David G. Healy

Increase your screen resolution or

decrease font size or both and vice versa.

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:

....She was taller than Zapruder, and it is said she had on high heels, no woman is going to wear high heels and climb on that pedestal, ask one,

and none are going to run down the grassy slope after and across the street as she says, after,when she looked around and saw that she was alone,

and left standing on the pedestal alone and Zapruder had gone, disappeared.....these are things she says, not me...

with heels on, they would stick into the grass, and she would

any woman, go flying and break her ruddy neck, just ask ask one....

[...]

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:

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?

dgh: 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!

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!

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?

Thank you for the Willis photo.

It appears he is filming with one arm.

Or is that another tree branch?

How many arms is he using in Moorman to film?

Do other medium have him filming with one ARM?

Amazing, what a great job he did holding the B/H 414 with one hand while filming, has vertigo, holds onto Sitzman with guns firing away.

I have that model camera, the tendency is to hold it with 2 hands while filming, to steady it against your eye.

But then again, I created a white shirted man on the wall and Jesus in the sky.

chris

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?

Please explain the Willis crop posted which shows Zapruder's head only

as tall as Sitzman's shoulder. In a recent interview by a researcher who

spoke to Zapruder's daughter, she said her father was 5'11" tall. Several

years ago I contacted on the internet a cousin of Sitzman and asked how

tall she was. His reply was "taller than average, maybe 5'9". How do you

explain this oddity?

Jack

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:

Bill,

Why is it that there is not a CLEAR photo/movie of Z/Sitzman ON THE WALL.

Everyone had a bad photo day.

I believe the enlarged photo of the white shirt man on the wall and Jesus, show much more a resemblance/detail of people than any of Z/Sitz.

Hopefully you can show something enlarged with detail from any photo, that clearly shows them on the wall.

What I've seen, there isn't any to distinguish what they are.

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

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.....

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?

Thanks, Chris...I get your point now. But the man in the white shirt

on the pedestal SEEMS PLAUSIBLE. The "man" in the red box does NOT.

The man on the pedestal MAY be an illusion...BUT THEN AN EXPLANATION

IS REQUIRED FOR THE ABSENCE OF ZAPRUDER AND SITZMAN.

Thanks.

Jack

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.....

Some experimental anaglyphs:

[...]

Z312 + Z314 Anaglyph:

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?

(1) There were no "Watergate burglaries" (plural). That's the entire point: There was no "first break-in."

Apparently you don't yet comprehend even the most fundamental material fact at issue.

<snip>

(2) Wikipedia has allowed the very title of the original Troth article to be changed so even the title now is a complete fiction. It's willful deceit. That's all.

And that's always indefensible. That's always difficult to answer.

The appropriate response from any responsible organization devoted to factual information would be alarm at learning that they were peddling fiction as fact and effective action to get it corrected—not blasé, supercilious one-liners.

(3) I expect in response more blasé, supercilious one-liners.

(4) Speaking of which: Regarding the Remote Viewing Timeline...One man's "due process" apparently is another man's lynch mob. I've seen that page of drooling hysteria, thanks. There isn't a single valid comment anywhere on it, and the timeline was deleted anyway.

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?

(1) I was requesting the exact title of the article about which you had the beef, was all.

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.

(2) Page moves happen all the time. They can be requested or contested at Wikipedia:Requested moves, if they are contentious. In other words, a forum is provided to discuss the point.

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.

(3) I can do defence-in-depth, too. I have found that less useful, at times.

It is a very handy evasion not to do so when a position is indefensible and facts are inarguable. I'll grant you that.

(4) Actually there is plenty to be gleaned from the deletion discussion there. There was essentially no support for keeping the article as was. The issue of length was raised: at 145 K the article was four times as long as the level (32 K) where a warning comment kicks in on length.

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.

The issue of sources was aired: it was felt that the cited sources didn't adequately support the claims

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.

and that the article was tarnished with 'original research' (WP term for synthesis going beyond the sourced material).

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.

..bear in mind that the AfD procedure is not delegated to anyone, it is open to the 'community' (as we say).

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:

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
   
3. 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.
   
