Jump to content
The Education Forum

For David Healy RE: Zavada Response to Doug Horne


Recommended Posts

Healy's chapter is available online, and, yes, I have read it.

http://www.jfkresearch.com/Technical_Aspects.pdf

The others I've mentioned have published work too, but you can still ask them questions, and they will answer.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

but you can still ask them questions, and they will answer.

Like I said every question I have asked David he has answered for me

What exactly have you asked him?

Like why Fielding calls him naive?

Timing questions on how long alteration would take, along with others

Go to JFKresearch.com and look them up if you are really interested in what I asked (I doubt that you are)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but you can still ask them questions, and they will answer.

Like I said every question I have asked David he has answered for me

What exactly have you asked him?

Like why Fielding calls him naive?

Timing questions on how long alteration would take, along with others

Go to JFKresearch.com and look them up if you are really interested in what I asked (I doubt that you are)

Does JFKresearch still roll posts into never-never land when they reach the end of the board? Or do they finally archive posts?

In any case, what do you know about Healy's actual experience making film based composite footage using the equipment he writes about in hoax? Have you ever seen his examples of this work?

Given Fielding was more than a professor...that the actually set up and ran the special effects section of Coppola's Zoetrope Studios...why would you give Healy more "weight"?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coppola's Zoetrope Studios...

"The Outsiders" has some nice matte paintings that were used in the scene when Pony Boy and Johnny were talking about Robert Frost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coppola's Zoetrope Studios...

"The Outsiders" has some nice matte paintings that were used in the scene when Pony Boy and Johnny were talking about Robert Frost

Why the shuck and jive Dean? Simple questions, why don't you answer?

Im not shucking and jiving, you said that Fielding was the effects man for Zoetrope, I was saying that I liked the matte paintings that were used for the sunset scene in "The Outsiders"

In fact they were used with a real sunset then moved indoors to complete the scene

If Fielding was behind it all like you say then im saying im impressed with what he did in "The Outsiders"

Now do you understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry:

I want to explain in advance that I am an agnostic on this. I have never advocated for alteration. And in my review of Horne parts 4 and 5 I am not very appreciative of what he wrote in the long essay in his book or the personal tone he took in his dispute with Zavada.

To get to some of the points.

When you say that the back and to the left reaction is compelling evidence of a shot from the GK, yes this is accurate. But my problem with this, as mentioned above is that first, it is hard to find a point of comparison in any film of anyone being shot that shows a reaction like that. Now one way to explain it, and I did this in my Bugliosi piece part 4, is I chalked it up to a larger calibre weapon. This may or may not be true. But an alternative reason for this may be that frames were edited out.

Which leads to the question as to why that would be done. Well, one reason I can think of is to minimize tissue and blood going BACKWARDS. There are indications of this in the film, but if we imagine the shot from the front as being from a larger calibre weapon, shouldn't there be more? Especially if there was hole in the back of the skull--which there was. So, in other words, Kennedy would still be reacting backwards, but just not with that kind of startling force and speed.

Now if this was done, whoever did it made a Hobson's Choice: we will speed up the backward movement and try to explain it away with some medical BS, but we will minimize the amount of directly rearward blood and tissue which would be just about impossible to explain any other way.

This relates to my other point of curiosity. If step one above was done, then the blood stream going almost straight up could have been added on. I mean when a head gets struck by a bullet you have to have some kind of blood burst right? But go ahead and try and measure how high that is in the air and then how fast it disappears. Seems puzzling to me. Maybe there is an explanation. But when you look at it, its not just a tiny sliver either that could dissipate on its own in the air. ANd it does not disappear as the car moves ahead. It just disappears right in front of your eyes. In the space of about five frames on the MPI version. WHich comes to about a fourth of a second. I don't know if such a thing is possible or not.

I am not saying that this is what happened. As I said, I am an agnostic on this issue and I don't even really like discussing it and I am incredulous about the more extravagant claims of inserting travelling mattes etc. But to remove some frames in this instance and to place that straight up blood stream onto the film through aerial imaging, would not have been very difficult.

REPEAT: I AM NOT SAYING THIS HAPPENED! SO DON'T PUT ME IN THE ALTERATIONIST CAMP!

I am just saying that those two things bug me a bit.

Now we're getting somewhere, Jim. Thanks for keeping the dialogue going.

You write: "This relates to my other point of curiosity. If step one above was done, then the blood stream going almost straight up could have been added on. I mean when a head gets struck by a bullet you have to have some kind of blood burst right? But go ahead and try and measure how high that is in the air and then how fast it disappears. Seems puzzling to me. Maybe there is an explanation."

The "explanation" here is pretty simple. What you call a "blood stream going almost straight up" is not a "blood stream" at all but rather a streak formed by a skull fragment blown out of JFK's head by the bullet impact. There has been a fair amount of good research on this. It is a "streak" because the shutter of Zapruder's camera was not fast enough to freeze the fragment at one position in the air. That fragment was very likely the Harper fragment found on the grass 25 feet from the curb and well to the left of the limousine's direction of travel. Don't forget that Kennedy was sitting in the right rear seat. The other streak is likely the fragment of bone found by Weitzman near the south curb. Hence, what you took to be unusual here is consistent with a shot from the right front. Nothing strange here, nothing that had to "added on" but simply the expected effects of a bullet hit.

What do you think?

