Jump to content
The Education Forum

For David Healy RE: Zavada Response to Doug Horne


Recommended Posts

I would like Craig to answer my question first.

Yes or no?

No.

Of course

There could be all kinds of anomalies all over the place and Craig would still say the film is A-OK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would like Craig to answer my question first.

Yes or no?

No.

Of course

There could be all kinds of anomalies all over the place and Craig would still say the film is A-OK

Show us the so called "anomolies" and prove they are in fact "anomolies". Then we can discuss your so called proofs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two things that are troublesome to me.

First, if we believe as most do that JFK was hit by a cross fire from front and back, then the motion displayed by his body in reaction to the shots is so far from any reasonable order of magnitude that it is hard to explain. One way to explain it is by saying that the sniper from the front was using a higher caliber weapon than the shots from behind. But when one looks at the film its misnomer to label JFK's reaction as a headsnap. His whole body goes backward with tremendous force and speed and then almost literally bounces off the back seat.

Is this really possible to explain by a larger caliber weapon? I mean, maybe if the ammo was depleted uranium?

Second, the red blood spurts out of the top of the skull at Z 313 high into the air. Yet it disappears after about 5 frames. Is that possible? Its like one fourth a of a second. Has anyone never done duplicating experiments to verify this?

Thanks Jim. That's an interesting reply.

Z313 and following look to me like JFK got hit in the right temple high up with a baseball bat. You're right. "Headsnap" is too weak a term to describe what we see. His head pulls his whole body backwards and to the left. I don't see anything here that is not consistent with a shot high-up on the right temple from a knoll shot.

As to the blood spray in Z313 following. I believe a relative of Debra Conway is a blood spatter specialist. She lectured at Lancer and engaged in debate on some board about this. Her view was that there was nothing inconsistent with expectations about the blood spray.

I can't tell you how happy I am that you didn't mention that silliness about Moorman-in-the-street or Chaney-going-forward. That's really boring to go over again. But I knew you already knew that, Jim.

Let's keep up the dialogue on this.

JT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two things that are troublesome to me.

First, if we believe as most do that JFK was hit by a cross fire from front and back, then the motion displayed by his body in reaction to the shots is so far from any reasonable order of magnitude that it is hard to explain. One way to explain it is by saying that the sniper from the front was using a higher caliber weapon than the shots from behind. But when one looks at the film its misnomer to label JFK's reaction as a headsnap. His whole body goes backward with tremendous force and speed and then almost literally bounces off the back seat.

Is this really possible to explain by a larger caliber weapon? I mean, maybe if the ammo was depleted uranium?

Second, the red blood spurts out of the top of the skull at Z 313 high into the air. Yet it disappears after about 5 frames. Is that possible? Its like one fourth a of a second. Has anyone never done duplicating experiments to verify this?

What if your "belief" is wrong? Thats a BIG problem Jim, you start with a speculation to advance yet another speculation and proceed to call it "strange" Of course really trying to "explain JFK's movements" will always be an exercise in frustration, speculation and failed expectations....not something of any real value in the quest for the truth now is it?

Blood Spray...Why would you expect the spray to remain visible for more than 5 frames? Blood is translucent. It was BACKLIT. It was translucent red positioned over Green/Cyan. Green/Cyan and Red equals GREEN...over green grass...

The lens / f/stop / film / shutter speed / camera blur combination has a finite lp/mm of resolution. Can it record very tiny drops of red translucent blood turned green?

You tell us.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Craig, I assume you mean that you don' t beleive there was a crossfire.

I don't "believe" anything about the shot or shots. I don't CARE about the shots.

Fine, that is what I thought you would say. Which means you think yuo can explain it with the jet effect or the neuromuscular stuff. Ok, you are a dyed in the wool WC backer then.

No, I just IGNORE it, because it's way too speculative to be of any real value. It will be argued until the end of time and NO solid facts will ever emerge. Its a bottomless pit of speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, the red blood spurts out of the top of the skull at Z 313 high into the air. Yet it disappears after about 5 frames. Is that possible? Its like one fourth a of a second.

Blood Spray...Why would you expect the spray to remain visible for more than 5 seconds?

....You tell us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, the red blood spurts out of the top of the skull at Z 313 high into the air. Yet it disappears after about 5 frames. Is that possible? Its like one fourth a of a second.

Blood Spray...Why would you expect the spray to remain visible for more than 5 seconds?

....You tell us.

Thanks for pointing out my error....corrected

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Craig, I assume you mean that you don' t beleive there was a crossfire.

Fine, that is what I thought you would say. Which means you think you can explain it with the jet effect or the neuromuscular stuff. Ok, you are a dyed in the wool WC backer then.

