Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did Zapruder take "the Zapruder film"?


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

BTW, WHO peer reviewed Costella's work?

The most obvious answer would be Costella's partner - Bud Abbott! One of my all time favorites of theirs was 'Who's on the pedestal'.

The other person who we must assume has peer-reviewed Costella's work would be David Healy. Since Healy has long since claimed to 'have not seen any proof of alteration', then is it not fair to say that he/himself had investigated and reviewed Costella's claims and found them unfounded.

Below is one of Costella's examples of his work. He merely pasted his body seen in profile next to Moorman and Hill and scaled them to his liking. His technique seems to be lacking something and he doesn't seem to understand what it is.

1) There is nothing in the photo that shows how he scaled the two. In fact, Costella doesn't mention anything in this illustration where he used any object within the Zapruder film to show that something was not in scale.

2) He doesn't see that Hill and Moorman in the Zapruder film are in line proportionately with Brehm who is just a few feet east of their location. This also means that he didn't consider that if everyone within the film is proportionate to each other according to known data that it may be that he has a flaw in his approach ... one obvious one already mentioned.

3) Costella has since re-tracted his conclusion that Moorman was standing in the street and was in the grass above the curb. This means that the data he used to create his illustration was born from an error he had originally made from the onset.

It is these things in my view is why Costella doesn't seek peer review ... because he couldn't get the support he needs.

Bill Miller

CostellaoverlayofhillandMoorman.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BTW, WHO peer reviewed Costella's work?

The most obvious answer would be Costella's partner - Bud Abbott! One of my all time favorites of theirs was 'Who's on the pedestal'.

The other person who we must assume has peer-reviewed Costella's work would be David Healy. Since Healy has long since claimed to 'have not seen any proof of alteration', then is it not fair to say that he/himself had investigated and reviewed Costella's claims and found them unfounded.

Below is one of Costella's examples of his work. He merely pasted his body seen in profile next to Moorman and Hill and scaled them to his liking. His technique seems to be lacking something and he doesn't seem to understand what it is.

1) There is nothing in the photo that shows how he scaled the two. In fact, Costella doesn't mention anything in this illustration where he used any object within the Zapruder film to show that something was not in scale.

2) He doesn't see that Hill and Moorman in the Zapruder film are in line proportionately with Brehm who is just a few feet east of their location. This also means that he didn't consider that if everyone within the film is proportionate to each other according to known data that it may be that he has a flaw in his approach ... one obvious one already mentioned.

3) Costella has since re-tracted his conclusion that Moorman was standing in the street and was in the grass above the curb. This means that the data he used to create his illustration was born from an error he had originally made from the onset.

It is these things in my view is why Costella doesn't seek peer review ... because he couldn't get the support he needs.

Bill Miller

CostellaoverlayofhillandMoorman.jpg

I hope you were sitting down when you typed that, wouldn't want you to strain yourself...... now, as far as peers go: listen son, you're not in the league with anyone that familiar with the Zapruder film, not even in a minor league ballpark. Best if you continue to carry Gary Mack water pail and wallet 'nother 5 years. Then you'll be ready to assist Kathy, that's if you stay on your game!

But we already know the ruse..... You're not running from the Daryll Weatherly quote too, are you? Last chance.... :ice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you were sitting down when you typed that, wouldn't want you to strain yourself...... now, as far as peers go: listen son, you're not in the league with anyone that familiar with the Zapruder film, not even in a minor league ballpark. Best if you continue to carry Gary Mack water pail and wallet 'nother 5 years. Then you'll be ready to assist Kathy, that's if you stay on your game!

But we already know the ruse..... You're not running from the Daryll Weatherly quote too, are you? Last chance.... :ice

Not sure what all your psychotic ramblings are supposed to mean, so let me give you the long and short of it ... It is your water pail I am carrying after you said that 'you did not see any proof of alteration ... something you had been saying for years'. In other words ... I agree with you, David.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, WHO peer reviewed Costella's work?

The most obvious answer would be Costella's partner - Bud Abbott! One of my all time favorites of theirs was 'Who's on the pedestal'.

The other person who we must assume has peer-reviewed Costella's work would be David Healy. Since Healy has long since claimed to 'have not seen any proof of alteration', then is it not fair to say that he/himself had investigated and reviewed Costella's claims and found them unfounded.

Below is one of Costella's examples of his work. He merely pasted his body seen in profile next to Moorman and Hill and scaled them to his liking. His technique seems to be lacking something and he doesn't seem to understand what it is.

1) There is nothing in the photo that shows how he scaled the two. In fact, Costella doesn't mention anything in this illustration where he used any object within the Zapruder film to show that something was not in scale.

2) He doesn't see that Hill and Moorman in the Zapruder film are in line proportionately with Brehm who is just a few feet east of their location. This also means that he didn't consider that if everyone within the film is proportionate to each other according to known data that it may be that he has a flaw in his approach ... one obvious one already mentioned.

3) Costella has since re-tracted his conclusion that Moorman was standing in the street and was in the grass above the curb. This means that the data he used to create his illustration was born from an error he had originally made from the onset.

It is these things in my view is why Costella doesn't seek peer review ... because he couldn't get the support he needs.

Bill Miller

CostellaoverlayofhillandMoorman.jpg

I hope you were sitting down when you typed that, wouldn't want you to strain yourself...... now, as far as peers go: listen son, you're not in the league with anyone that familiar with the Zapruder film, not even in a minor league ballpark. Best if you continue to carry Gary Mack water pail and wallet 'nother 5 years. Then you'll be ready to assist Kathy, that's if you stay on your game!

But we already know the ruse..... You're not running from the Daryll Weatherly quote too, are you? Last chance.... :ice

Is the fetzer cabal running from the documentation that their "star" PhD in Theoretical Physics, can't even understand the simple REAL WORLD physics as it pertains to the photographic principle of parallax? Really embarassing eh? Is that why your "star" is hiding under a rock somewhere in the outback?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Byt even better, why don't YOU try and take it apart David? You are a self proclaimed expert. Show us your stuff. It will however require more than just cutting a pasting some images into powerpoint. BTW, can we see the proof that you did not violate the copyright of someone else when you used published images. Inquiring minds want to know....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Byt even better, why don't YOU try and take it apart David? You are a self proclaimed expert. Show us your stuff. It will however require more than just cutting a pasting some images into powerpoint. .

Craig, David has already shown what ever it is that he can do or else he would have done a whole lot better by now. But you are not alone when asking is there more to this individual ....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...ef04b9c31d568d#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

That feature isn't present in either of Costella's combined edits, either.

Nor does it appear in any of the stills I could find of that section of the building. Unless there are images I have missed, and thats always possible, it begs the question why are they in Groden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

That feature isn't present in either of Costella's combined edits, either.

Nor does it appear in any of the stills I could find of that section of the building. Unless there are images I have missed, and thats always possible, it begs the question why are they in Groden?

My experience FWIW tells me that MPI's film images are lighter and not as contrasted as Groden's. One might take MPI's frame and give it the same lighting and contrasting appearance as Robert's and see if they then look alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...