is also a CIA gimmick. It is a very handy evasion not to do so when a position is indefensible and facts are inarguable. I'll grant you that. As was pointed out in the discussion, there were many longer articles on Wikipedia at the time (on less controversial issues, of course), and it violated no hard and fast rules on length, so that was an entirely specious issue used as an excuse. Not a single actual example was given, only claims that the sources "didn't adequately support the claims." So post an actual example instead of simply repeating a false claim, and I'll be happy to discuss and document facts, not answer recitations of generalized and unsupported allegations. That's what injustice thrives on.You don't want to champion such egregious injustices, surely. Another false and unsupported allegation. Repitition of false generalized charges don't make them any more true today than they did in Salem in the seventeenth century. Same tactics, different day. Please post some kind of specific evidence for such sweeping indictments. Without evidence in support, such generalized smearing (gratuitously using words like "tarnished") is exactly the kind of kangaroo court mentality reflected on the page itself. And as it stands, to this moment, not one valid reason for deleting the Remote Viewing Timeline ever was put forth there or here with a shred of factual evidence. Yeah, I know, that's the official line and you're sticking to it.But here are my personal opinions about that in general, and the Remote Viewing Timeline article specifically: Generally, on certain controversial subjects there is a core of "Wikipedians" who can be counted on to industriously attack any article that strays from "The Official Story" that the government's Operation Mockingbird has invested millions in shoving down people's throats. Generally, Wikipedia is rigged from the ground up with every kind of excuse and method to accomplish exactly that. The "Watergate First Break-In" article exposed that in truly hideous ways, as anyone who actually studies the history of that article can see. Specifically on the Remote Viewing Timeline, it was far too extensive and well researched and documented for even the full-time efforts of an anonymous mechanic like "Beek100" (who, by the way, had very strange immediate access to an almost infinite number of rare sources) to be able to "fix" with mere edits. The only way out was to mark it for death, and whistle up enough cronies who would smear it with the exact kind of unsupported allegations that you've repeated here so that it would be erased out of existence (at least on Wikipedia). The pathetic exposure of the exact intention to do just that came when someone webbed it, and a "Wikipedian" editor had to go so far as to forbid anyone even linking to it. That was a truly embarrassing revelation about just exactly what was going on. The real reason the timeline was erased and banned with censorship so egregious and blatant and heinous that I can't even think of a comparative is because it exposes incontrovertibly and inarguably that the CIA's remote viewing program was founded and developed in late 1972 and early 1973 by three high-level Scientology OTs working at the time on a Top Secret contract with CIA that was extended under various covers for over twenty-five years. And that's something that no one at Wikipedia could or would address on any factual basis, and is something that you cannot and will not address here or anywhere else, because the primary documentation comes from CIA's own documents and publications and cannot be argued on the facts, only on the basis of hysterical rants of denial against the truth such as are memorialized on the "discussion" page at Wikipedia. And so it shall remain. But even intellectual impotence and dishonesty won't stop or alter the truth. Ashton Gray

Peter, Can you [or the source] confirm this photo was taken the same day of the assassination? Tnx, David Healy

perhap's Charlie, insanity = doing, saying, showing the same thing over and over and over and OVER again, expecting different RESULTS?

?????? "explaing things people didn't understand before thinking..." what the hell are you talking about?

Terry, You ought to post this to alt.conspiracy.jfk (the un-moderated forum) it will be read far and wide, and Martin perusues regularlly! Just put his name in the thread title line.... David

