Bill Miller Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 I don't recall making any "personal attacks" in my comments on this thread. In fact, I don't recall that I've launched a personal attack at any point in my stay on the forum. I did not appreciate the insulting and condescending tenor of the remainder of the reply. Frank ... don't sweat-it! You are talking about a guy who has a song written about him called 'Healy the red nosed Boozer'. His contributions to the JFK research community can only be compared to the contributions prostitutes have made for the penicillin manufactures. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...563d3cfbf66f72e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Bill,With all due respect, anyone reading that old Lancer thread from 2003, and comparing it with your tentative comments about the same subject on this thread, would naturally think that your views have changed dramatically in the past six years. What has happened to cause you to temper your strong opinion that the backyard photos are fake? Don, I still feel that my observations are valid concerning the Backyard photographs, but that doesn't mean that I have not misunderstood something in my reading of a particular two. I don't have those images with me so to comment on them or to looking into the points Craig raised. people can be wrong and pass lie detector test because they truly believed that what they said was the truth to the best of their ability. I am only saying that I am open to listen and check out what I am told to see if I missed something. For instance I can say that the Zapruder film shows JFK's car going in a straight line, but I know that in reality it did not because the road bends. It would be wrong for me to deny the bend in the road just because I had earlier said the Zapruder definitely shows the limo coming straight down Elm Street. I would also be another Fetzer if I just started barking that Craig is wring without first testing the data that he has offered to see if it applies at all to the changes I saw take place in the BY photos. I am happy that you remembered the work and approach I took on looking at those photos. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Bill,With all due respect, anyone reading that old Lancer thread from 2003, and comparing it with your tentative comments about the same subject on this thread, would naturally think that your views have changed dramatically in the past six years. What has happened to cause you to temper your strong opinion that the backyard photos are fake? Don, I still feel that my observations are valid concerning the Backyard photographs, but that doesn't mean that I have not misunderstood something in my reading of a particular two. I don't have those images with me so to comment on them or to looking into the points Craig raised. people can be wrong and pass lie detector test because they truly believed that what they said was the truth to the best of their ability. I am only saying that I am open to listen and check out what I am told to see if I missed something. For instance I can say that the Zapruder film shows JFK's car going in a straight line, but I know that in reality it did not because the road bends. It would be wrong for me to deny the bend in the road just because I had earlier said the Zapruder definitely shows the limo coming straight down Elm Street. I would also be another Fetzer if I just started barking that Craig is wring without first testing the data that he has offered to see if it applies at all to the changes I saw take place in the BY photos. I am happy that you remembered the work and approach I took on looking at those photos. Bill Friends that's what we call the Lone Nut Shuffle.... distance yourself from position, feign ignorance, fall in line with and clarify the underwriters position, blame other CT researchers for your ignorance thren declare your convergence -- and wallah..... instant lone nut! (we've seen it more than once) And guess what, Wild Bill can't dance, either..... ROTFLMFAO! Another joke on the community! Carry on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 First, it was Craig's Xacto knife...Then it was Bill's Screwdriver in the ground... Now, the yardstick. Gentlemen -- this is *precisely* the type of open, shared research that this community needs. Anyone with a camera and some simple tools can repeat these experiments for themselves and verify the results. These simple, but effective, demonstrations and experiments show some fundamental (but not necessarily immediately simple) concepts of perspective, parallax, and all the associated issues when 3 dimensions are "mapped" onto two. That is what happens, folks, then light passes through a lens and is "focused" onto a perpendicular plane (like film or an imaging sensor - like CCD or CMOS). The result is a two-dimensional object. ** Additional manipulation of that object is manipulation in 2D space, not 3D!! ** That is why simple re-sizing, turning, twisting, and aligning on our computers may result in highly flawed conclusions. Sure -- it is absolutely possible to glean lots of useful information from the photographs and films. Like Craig and Bill, this is my primary area of interest and expertise. I can't keep track of the alphabet soup of names that is the "whodunnit" portion of this case. There are others on here with the appropriate skills to work this angle. I'm simply not that person, so I stick to the science