Tink, alright, one can say that this represents a head shot from the front to the temple. And perhaps it was a large calibre rifle. In the films I have seen of this kind of shot, I have never seen that kind of unforgettable reaction. Granted, the comparisons are not precise since no one has ever been killed like that. But still, it bothers me. This may give some credence to frames being edited out.

I have never talked to Sherry G about the "blood stream in the air" disappearance issue. I will make it a point to do so in November. Again, its difficult to find comparison film on this.

I'd like to keep this dialogue going because I value your opinion.

I think we do know within limits the effect of a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano bullet striking JFK's head from the rear. A small entry hole in the occiput and a larger entry hole in the front of the skull. As for movement, his head would have been given some but not dramatic movement forward. In short, nothing at all like what we see. That is why what we see on the Z film was never mentioned in the Warren Report or its 26 volumes.

There has been a concerted effort over fifteen years to show "anomalies" in the Z film. I know of no single one that has proved even marginally persuasive. The Z film is an 8mm home movie shot by an amateur standing on a pedestal. Zapruder doesn't track the car as well as film crew would shooting from a tripod. But there's nothing remotely in the film that suggests tampering or even the dropping out of frames. Since one is tracking a moving vehicle this is pretty easy to confirm or disconfirm.

For my money, the attempts to show that the film was faked up are about as persuasive as similar attempts to show the Twin Towers were not brought down by airplane crashes or that all the lunar photos were made on a sound stage in Hollywood. At some point or other, you gotta say enough. This has become a distraction. The z film remains salient proof that JFK was killed by multiple shooters. That's what it's been from the beginning and what, in my opinion, it remains to this day.

Your opinion means a lot to me. Hence, I'd like to be able to address any doubts you have.

JT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two things that are troublesome to me.

First, if we believe as most do that JFK was hit by a cross fire from front and back, then the motion displayed by his body in reaction to the shots is so far from any reasonable order of magnitude that it is hard to explain. One way to explain it is by saying that the sniper from the front was using a higher caliber weapon than the shots from behind. But when one looks at the film its misnomer to label JFK's reaction as a headsnap. His whole body goes backward with tremendous force and speed and then almost literally bounces off the back seat.

Is this really possible to explain by a larger caliber weapon? I mean, maybe if the ammo was depleted uranium?

Second, the red blood spurts out of the top of the skull at Z 313 high into the air. Yet it disappears after about 5 frames. Is that possible? Its like one fourth a of a second. Has anyone never done duplicating experiments to verify this?

Jim,

It's interesting how two different people can bring completely different perspectives to a film or photo and come to opposite conclusions.

I've always thought that the back and to the left was one of the strongest anti-alteration images in the film.

It never made sense to me that someone faking the film would leave such an obvious and anti TSBD artifact in the movie.

It seems insane to leave it in. As soon as the general public saw it played in real time there was an overwhelming and predictable outcry for a new investigation.

Unless you're a Greer did it person, I can't think of a single reason to call attention to the grassy knoll in such an direct fashion.

Best to you,

Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nix film shows the blood bloom as a developing and receding shroud that the limo drives out of. The Z, because it is shot much closer, and tracks the limo, shows the limo rapidly leaving the blood cloud behind as it drives out of it. Same thing but different fov.

What would be strange is if the cloud of blood had remained visible in Z longer than it did. Once anything leaves the limo it is no longer subject to the limos subsequeni movements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two things that are troublesome to me.

First, if we believe as most do that JFK was hit by a cross fire from front and back, then the motion displayed by his body in reaction to the shots is so far from any reasonable order of magnitude that it is hard to explain. One way to explain it is by saying that the sniper from the front was using a higher caliber weapon than the shots from behind. But when one looks at the film its misnomer to label JFK's reaction as a headsnap. His whole body goes backward with tremendous force and speed and then almost literally bounces off the back seat.

Is this really possible to explain by a larger caliber weapon? I mean, maybe if the ammo was depleted uranium?

Second, the red blood spurts out of the top of the skull at Z 313 high into the air. Yet it disappears after about 5 frames. Is that possible? Its like one fourth a of a second. Has anyone never done duplicating experiments to verify this?

Jim,

It's interesting how two different people can bring completely different perspectives to a film or photo and come to opposite conclusions.

I've always thought that the back and to the left was one of the strongest anti-alteration images in the film.

It never made sense to me that someone faking the film would leave such an obvious and anti TSBD artifact in the movie.

It seems insane to leave it in. As soon as the general public saw it played in real time there was an overwhelming and predictable outcry for a new investigation.

Unless you're a Greer did it person, I can't think of a single reason to call attention to the grassy knoll in such an direct fashion.