4. 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

Some of the photos sent are likely not of any import for the assassination per se, and were taken later in the afternoon, when the flowers started to be placed in DP.

Peter,

Can you [or the source] confirm this photo was taken the same day of the assassination?

Tnx,

David Healy

One of my favorite explanations or depictions of "insanity" is that " When a person or persons, examine the "same problem", by the "same methods", for an extraordinarily long period of time, and are confounded that these continuous examinations all conclude nothing but the same repeated results.....

and they do not understand WHY? ...that this is insanity.

Why are a group of intelligent people so mesmerized by references such as : three gunmen...one missed shot...military ambush....triangulation of fire... snipers perch....grassy knoll....military snipers...high powered rifles....recordings of the number of shots (when we know of sound supression)....Corsican Mafia...."many" missed shots....firecrackers...."head snap"...possibly mis labeled Z frame numbers...number of shooters...location of shooters.....an obviously "planted old rifle"...possible shooters in different buildngs...

After 43 years of reexamining the exact same theories, it would seem that there might be some who would not be embarrased to admit that perhaps there is something wrong with our 43 year old conceptions. After all, there have been some pretty weighty minds who have examined this Same Evidence.

Why, after all of these four decades of investigations, are we not turning up anything new?

Is it possible that some theories which at first may seem "Far Out", may actually be viable ?

Possibly some very simple theories that can answer what we have considered very puzzling questions.

Why do many think, that because that they think in like manner to many others, that the conspirators who exist in a "completely different" world and frame of mind, would necessarily reason in the same manner ? Are conspiracies and political conspirators "PROFILED" ?

Would you not think that assassins would tend to more follow the route travelled by other most "successful assassins" ?

Why do we think that the best way to assasinate a political figure is from a "tall building with a high power rifle"? It has not been done in this manner in other assassnations, both political and non political. Have you ever asked why ? Could the answer be that this is not the most efficient and assured manner in which to take out a single individual ? Do the terms "military sniper", "military ambush" and "triangulation of fire" seem more reasonable than....... "Let's forget all of the BS formalities and just make certain that we kill the S.O.B." !

Perhaps what I consider "insanity" is not thought to be by those in more learned circles.

I personally feel that we should pull our "collective heads " out of our "collective a____" and take a look at the REAL UGLY WORLD much less reasonably, gentlemenly, and intellectually !

If you were seeking advice on the most successful way to rob a bank...would you ask Chomsky or Dillinger?

Charlie Black

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

These stabilized clips became the best tool in watching for movement and explaining things that people didn't understand before thinking they saw signs of alteration.

Bill

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

Below please find a post of Martin Shackleford's that Barb Junkkarinen alerted me to at the beginning of the week. I tried on two occasions to reply, but had my computer freeze up on me after copying the reply I submitted to McAdams' site. Now, don't get me wrong, here. I'm not foolish enough, or even paranoid to believe, for one second, that my computer malfunctioning had anything inadvertently to do with what I was attempting to reply and document concerning McAdams' forum. Therefore, I will once again attempt to reply, belatedly so, to this dead horse Martin Shackleford insists on kicking, only over here at The Education Forum, where I know I'll at least be given the opportunity to explain myself, and especially to Barb, whom I now consider a colleague in the branch of Allied Health, under which our respective careers: Radiology and Clinical Laboratory Technology, are umbrella'ed in the field of medicine.

Below, please note the post of Martin Shackleford, of which I replied the very next day, and which does not appear, yet some Australian butt-insky's reply is allowed to be represented, but mine is censored. I will reply to this post at the bottom of this McAdams thread and submit it here for all to see. Then, I will copy and paste it, ONCE MORE, over at MacMadman's and see if it sticks this time.

Thank you, John Simkin, for giving me a home from which to have a voice.

[Click the star to watch this topic] Judyth? (originally sent 10-26)

« Start of topic « Older Messages 1 - 2 of 2 Newer » End of topic »

Fixed font - Proportional font

1

From: Martin Shackelford - view profile

Date: Tues, Jan 9 2007 4:05 pm

Email: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>

Groups: alt.assassination.jfk

Rating: (2 users)

show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as

her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that

he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very

difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote

to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal

material removed):

"Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could

be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely,

describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows

her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff."

Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims

lightly.

Martin

Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space

2

From: timst...@gmail.com - view profile

Date: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 4:22 am

Email: timst...@gmail.com

Groups: alt.assassination.jfk

Rating: (1 user)

show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

TOP POST

Hi Martin,

Who exactly is this Terry character, pray tell?

Still, it matters not a whit. Baker's credibility got shot down for all

time on her published account of the Trade Mart leafletting incident by

Chad Zimmerman, Johann Rush and a host of other posters in August 2006.

Judyth Baker has nothing of value to add to the matter of the

assassination of JFK. You're simply flogging a dead horse there, mate.

Still, welcome back to posting at aajfk Martin. Your recent berating of

tomnln over at "The Nuthouse" was quite entertaining! :-)

Regards,

Tim Brennan

Sydney, Australia

"Newsgroup Commentator"

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

"What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as

her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that

he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very

difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote

to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal

material removed):

"Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could

be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely,

describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows

her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff."

Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims

lightly.

Martin"

Martin, why do you insist on kicking this dead horse, for all it's worth, when this topic was settled nearly 5 months ago? You take my words out of context, without the full benefit of the actual words as I submitted them. And, if anyone should've been able to piece together the full body of the text as I wrote it, you should have. Pamela had it all. So why, at this late date, are you trying to resurrect something that had been amicably settled upon? And, why are you making it appear that I'm continuing to attack Barb? This is deceitful! If you had had the common decency to take the time to put my posts into a timeline, this would've given everyone an honest account of what had transpired at that time. Instead, you dredge up this bullxxxx, without so much as a reference to the "monoclonal antibody link" aspect of mine and Judyth's original conversation that took place 3 or more years ago.

Barb was correct in pointing out the inadequacies and outright errors I posted with regard to CBC protocol, because if she hadn't it wouldn't have jogged my memory as to what Judyth and I had originally discussed with respect to the Nuclear Medicine laboratory procedures I was referring to at the time, which involved centrifuge of blood products, in order that the separation of the red blood cells from the plasma could precede what we were doing in the performance of Plasma Volume studies and the tagging of rbc's with Chromium51 in Red Cell Survival studies. I hadn't done a CBC, or urinalysis since before starting my radiology program in college, so I was a little rusty in that respect, yet made a blatant error of procedure and protocol by stating that CBC's are performed after centrifuging whole blood specimens. This was in error, and I posted the correct procedure and protocol here on McAdams' forum, The Education Forum, and on Prouty's forum with an apology to Barb for disseminating wrong information. But, if she hadn't called me on that count, I wouldn't have remember what truly sealed my confidence in what Judyth had related to me of the experiments she had been doing with mice in the early 1960's. You see, what Judyth was working on was strikingly similar to what Nuclear Medicine was working on in the late 1970's and early 1980's, in the field of what is known, or was known as, "Monoclonal Antibody" therapy in the treatment of cancer patients. It sounded like Judyth was working on the forerunner of what is known as the "mouse" or "murine" genome of antibody therapy back in the early 1960's, and even though it was to be used as a way murdering Castro, and most likely was the way Jack Ruby was taken out, in the field of science most of the time what's created for destruction, can be redeveloped into a curative or palliative treatment, as well.

Now, I don't expect everyone to understand "murine genome antibody therapy," nor do I wish to take up space here in attempting to explain the rudimentary facts of it, but the concept of using a part of the genetic strand of mouse DNA to deliver a therapeutic dose to the cancer cells in a human, was what this had evolved to by the early 1980's. Therefore, how far-fetched could it have really been for Judyth to have been working on a similar concept to be used in the delivery of creating cancer in the healthy human cell via the "murine genome" active transport model?