and technology side of things (where I have something to contribute). I continue to try to keep an open mind toward any number of theories. I know people work hard on them and are proud of their work. That is why I prefer to ask questions and listen to responses as opposed to simply ripping into someone's work. However, at this juncture, from where I sit, the film alteration crowd has not made their case in a compelling way, scientifically. I'm still open to the concept, as to be closed-minded is not in the spirit of good research. However, I'm certainly leaning (strongly) in the direction that the photographic evidence is genuine, unaltered apart from damage and aging, and a useful research tool. Does that make me a lone-nutter? Not really. Neither the WC, the HCA, Posner, Myers, Bugliosi, et al have not made their case in a compelling way, either. the above is **precisely** the type of posts that continue the personal attacks on DP film/photo alteration researchers.... your posts included, Frank. Are you a lone nut? Frankly, I could care less who is or isn't, that's for the private eyes amongst us to determine.... The best thing about your posts are their humor value, can you point to which part of Frank's post constituted a "personal attack" Every single solitary post concerning the validity of DP films and photos takes away from exposing the conspiracy Then you should stop posting on such threads and tell your buddies to stop dredging it up . Which is **precisely** what the preservers of DP film-photo historical record want. Why do you think we have endless threads concerning same, on ALL types of forums near and far.... wake up.... whose at the head of the pack? Well, simple, as demonstrated right here on this forum, Gary's heir-apparent Bill Miller.... LOL - This from the guy complaing about personal attacks As all with inside knowledge know, until there is forensic testing done on alleged in-camera original Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 films, **proving in-camera original status** You are of course aware that the inventor of the filmstock used did precisely that. Frank, as you infer photography is a hobby of yours, AND of course you hold no JD degree, so thanks for your amateur opinion concerning the subject matter, as that's what it is: OPINION. You've certainly not proved nor enlightened us with your quasi (to quote Wild Bill) expertise in the film photo area, which lands you square in the middle of Wild Bill Miller's camp, but we figured that months ago. LOL - This from the guy with no known experience with FILM compositing who wrote a chapter on the subject. I'm the one who can't prove film alteration, I guess you find your collegues arguments as unconvincing as the rest of us. oh sitdown dufus, I dealt with your nonsense back in the Rollie Zavada era.... your a complete waste of time when oitcomes to film alteration, nearly on a par with Wild Bill (I done seen the Nutter light) Miller..... Don't you have some sort of international scam to expose or sump'in, Len? Damn, this is one long good-bye Josiah's got going here. Hey you guy's we're doing the 45 questions on acj (alt.conspiracy.jfk) again, If you can nad up, you're more than welcome to give actual evidence a shot.... leave Miller at home though, he needs to retain some sort of reputation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Every single solitary post concerning the validity of DP films and photos takes away from exposing the conspiracy. Which is **precisely** what the preservers of DP film-photo historical record want. Why do you think we have endless threads concerning same, on ALL types of forums near and far.... wake up.... whose at the head of the pack? Well, simple, as demonstrated right here on this forum, Gary's heir-apparent Bill Miller.... Keep the debates focused on the DP film and photo researchers, maybe the rest of the world will forget about, THAT "conspiracy" none admit is starring them right in the face. David, we hold the same conclusions as you do concerning not seeing any proof of alteration. The difference is that we look at what was claimed about the photo or film that was said to be impossible, thus proving alteration. So we test those claims and find out that if there is alteration afoot ... its not because of the reason the claimant gave. I think it would be great to show alteration, but it must be true alteration and not because some boob has misread a photograph by using a poor fuzzy lesser quality print to achieve their goal. Not speaking up and pointing out these errors would help the conspirators even more for it makes the rest of us look as if we too, are too whacked upstairs to read a photo correctly and even worse ... incompetent to know how to investigate it so to know. Now what could really stick it to those conspirators is for you to actually make that written request to examine the in-camera original Zapruder film like you have been complaining about for well over the last decade. If you would put just 1/10th of the effort into making that request as you do writing the vulgar low-life gutter talk replies I have read on those web pages dedicated to exposing your sick behavior ... you might surprise a few folks and actually do something constructive over authenticating or exposing the Zapruder film with something real about it being altered for a change. Bill Miller Now Miller (so even a child could understand) you hold no conclusions I do. NOW your a reader of minds? LMFAO! You