Jack White' wrote: quote name='David G. Healy' post='88700' date='Jan 12 2007, 12:36 AM' To the contrary, David. I must compliment "Miller" on his computer EXPERTISE. I was confused about how he had achived his "COMPOSIT" as he called it, for NO SUCH COMPUTER Z FRAME EXISTS. Here he has been telling us for years how difficult it would be to be to FAKE ZAPRUDER IMAGES, and now he has presented us a perfect example of HOW EASY IT IS FOR AN AMATEUR TO MAKE A FAKE PHOTO. dgh: Hello Jack... In today's world, a one arm paper-hanger with minimum skills using Photoshop can alter Z- frames in about 3 minutes [that's on a bad day] I spent more than an hour trying to figure how he did it, collecting all the relevant frames he used. Of course the Franzens and Ginandtonicman are from frame 369, and others are from nearby frames. He has completely changed the Franzen and Ginman group to something which cannot be extracted from the raw frames with any program I have. dgh: it's called the clone tool in Photoshop, which of course was NOT around in 1963-64 He added the limo and Jackie from another frame. He changed up the rollbar and roses. He added Clint Hill from another frame. He added the unseen side of the limo from a much earlier frame, and had to alter perspective to do so. The rear wheel of the limo is not seen in frame 369. The relationship of the limo to the curb is different. He has removed the texture of the grass and changed its color. Then he made the whole image seamlessly undetectable. You would think he is employed by George Lucas at Industrial Light and Magic. Yes, David..."Miller" is quite an expert. He has created a composite "Zframe" which does not exist to demonstrate his expertise. dgh: everything Miller's learned I've taught him -- all the way from Bhagdad, yet - he's better, better be getting better, of course he was an empty suit when he started I cannot duplicate this expertise with any computer program I have. I challenge you, Dolva, and Agbat to match what "Miller" has done. In fact, his work is so expert that I suspect that "someone else" did it to SHOW HOW EASY IT IS TO CREATE A FAKE ZAPRUDER FRAME. dgh:as I said, today anyone, ANYONE with software programs such as Photoshop, Painter, one can build a *composite* Z-frame in very short order.... evidently even Groden can.... Now, if Miller can enlighten us as to how it was done circa. 1964, utilizing a optical film printer then, we'll be onto something... He can feel free to utilize Groden. David, John and Frank are computer experts. I hope they will show us how easy it was to do this image. I can't do it; I doubt that "Miller" can either. dgh: Bill Miller hasn't a clue about the subject matter, Jack. I'd like Bob Groden to entertain us for awhile .... perhaps he Groden is throwing his hat into the ring? Jack

Everyone knows my qualifications in at least one area, David ... after all, I have made a Jackass out of each one of you boneheads that particpated in the writing of "Hoax". Bill Miller PS; Any new computer generated composits to offer lately? Here is one I did ... Who are you kidding, LMAO! You haven't entered the arena, Bill. But don't let your lack of understanding regarding the art form and your amateurishness diminsh your enthusiasm...

Hi John, A longway off proving alteration, non-alteration of anything. Need the original film or 1st generation 35mm *provable* frames! 6 years ago examples as these led me to believe the background area [Elm St. south curb-south] (and/or the foreground) was enlarged for whatever reason. Later [4 years ago], John Costella did not agree with me. Around this time John Costella did the correction work on the MPI Z-frames. Perhaps Chris can try [in another thread] the Costella distorted corrected Z-frames -same frames as above? David

In other words, if I follow you correctly John, the limo appears to be on one track and the background another. Here is an example from the Z film. The limo, independant of the background. Think of them as 2 movies playing at once. chris P.S. Pay no attention to that man that looks like the governor moving towards the sprocket hole. May there's more interesting Z-film anaomolies (most not explained by MPI screwups) like this... ALL after the limo emerges from behind the sign... north of the south Elm St. curb [foreground-plate] south of the south Elm St. curb [background-plate] one way of defining this anomoly is like the foreground is sliding along a plate of glass, somehow sitting above the background...

John, If there's NO *natural-normal* explanation for various intra-frame shift between two consecutive film frames (and frankly in this example, there isn't one) then one has to consider that elusive phrase *film alteration*. At a quick glance in the above 2 frame .gif animation I see y,z rotation -- physically impossible?

Chris, There is unquestionably cropping on the Discovery version. What I do not know is where/when the cropping took place. That is to say, I don't know if that is how it was originally copied to 16mm, cropped while telecine took place, or cropped for the Discovery channel DVD... I, too, was a bit disappointed when I noticed this. welcome to the USNET board world of DP-JFK assassination film. I suspect Groden could clear this query up in a New York second, but he won't. We do have Bill Miller and Len Colby though...could be worse, but I can't imagine that!