When you stated that I said, "Barb's work could be done by a janitor." I perceive that as a direct instigation on your part to take an archaic post of mine, out of context, and use my name as a way of attacking Barb, and for what? The "janitor" comment was in reference to the fact that since the early 1990's, there has been a push on behalf of those "for profit" corporations, such as Humana, HCA, Tenet, and Columbia, that go in and buy up the smaller, rural, community hospitals, close them down, in an effort to force people to drive further for care, burden an already overwhelmed healthcare system into competing for services that are constantly being cut, or no longer reimbursed at a level where hospitals, clinics, and physicians are able to sustain their viability to service the communities, causing massive lay-offs of personnel, no longer eligible to reap the benefits promised for years of service, let alone the loss of medical benefits for themselves and their families. Yet, the "for profits" will hire what those of us trained in college based and hospital degree'd based programs refer to as "6-week wonders." "6-week wonders" are those who've attended trade schools, such as Bryman, Nova, or Meric. They advertize themselves as a "college", but they're actually trade schools teaching a little bit of everything, such as lab technology, limited radiology, front/back office scheduling and accounting. And, offer a CNA, or a CMA certification. These schools usually put out new grads in less than a year, who will get minimum wage, or $8.00 an hour to start. It's not a bad idea, if you're going to use the limited skills you've acquired to work a job that'll pay your tuition through a college or university program because the review would be beneficial in the skills department just for starters, but the downside of these mills is their initial cost which in some cases rivals one year of a college based program.

Another anomaly to emerge from the corporatization of healthcare facilities during the 1980's was how it morphed into the concept of what The Pew [of the Pew Charitable Trust fame] Commission delivered by way of their "white paper" on the future of the state of healthcare delivery in the United States 1994. There was something known as a "paradigm shift" that was going to take place in the way healthcare was to be distributed and performed by way of utilizing existing resources to multi-task, and this "concept" would be known as "Patient Focussed Care." Why not have the "housekeepers and janitors" [aka Environmental Services] personnel double as the gatekeepers when the patients arrive. They can admit them at bedside, take their vitals, draw blood, do the ekgs, then go back to washing the toilet and mopping the floors. This euphemistic term was just another way of semantically twisting an idea to suit the underlying motives of the "profiteers" infiltrating the medical field. Patients were no longer going to be referred to as patients, they would be referred to as "customers." This was supposed to give them a sense of entitlement and responsibility for their own healthcare. I guess if you're going to be referred to as a customer then you wouldn't feel as sick as you really thought you felt, especially since being a "customer" meant that you would never forget about having a bill to pay, right? Also, if you're a "customer" you're not going to be wanting to spend more time getting well, especially with the cost of healthcare to the "customer" being as it is nowadays. Therefore, this would eliminate the need for longer recovery time, and the possiblity of ambulatory surgery becoming a reality [cut 'em open, cut 'em out, stitch 'em up, and throw 'em out]. No need to worry about infection, septicemia, etc., just dose 'em up with humongous amounts of antibiotics and "call us for an appointment next week."

So, let's put "janitor" in the proper context when I say that anybody's job can be done by the janitor. It's the "bottom line" that dictates whom they choose to employ and for what price. I know Barb's credentials, she's more qualified than I am, but we're more or less on the same page, when it comes to professionalism. She was simply correcting me on a lapse of memory. For you to dredge up this reference to something that transpired months ago without bothering to find out anything more on how it was resolved is negligent on your part, Martin. I spoke to Judyth before the holidays, in October I believe. I think you may be a little "out of time" on this call. I will always be in awe of Judyth's life, of her giftedness as a child, her artistry, her attempts to get her story told. But, as a medical professional, I stood to be corrected, and I have no qualms about reiterating that fact. I set the record straight back then. And, I respect both Barb and Judyth for their knowledge and application in the fields of their specific endeavors.

For you to post what you did over at McAdams', where you know I have difficulty stating my case, is egregious on your part. I don't appreciate having my name bandied about like an old dishrag, especially at that place. If you have anything to address about me, why not address it here at Simkins', or over at Len Osanic's where at least I have some leeway in expressing myself in a prompt and timely manner. I abhor being referred to, or having my name trashed at, a forum whose founder I have no respect for, nor bother to frequent due to their obvious deviation from what I consider to be the truth.