Best to you,

Jerry

Insane? ROTFLMFAO! For ten years now the Z-film has been seriously questioned yet here ya are still whining about back and to the left. Frankly, I can think of 40 years of reasons calling attention to: a conspiracy did in JFK!

No conspiracy right Jer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two things that are troublesome to me.

First, if we believe as most do that JFK was hit by a cross fire from front and back, then the motion displayed by his body in reaction to the shots is so far from any reasonable order of magnitude that it is hard to explain. One way to explain it is by saying that the sniper from the front was using a higher caliber weapon than the shots from behind. But when one looks at the film its misnomer to label JFK's reaction as a headsnap. His whole body goes backward with tremendous force and speed and then almost literally bounces off the back seat.

Is this really possible to explain by a larger caliber weapon? I mean, maybe if the ammo was depleted uranium?

Second, the red blood spurts out of the top of the skull at Z 313 high into the air. Yet it disappears after about 5 frames. Is that possible? Its like one fourth a of a second. Has anyone never done duplicating experiments to verify this?

Jim,

It's interesting how two different people can bring completely different perspectives to a film or photo and come to opposite conclusions.

I've always thought that the back and to the left was one of the strongest anti-alteration images in the film.

It never made sense to me that someone faking the film would leave such an obvious and anti TSBD artifact in the movie.

It seems insane to leave it in. As soon as the general public saw it played in real time there was an overwhelming and predictable outcry for a new investigation.

Unless you're a Greer did it person, I can't think of a single reason to call attention to the grassy knoll in such an direct fashion.

Best to you,

Jerry

Insane? ROTFLMFAO! For ten years now the Z-film has been seriously questioned yet here ya are still whining about back and to the left. Frankly, I can think of 40 years of reasons calling attention to: a conspiracy did in JFK!

No conspiracy right Jer?

Ah...no David. Back and to the left means conspiracy. It seems odd to alter a film and leave in the evidence for conspiracy - or have you forgotten that 80% of the American people (including me) thought there was a conspiracy long before they had the benefit of your thoughts on the Zapruder film.

But I'm sure that tying the Kennedy assassination to moon hoaxes, airplaneless Jewish attacks on the World Trade Center, and space shuttles destroyed by energy weapons will go a long way toward pushing that percentage way up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I'm sure that tying the Kennedy assassination to moon hoaxes, airplaneless Jewish attacks on the World Trade Center, and space shuttles destroyed by energy weapons will go a long way toward pushing that percentage way up.

I wish all of those theories (I dont believe a single one of them for even a split second) would be kept seperate from the JFK assassination

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How then do you defend Healy's work? Are you saying that Fielding is wrong and Healy is correct?

I trust in David Healy, so yes I would take what Healy says over Fielding

Dean,

Here is the problem...

If you were to ask Doug Weldon, James Fetzer, or David Lifton a question about their research, you would receive a detailed answer. Each man would discuss his work, and whether you agreed or not, each of them would walk you through their analyses.

However, if you ask Healy anything regarding his work, you never receive an answer. It's always that "you are not up to speed", etc. I find this problematic. If one does research, one should freely discuss it, don't you think? And if someone had a question, it would be a good idea to answer it..how does that hurt? As far as I can tell, there is no one in the entire world that can discuss his work with him. Always constraints, and always a cut to the one asking, unless one is of the alterationist school of thought. It is just supposed to be accepted.

I don't understand why.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How then do you defend Healy's work? Are you saying that Fielding is wrong and Healy is correct?

I trust in David Healy, so yes I would take what Healy says over Fielding

Dean,

Here is the problem...

If you were to ask Doug Weldon, James Fetzer, or David Lifton a question about their research, you would receive a detailed answer. Each man would discuss his work, and whether you agreed or not, each of them would walk you through their analyses.

However, if you ask Healy anything regarding his work, you never receive an answer. It's always that "you are not up to speed", etc. I find this problematic. If one does research, one should freely discuss it, don't you think? And if someone had a question, it would be a good idea to answer it..how does that hurt? As far as I can tell, there is no one in the entire world that can discuss his work with him. Always constraints, and always a cut to the one asking, unless one is of the alterationist school of thought. It is just supposed to be accepted.

I don't understand why.

Kathy

Kathy

Have you read Davids chapter in TGZFH? In it he explains his work and his position in detail

Also I have asked David questions at JFKresearch.com back in the day and he answered them for me

I just dont have any other questions for David because I know where he stands and I agree with him on some very important points

David and I agree on it taking more time to do the finishing alterations (4-6 months) then what all the anti-alterationists say it had to be done that weekend

So from my point of view David has been very helpful

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...