have no conception of film and photo composition and/or alteration. You may begin to redeem yourself by placing right in this thread your professional experience in film and photo composition, anything short of that reverts me to a simple position, that of your teacher in such matters. And quite frankly, you have no qualities I'd expect to see in a student of the art-form.... so your current lone nut conversion are meaningless to this and any other film-photo alteration conversation.... Don't bother responding, see if you can hold your water for 36 hours, we'll see how far the Dealey Plaza addiction has traveled.... Hi Gar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 And guess what, Wild Bill can't dance, either..... ROTFLMFAO! Another joke on the community! Carry on! I didn't know that one person with multiple personalities was considered a 'community'. Have them read this page. Certain words will surely make them think they have found some code relating to JFK's assassination. http://skepdic.com/mpd.html Abracadabra to Zombies - Abraham Zapruder MDA - MPD Alter - alteration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 oh sitdown dufus, I dealt with your nonsense back in the Rollie Zavada era.... your a complete waste of time when oitcomes to film alteration, nearly on a par with Wild Bill (I done seen the Nutter light) Miller..... If you can nad up, you're more than welcome to give actual evidence a shot.... leave Miller at home though, he needs to retain some sort of reputation David, do you realize that between this forum and the one that you started a thread on about me has used up more time than had you written that request to examine the Zapruder film at the NARA. Maybe you need to do a priority check??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 (edited) Now Miller (so even a child could understand) you hold no conclusions I do. NOW your a reader of minds? LMFAO! You have no conception of film and photo composition and/or alteration. You may begin to redeem yourself by placing right in this thread your professional experience in film and photo composition, anything short of that reverts me to a simple position, that of your teacher in such matters. And quite frankly, you have no qualities I'd expect to see in a student of the art-form.... so your current lone nut conversion are meaningless to this and any other film-photo alteration conversation.... Well then, I guess that since John Costella, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and David Mantik don't pass the educational muster you impose on Bill, they are pretty much worthless players too. Good work there davie. By the way, has Costella the physicist figured out the gravity of his basic physics mistake yet? Frank, who has a degree in physics, has... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Edited April 6, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Craig,I'm not as impressed by your expertise in this area as you are. "Basic photographic principals (sp)" are obviously lacking in these photos, Your argument circular,'studies have shown the photos are fake' - 'therefore any study indicating they aren't fake is wrong' you base the former in part on a study by Bill but after seeing Craig's study Bill admits he might have been in error. Can you refute Craig's study? You don't even seem to understand it which means you don't know enough about the subject to come to an informed conclusion. A person's hunch in an area they have little or no understanding is meaningless especially if it reenforces their preconcieved notions. Scientists often do tests "double blind" for a reason even they can biasas results to meet their expectations without meaning to. "...which is why virtually every researcher into the assassination strongly suspected they were faked as part of the effort to frame Oswald." "virtually every" "strongly suspected" - That's not very definitive. On what basis did they suspect this how many of them had any demonstrable photo/photo analysis skills I notice that you have yet to deal with LHO's mom's testimoney about seeing and helping destroy a similar photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Now Miller (so even a child could understand) you hold no conclusions I do. NOW your a reader of minds? LMFAO! You have no conception of film and photo composition and/or alteration. You may begin to redeem yourself by placing right in this thread your professional experience in film and photo composition, anything short of that reverts me to a simple position, that of your teacher in such matters. And quite frankly, you have no qualities I'd expect to see in a student of the art-form.... so your current lone nut conversion are meaningless to this and any other film-photo alteration conversation....Don't bother responding, see if you can hold your water for 36 hours, we'll see how far the Dealey Plaza addiction has traveled.... Hi Gar! David, I know enough about composition to have made an ass out of you each time we have danced. After all I used a reference that Fetzer made to Disney's 'Mary Poppins' movie and I looked at it. Disney was said to be the best in the industry and yet under frame by frame examination I could clearly see the editing. Other than yourself, I know of no one else who makes the claim that you do ... are there no more compositors out there that think like you do? Exposure came for you when after you had went on for years about all this 'composition' knowledge