David G. Healy Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) ... so i wouldn't get to high and mighty about it being case closed on alteration using your theory here. good work , nice presentation anyway. lmao.... yeah thanks it was 1999 presentation.... the question was: was it possible to alter the Z-film in 1963-64. Was the equipment, know-how, expertise and above all time available to alter the film by mid February 1964. The answer is a resounding, YES! How it was done is irrelevant... a definition (World dictionary) of alteration: — n 1. an adjustment, change, or modification 2. the act of altering or state of being altered I draw your attention to #1 above. Based on Abraham Zapruder's own WC testimony-- the alleged Zapruder film has been altered. As Rollie Zavada once told me: he won't comment of the alleged Z-film content, he's not qualified to comment on possible special effects cinematography... aka film post-production effects. Wonder if he told that to Lampoon? Edited May 26, 2013 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 and YOU can't figure how THAT fixes a possible alteration time timeline? and YOU have whose word and documented PROOF (such as a chain of evidence document for the alleged Z-film) that Moe was handling the NARA housed, in-camera original Zapruder film, again? What nonsense are you trying to get away with here....methinks your pulling hope from your rear-end, son... or bending alleged truth at the very least, and possiblyBOTH as you're prone to do. Why not invest real money son, buy Adobe's After Effects software, get with the program and see what software closed all these optical film houses around the world... and you are a photo consultant? Consultant for what and to WHOM, Uncle Sam? LMFAO! Your case for non-alteration is getting weaker and weaker, and I can't prove it WAS altered--what a mess you lone nuts are in. I have Moe's word, I have Zavada's word, I have Rodericks word. Who's do you have davie. You gonna go with Costella , the PhD who can't even figure out parallax? ROFLMAO! If you want to try and call me a xxxx davie, just do so, and then offer up your proof. I give the forum cops my permission for your to use that word towards me IF YOU THINK YOU CAN PROVE IT. You can't because you don't have any. What a weak play in your part. I understand you just got caught, told you are naive, and then spanked, but really, that's the best you have? Talk about playing it out of your backside... AE? REALLY? Come on davie I HAVE AE, Premier, FC7, FCX, Resolve lite... Time for you to give it up, you lost a long time ago. That's why you are say nothing healy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) Based on Abraham Zapruder's own WC testimony-- the alleged Zapruder film has been altered. [/quote] ROFLMAO! Good luck with that one davie, its a loser. As Rollie Zavada once told me: he won't comment of the alleged Z-film content, he's not qualified to comment on possible special effects cinematography... aka film post-production effects. Wonder if he told that to Lampoon? Why don't we ask him? Until we get his anwser, there is this..... Zavada: I have always believed that there are many film technology and time constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily detectable artifacts. Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in the document you sent me, are technically naïve. Edited May 26, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) and YOU can't figure how THAT fixes a possible alteration time timeline? and YOU have whose word and documented PROOF (such as a chain of evidence document for the alleged Z-film) that Moe was handling the NARA housed, in-camera original Zapruder film, again? What nonsense are you trying to get away with here....methinks your pulling hope from your rear-end, son... or bending alleged truth at the very least, and possiblyBOTH as you're prone to do. Why not invest real money son, buy Adobe's After Effects software, get with the program and see what software closed all these optical film houses around the world... and you are a photo consultant? Consultant for what and to WHOM, Uncle Sam? LMFAO! Your case for non-alteration is getting weaker and weaker, and I can't prove it WAS altered--what a mess you lone nuts are in. I have Moe's word, I have Zavada's word, I have Rodericks word. Who's do you have davie. You gonna go with Costella , the PhD who can't even figure out parallax? ROFLMAO! If you want to try and call me a xxxx davie, just do so, and then offer up your proof. I give the forum cops my permission for your to use that word towards me IF YOU THINK YOU CAN PROVE IT. You can't because you don't have any. What a weak play in your part. I understand you just got caught, told you are naive, and then spanked, but really, that's the best you have? Talk about playing it out of your backside... AE? REALLY? Come on davie I HAVE AE, Premier, FC7, FCX, Resolve lite... Time for you to give it up, you lost a long time ago. That's why you are say nothing healy.. getting to you son? listen, you have all these words from all these folks, post them, show the entire world you're not a wannabe photo expert and photo consultant, it you have a digital record of their comments, emails etc... post them, with headers, why are you scared to do so? certainly no one I know here believes you for one second... time to get off the pot dude, you've hid in fiction long enough.... Final Cut 7? Yeah, sure you do... so where's your body of video work residing these days? And not surprising, Adobe After Effects is missing from you arsenal, obviously you didn't buy Adobe's studio video package, which includes After Effects as well as Illustrator. So is motion image compositing beyond your ken (what we're talking here, son)? Speak up. Edited May 26, 2013 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 and YOU can't figure how THAT fixes a possible alteration time timeline? and YOU have whose word and documented PROOF (such as a chain of evidence document for the alleged Z-film) that Moe was handling the NARA housed, in-camera original Zapruder film, again? What nonsense are you trying to get away with here....methinks your pulling hope from your rear-end, son... or bending alleged truth at the very least, and possiblyBOTH as you're prone to do. Why not invest real money son, buy Adobe's After Effects software, get with the program and see what software closed all these optical film houses around the world... and you are a photo consultant? Consultant for what and to WHOM, Uncle Sam? LMFAO! Your case for non-alteration is getting weaker and weaker, and I can't prove it WAS altered--what a mess you lone nuts are in. I have Moe's word, I have Zavada's word, I have Rodericks word. Who's do you have davie. You gonna go with Costella , the PhD who can't even figure out parallax? ROFLMAO! If you want to try and call me a xxxx davie, just do so, and then offer up your proof. I give the forum cops