'John Dolva' wrote: Ok, not super 8 , thank's for the correction David. I came across some old manuals for editing kits. They describe splicing midframe where a scraper shaves off the emulsion and the other part overlapping into this step that's created. dgh: yes, both outgoing and incoming sides of the edit point of the film splice area is scraped down to the base and yes cuts are made inter frame,edit points aren't.... here's a simplified, step by step process for cutting film.... btw, the term hot splice simply means the splicing block is "warmed", it's NOT hot.... the splices dry faster http://www.city-net.com/~fodder/edit/art1.html Apparently experienced splicers can create a midframe splice like this that is not seen in projection mode. Possibly the mid-portion on one or both frames here could be glued into a section in a scraped out 'trough' without cutting the film? dgh: the above link covers your 1/2 and 1/2 frame question nicely [were the film joins between frames], the cutting block pilot holes [both sides of the edit] provide that. ______________ Frank, have you looked at the last few posts in Nix film topic suggestion a M01 match with Z270-71?

Super 8? Kodak released that format in 1965. Although the format was tested earlier, I doubt any DP related films were of the *super*8 variety.... There are two types of film splicers: tape splicers are for creative editing-quick cutting and easy to take a part. Hot splicers are for making rolls to be printed or transfered, to be precise: "solvent" welding of the film base. I'm slightly puzzled by these splice points [not just this film but other JFK related films], splicing mid-frame is not a common practice

'Bill Miller' wrote: I certainly agree with that, David. I think you post about as much as I do and if we was to put all the data in total that you bring to your responses - that they wouldn't fill the space on the label of a packet of 'Sweet n' Low'. You do know that just because you copy the previous message with your response - that it doesn't really mean that YOU have said anything. Maybe you'll like the personal message I got from a lurker that I never see post here ... dgh: yeah, and I get personal messages all the time... LMAO a wink and a nod, May 26 2006, 01:35 PM Experienced Member Group: Members Posts: 84 Member No.: 3373 Joined: 22-August 05 hey bill, i wasn't pointing at you, its just """" and healy get in there and quote a four page post to reply "you are stupid " etc etc... your answers are intellegent, its the others that seem to piss me off the most. I also guess that because I cite experts like Fielding, Zavada, and Groden ... maybe I should post their credentials and then we can all compare them to yours. Bill dgh: not Fielding's, not Zavada's and certainly not Groden's (debatable), qualifications, Bill --I know their past experience, they know mine, Y O U R S! Bill. Nobody knows YOURS, that IS the problem. Post all the "personal" messages you choose-- won't change the point!

My expertise has been in the interpretation of the images on the films and photos. As far as being a researcher .. I will weigh the amount of data in my post against yours any day. Here is an example of your research ability ... you will tell this forum that you have Fielding on your side, while an actual letter from Fielding says just the opposite of your position. Need I say more. I get these sorts of messages from posting members and lurkers all the time ... 1)"Bill, I like to keep an open mind about things, as I figure I don't have all the answers. However, I honestly find the "massive film alteration" school of thought to be a bit of a stretch... Obviously, Mr. Healey has not seen your work over on Lancer... To call you a "Lone Nutter" is beyond laughable -- it is utterly preposterous." 2)"I think you have nearly kicked that poor Healy & White tag team to bits." 3)"I'm almost getting to where I can't stand to read these posts any more. The abject stupidity of these photo alteration groupies is overwhelming me. Anyway, just a note to commend you on keeping the fight alive for rational logic." 4)"i wasn't pointing at you, its just healy gets in there and quotes a four page post to reply "you are stupid " etc etc... your answers are intellegent, its the others that seem to piss me off the most." How about some Healy positions on his research ... 'I have not sen any proof of alteration' ... 'I believe the Zapruder film is altered'. Yes, David ... that is a fine contribution on your part. Bill My position is in HOAX, read it someday! And we just keep on atick'n... so, all the dodging and weaving isn't adding ANY credibility to your film/photo expertise question, Bill. Your supporters not withstanding, what praytell do they know about film/photo alteration? I suspect the same as you, NOTHING!