of yours and how you'd be able to get this alteration debate settled once and for all if the NARA would let you examine the camera original Zapruder film. Then we find that your sorry behind had not even attempted to fill out a request to get the job done. That pretty much told the story ... did it not! You didn't even believe in your own nonsense enough to make an attempt to help move the case forward. You talked about what you could do, but won't ... you no longer have any credibility in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 (edited) Now Miller (so even a child could understand) you hold no conclusions I do. NOW your a reader of minds? LMFAO! You have no conception of film and photo composition and/or alteration. You may begin to redeem yourself by placing right in this thread your professional experience in film and photo composition, anything short of that reverts me to a simple position, that of your teacher in such matters. And quite frankly, you have no qualities I'd expect to see in a student of the art-form.... so your current lone nut conversion are meaningless to this and any other film-photo alteration conversation.... Well then, I guess that since John Costella, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and David Mantik don't pass the educational muster you impose on Bill, they are pretty much worthless players too. Good work there davie. By the way, has Costella the physicist figured out the gravity of his basic physics mistake yet? Frank, who has a degree in physics, has... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm there's no need to attempt to prop Miller up, Craig, a lost cause... Now, as far as Frank goes? Hey, as I've said countless times, everyone is free to opine. To continue, Frank has shown us what when it comes to film-photos of Dealey Plaza? By his own admission he doesn't participate. (probably for good reason - see below) John Costella, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and David Mantik... I say not bad: 3-Ph.D's, 1-M.D. 1-Masters Degree.... 2-Ph.D's in Physics (1 of which is also a M.D.), 1 Masters Degree in Physics, ALL published authors, 2 in the field of Physics, 1 a NYT best-seller. Can ya tell me Franks bio, degree and publishing history, Craig? Better yet, Frank? And Frank, these guys are wont to throw the unsuspecting under the bus.... You're getting too old for this Craig! A 3 week and counting good-bye, lordy.lordy, LORDY! You should be ashamed leading lurkers on like this..... Edited April 6, 2009 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Now Miller (so even a child could understand) you hold no conclusions I do. NOW your a reader of minds? LMFAO! You have no conception of film and photo composition and/or alteration. You may begin to redeem yourself by placing right in this thread your professional experience in film and photo composition, anything short of that reverts me to a simple position, that of your teacher in such matters. And quite frankly, you have no qualities I'd expect to see in a student of the art-form.... so your current lone nut conversion are meaningless to this and any other film-photo alteration conversation....Don't bother responding, see if you can hold your water for 36 hours, we'll see how far the Dealey Plaza addiction has traveled.... Hi Gar! David, I know enough about composition to have made an ass out of you each time we have danced. After all I used a reference that Fetzer made to Disney's 'Mary Poppins' movie and I looked at it. Disney was said to be the best in the industry and yet under frame by frame examination I could clearly see the editing. Other than yourself, I know of no one else who makes the claim that you do ... are there no more compositors out there that think like you do? Exposure came for you when after you had went on for years about all this 'composition' knowledge of yours and how you'd be able to get this alteration debate settled once and for all if the NARA would let you examine the camera original Zapruder film. Then we find that your sorry behind had not even attempted to fill out a request to get the job done. That pretty much told the story ... did it not! You didn't even believe in your own nonsense enough to make an attempt to help move the case forward. You talked about what you could do, but won't ... you no longer have any credibility in my view. Wild Bill you haven't found an alarm clock to set early enough... LMAO! Say, are you still running around the woods and forests looking for 8-10' creatures naked but for hair, I think they call them Yeti in some cultures? You finally give that career up when you determined there's more fertile ground to plow in the JFK assassination film-photo area. Bill when you feel you want a public, face-to-face debate concerning film composition let me know, railing away on a forum such as this is a waste of time, andIF you have talents - wasting those TOO! You're hiding son, the entire CT world knows it! p.s. how do you know I didn't fill out a request, Wild Bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 (edited) Now Miller (so even a child could understand) you hold no conclusions I do. NOW your a reader of minds? LMFAO! You have no conception of film and photo composition and/or alteration. You may begin to redeem yourself by placing right in this thread your professional experience in film and photo composition, anything short of that reverts me to a simple position, that of your teacher in such matters. And quite frankly, you have no qualities I'd expect to see in a student of the art-form.... so your current lone nut conversion are meaningless to this and any other film-photo alteration conversation.... Well then, I guess that since John Costella, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and David Mantik don't pass the educational muster you impose on Bill, they are pretty much worthless players too. Good work there davie. By the way, has Costella the physicist figured out the gravity of his basic physics mistake yet? Frank, who has a degree in physics, has... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm there's no need to attempt to prop Miller up, Craig, a lost cause... I'm not propping anyone at all, just pointing out Daivd G Healy, HYPOCRITE Now, as far as Frank goes? Hey, as I've said countless times, everyone is free to opine. OPINE? FRANK was showing you FACTS. Someday MAYBE you will figure out the difference. o continue, Frank has shown us what when it comes to film-photos of Dealey Plaza? By his own admission he doesn't participate. (probably for good reason - see below) Actually he told you just the opposite. NO wonder you are so ignornant, you can't read. John Costella, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and David Mantik... I say not bad: 3-Ph.D's, 1-M.D. 1-Masters Degree.... 2-Ph.D's in Physics (1 of which is also a M.D.), 1 Masters Degree in Physics, ALL published authors, 2 in the field of Physics, 1 a NYT best-seller. Can ya tell me Franks bio, degree and publishing history, Craig? Better yet, Frank? And Frank, these guys are wont to throw the unsuspecting under the bus.... You're getting too old for this Craig! And how many of these dudes have ACTUAL professional or even advanced amateur photographic or film COMPOSITING experience? WHy not list it for us davie? Thats YOUR standard, and yet you pimp for guys who can't even understand something as simpel as parallax! What a bunch of losers! And if these wonderkinds have so much experience in physics, how in the world did they let this massive blunder in simple physics get past? Costella's simple physics blunder...what a moron! As for Franks bio, well, its linked under his posts...you know where all of our bios are to be posted! So bring it on Healy. Line up this massive "brain trust" and debunk three simple photos, that is IF they can! Of course thats the real problem, and the reason Costella is hiding under a rock in the outback...the work is unimpeachable! Better yet WHY DON"T YOU DO IT? You are really good at shooting you mouth off, can you actually BACK IT UP with real work? Edited April 6, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Say, are you still running around the woods and forests looking for 8-10' creatures naked but for hair, I think they call them Yeti in some cultures? You finally give that career up when you determined there's more fertile ground to plow in the JFK assassination film-photo area. Bill when you feel you want a public, face-to-face debate concerning film composition let me know, railing away on a forum such as this is a waste of time, andIF you have talents - wasting those TOO! You're hiding son, the entire CT world knows it! p.s. how do you know I didn't fill out a request, Wild Bill? The Yeti has a totally different looking foot that the Giganto-pitheicus which is thought by many Ph.Ds to be what is still being seen and labeled the Sasquatch. In your attempt to try and appear like a wise guy - your misstating the evidence exposes your ignorance on the subject. I also made some references in my previous post that you did not address ... I hardly call that going toe to toe. Now what images did you composite in a dark room that you can show us??? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Say, are you still running around the woods and forests looking for 8-10' creatures naked but for hair, I think they call them Yeti in some cultures? You finally give that career up when you determined there's more fertile ground to plow in the JFK assassination film-photo area. Bill when you feel you want a public, face-to-face debate concerning film composition let me know, railing away on a forum such as this is a waste of time, andIF you have talents - wasting those TOO! You're hiding son, the entire CT world knows it! p.s. how do you know I didn't fill out a request, Wild Bill? The Yeti has a totally different looking foot that the Giganto-pitheicus which is thought by many Ph.Ds to be what is still being seen and labeled the Sasquatch. In your attempt to try and appear like a wise guy - your misstating the evidence exposes your ignorance on the subject. I also made some references in my previous post that you did not address ... I hardly call that going toe to toe. Now what images did you composite in a dark room that you can show us??? Bill Miller Wild Bill, I could care less whether you recited The Apostle Creed in previous post. Simply get yourself a public forum with cameras, buy myself and my second round trip plane tickets, cover all expenses for 3 days, and lest I forget, bring your lunch, you'll need it: Film and Photo Composition is the topic.... So anytime you feel the courage.... LMFAO! Gee, I kinda like doing all bold, makes me feel important like Wild Bill here p.s. you don't make film composites in a darkroom, clod. Bad, bad sign for your side -- better get Craig back in here, you're in trouble already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now