Please cease and desist from ever using my name again at that place, especially when you no longer understand the dynamics of my relationship with someone I have since come to know and respect. At the very least, we acknowledge each other's right "to agree to disagree" on certain aspects of the assassination. The same goes for David Lifton, who is a personal friend of mine. I don't "set him straight" on anything. He listened to my thoughts and respected them for what they were, my thoughts. So, please stop throwing peoples's names around indiscriminantly. It makes you look bad. And, it doesn't help further Judyth's cause to haphazardly refer to a dead issue such as this, out of hand like you did, and on McAdams' of all places!

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'

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...

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

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.

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...

Chris. [ my take on this : . ] I think that transition does highlight some of the difficulties. If you rotate one of the frames about 0.2 degrees so the line of the hedge lines up and the top of the visor and the rear hand hold lines up, the rotational component of what you see almost disappears. Then it seems there is a uniform displacement in the horizontal. If the lawn is then lined up it seems the shift that remains is due to blur and slight parallax shifts all over (single grass leafs and their background which while one cannot differentiate, the overall pattern shifts) as the camera shifts or pans. So there are some of the components.

Another thing is that if one keeps in mind the curvature of the lens and how this bends things at the periphery, then very localised fine alignments cause large shifts as you look away from this localised alignment. So what one ends up with is lvery much a choice. Different ways to show different things.

With the particular MM frames there is this happening as well as other things, to a much greater degree. As David indicates, alteration is an option. I think if one cannot explain (and that doesn't mean it's not explainable, just that the understanding isn't there yet) a time may come when alteration can be said to be proven. Personally I don't think we're there yet.

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

I'm probably the dense one Jack. It's an attempt to make sense of various shifts in perspective between the two frames. In this case illustrating how I see it by aligning the centre of the frames back ground. Various markers on the ground shift in relation to the standing people, and the angle of the street changes.

Of course it doesn't change but as the angle of the lens and the film surface changes, and as its location in space changes up down, left right, towards away, the same objects end up in different places on the film surface. Then there's lens distortions and foreshortening verticaly and horizontally. On top of this there are directional blurs that elongate object and fuzz their edges.

All up a collection of factors that makes the same scene different. Within that scene are moving objects.

To understand how the object really moved one needs to understand and compensate or factor out the other factors.

The gif is an attempt to illustrate this. It's slightly exaggerated. I still don't understand it all fully and any comments that help most welcome.

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...

I'm probably the dense one Jack. It's an attempt to make sense of various shifts in perspective between the two frames. In this case illustrating how I see it by aligning the centre of the frames back ground. Various markers on the ground shift in relation to the standing people, and the angle of the street changes.

Of course it doesn't change but as the angle of the lens and the film surface changes, and as its location in space changes up down, left right, towards away, the same objects end up in different places on the film surface. Then there's lens distortions and foreshortening verticaly and horizontally. On top of this there are directional blurs that elongate object and fuzz their edges.

All up a collection of factors that makes the same scene different. Within that scene are moving objects.

To understand how the object really moved one needs to understand and compensate or factor out the other factors.

The gif is an attempt to illustrate this. It's slightly exaggerated. I still don't understand it all fully and any comments that help most welcome.

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?

I've been told the Muchmore version on the Discovery DVD is a copy from the original.

How can that be when it's been cropped while comparing it to Groden's version.

Why would you want to crop a copy of an original?

Here is a gif to show some of the cropping that has occured.

I'm sure you can figure out what area is being affected due to cropping.

And those pesky lines again, along with a discolored wall bottom in Groden's.

chris

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?

That's cool David. Thank's for the concern. Have you an opinion on the images above? Or do you know a link to sample images of super8 60's splices to study? Are the dark parts aged glue?

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:

as they say: yee who squeals the loudest has something to hide..... now, your film/photo qualifications are?

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!

all the posturing isn't getting Miller's film/photo qualifications posted. I could care less whether he, Miller or Thompson, Meagher, Weisberg believe that JFK was murder via a conspiracy. Frankly I find it a supreme insult that Miller's name is grouped with those esteem investigators -- What's your excuse for that, Carroll?

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!