JT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets take a quick look at the witnesses (including the z-film, that in itself could be considered (or Mr. Zapruder) a 'witness'. Witnesses to the JFK event, to some degree, have been silenced. By threat, murder, character assassination, etc. When I was younger, I figured that the z-film is probably the greatest witness by virtue of what it was able to 'record'. The best witnesses give the most accurate accounts. At best, the z-film as a witness was completely "deaf" but had better sight than most human beings and able to recount that sight over and over with utter perfection (unless tampered with).

My logic was quite simple, if there have been some very "dangerous" witnesses who were silenced, well...why not "silence" the z-film in some way? Why risk having the greatest possible witness expose what happened on that fateful day? I honestly lean more towards the possibility that the film was one of the 1st 'casualties' regarding eyewitness testimony. It is inconceivable that the film would be allowed to go on throughout history without being altered in any way, shape or form whatsoever. I honestly cannot comprehend that the CIA (for those that speculate that they were behind the hit) would allow it.

Edited by B. A. Copeland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is actually the second explanation I have heard for this.

Groden said it was really not that much blood but actually tissue and body liquids that were colored by a reflection off Jackie's outfit to look reddish.

So I don't know what to believe about it.

If I may say so, Groden's explanation is ridiculous.

JT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My logic was quite simple, if there have been some very "dangerous" witnesses who were silenced, well...why not "silence" the z-film in some way? Why risk having the greatest possible witness expose what happened on that fateful day? I honestly lean more towards the possibility that the film was one of the 1st 'casualties' regarding eyewitness testimony. It is inconceivable that the film would be allowed to go on throughout history without being altered in any way, shape or form whatsoever. I honestly cannot comprehend that the CIA (for those that speculate that they were behind the hit) would allow it.

The weird thing is that the defenders of the Z-fake insisted for many years that it had never gone anywhere near the CIA and its people in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. This defence lasted as long as it took the CIA's own people, presumably acting under higher orders, to concede that, yes, actually, it had. This begs two obvious questions: What was the CIA up to when it authorised (scripted?) such admissions? And why do we continue to take seriously a clique that proved so hopelessly wrong on the chain of possession?

But the basic proposition - that the CIA would allow unwelcome evidence to endure unmolested - is simply asinine.

Edited by Paul Rigby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you art talking about the whole McMahon/Brugioni stuff, I deal with that in my review of Horne parts 4 and 5. FOr reasons stated there, I don't think its all that impressive.

Horne's demolition of David Wrone is unimpressive (V4)? Only if you're an anti-alterationist. The latter camp has sought to keep this very quiet and with good reason, for it exposes as a cynical nonsense the decades of insistence that there was a fixed chain of possession, one that didn't involve the CIA. If it wasn't for the pro-alterationists, we'd still be working with a lot of guff on the c-o-p issue. Work remains to be done, in this area, for sure, but Horne's work has massively advanced our understanding of what the CIA wants us to believe.

In fact, if the film was altered I agree with Healy that it could not have been done that quickly. Especially if you are an extreme alterationist. To do that kind of work, to time it all down,to make it utterly seamless, virtually undetectable traveling mattes, that kind of job would have taken weeks to do. With more than one person working an 8 hour day at it.

The film was like the patsy - it was prepared in advance, and, once re-jigged, served counter-intelligence goals.

Having worked with Super 8 film and 16 mm and worked through film labs, I know what I am talking about.

A point which would only have some utility if your work included a session in the CIA's labs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you art talking about the whole McMahon/Brugioni stuff, I deal with that in my review of Horne parts 4 and 5. FOr reasons stated there, I don't think its all that impressive.

Horne's demolition of David Wrone is unimpressive (V4)? Only if you're an anti-alterationist. The latter camp has sought to keep this very quiet and with good reason, for it exposes as a cynical nonsense the decades of insistence that there was a fixed chain of possession, one that didn't involve the CIA. If it wasn't for the pro-alterationists, we'd still be working with a lot of guff on the c-o-p issue. Work remains to be done, in this area, for sure, but Horne's work has massively advanced our understanding of what the CIA wants us to believe.

DiEugenio on Horne on Wrone:

Brugioni first thought his work on Zapruder began on the night of the assassination. He then changed this to the next day. But he had previously told author David Wrone that he began his work on Sunday, the 24th. (p. 1231) He eventually decided that the start date was Saturday. The actual date of his briefing of Director John McCone would help here, but I could not find any written evidence for this exact date.

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/horn_jd_pt4-5.html

And that's it. In all its comprehensive glory. Very honest, very impressive.

But essential, of course, if one's aim is to bury without ceremony all those decades of deceit about the film's chain of possession.

Readers interested in seeing for themselves Horne's thorough-going demolition of Wrone are directed to Volume 4, chapter 14, pp.1238-9, in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not writing about Wrone's book.

Gosh, missed that one. But you were, supposedly, writing about Horne's vol 4, which includes his comprehensive demolition of Wrone, but which you, er, what exactly, missed? omitted?

Jihadist RIgby

It's a CIA term of endearment, presumably, JIm?

"Let’s get to what Horne considers his best evidence for Zapruder film alteration...the decades-old recall and the indefiniteness of the start and end dates for all three men, that possibility is a distinct one."

Ce qui manque aux orateurs en profundeur, ils vous le donnent en longueur.

Montesquieu.

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...