my permission for your to use that word towards me IF YOU THINK YOU CAN PROVE IT. You can't because you don't have any. What a weak play in your part. I understand you just got caught, told you are naive, and then spanked, but really, that's the best you have? Talk about playing it out of your backside... AE? REALLY? Come on davie I HAVE AE, Premier, FC7, FCX, Resolve lite... Time for you to give it up, you lost a long time ago. That's why you are say nothing healy.. getting to you son? listen, you have all these words from all these folks, post them, show the entire world you're not a wannabe photo expert and photo consultant, it you have a digital record of their comments, emails etc... post them, certainly no one I know here believes you for one second... time to get off the pot dude, you've hid in fiction long enough.... Final Cut 7? Yeah, sure you do... so where's your body of video work residing these days? And not surprising, Adobe After Effects is missing from you arsenal, obviously you didn't buy Adobe's studio video package, which includes After Effects as well as Illustrator. So is motion image compositing beyond your ken (what we're talking here, son)? Speak up. ROFLMAO! I posted them davie, and you can choose to believe me or not. I don't really care what you think because are just a say nothing xxxxx. Yea, Final Cut 7 and I see you can't read. I told you I had AE, along with the rest of the master collection. I play with video software for fun, and dude a composite is a composite, and unless you have forgotten motion is still just a very long string of STILLS. Lots of interesting differences but its still image making in the end. And "photo consultant". ROFLMAO! My oh my are really are at the very end of your rope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) and YOU can't figure how THAT fixes a possible alteration time timeline? and YOU have whose word and documented PROOF (such as a chain of evidence document for the alleged Z-film) that Moe was handling the NARA housed, in-camera original Zapruder film, again? What nonsense are you trying to get away with here....methinks your pulling hope from your rear-end, son... or bending alleged truth at the very least, and possiblyBOTH as you're prone to do. Why not invest real money son, buy Adobe's After Effects software, get with the program and see what software closed all these optical film houses around the world... and you are a photo consultant? Consultant for what and to WHOM, Uncle Sam? LMFAO! Your case for non-alteration is getting weaker and weaker, and I can't prove it WAS altered--what a mess you lone nuts are in. I have Moe's word, I have Zavada's word, I have Rodericks word. Who's do you have davie. You gonna go with Costella , the PhD who can't even figure out parallax? ROFLMAO! If you want to try and call me a xxxx davie, just do so, and then offer up your proof. I give the forum cops my permission for your to use that word towards me IF YOU THINK YOU CAN PROVE IT. You can't because you don't have any. What a weak play in your part. I understand you just got caught, told you are naive, and then spanked, but really, that's the best you have? Talk about playing it out of your backside... AE? REALLY? Come on davie I HAVE AE, Premier, FC7, FCX, Resolve lite... Time for you to give it up, you lost a long time ago. That's why you are say nothing healy.. getting to you son? listen, you have all these words from all these folks, post them, show the entire world you're not a wannabe photo expert and photo consultant, it you have a digital record of their comments, emails etc... post them, certainly no one I know here believes you for one second... time to get off the pot dude, you've hid in fiction long enough.... Final Cut 7? Yeah, sure you do... so where's your body of video work residing these days? And not surprising, Adobe After Effects is missing from you arsenal, obviously you didn't buy Adobe's studio video package, which includes After Effects as well as Illustrator. So is motion image compositing beyond your ken (what we're talking here, son)? Speak up. ROFLMAO! I posted them davie, and you can choose to believe me or not. I don't really care what you think because are just a say nothing xxxxx. Yea, Final Cut 7 and I see you can't read. I told you I had AE, along with the rest of the master collection. I play with video software for fun, and dude a composite is a composite, and unless you have forgotten motion is still just a very long string of STILLS. Lots of interesting differences but its still image making in the end. And "photo consultant". ROFLMAO! My oh my are really are at the very end of your rope. Sure you have AE uh-huh... lmao! Dude it's one of the most sophisticated pieces of software made, was so in its original form when created by COSA. There isn't a successful still photographer that uses AE, to difficult, time consuming and thought processes too much like optical film composing... can't hide behind Photoshop here dude! Remember the image compositor's job number one is: ta-da believability... the WC was sucker punched when it came to the Zapruder Film! So,again, that body of work is where, these days...? End of rope? What end of rope? Man, you're on most USENET photography forums, it's been long rumored folks that do that are either hustling work or building a legend...eh? A composite is a composite? Simple as that? Never, especially when travelling mattes are concerned..... LMFAO! Edited May 26, 2013 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 and YOU can't figure how THAT fixes a possible alteration time timeline? and YOU have whose word and documented PROOF (such as a chain of evidence document for the alleged Z-film) that Moe was handling the NARA housed, in-camera original Zapruder film, again? What nonsense are you trying to get away with here....methinks your pulling hope from your rear-end, son... or bending alleged truth at the very least, and possiblyBOTH as you're prone to do. Why not invest real money son, buy Adobe's After Effects software, get with the program and see what software closed all these optical film houses around the world... and you are a photo consultant? Consultant for what and to WHOM, Uncle Sam? LMFAO! Your case for non-alteration is getting weaker and weaker, and I can't prove it WAS altered--what a mess you lone nuts are in. I have Moe's word, I have Zavada's word, I have Rodericks word. Who's do you have davie. You gonna go with Costella , the PhD who can't even figure out parallax? ROFLMAO! If you want to try and call me a xxxx davie, just do so, and then offer up your proof. I give the forum cops my permission for your to use that word towards me IF YOU THINK YOU CAN PROVE IT. You can't because you don't have any. What a weak play in your part. I understand you just got caught, told you are naive, and then spanked, but really, that's the best you have? Talk about playing it out of your backside... AE? REALLY? Come on davie I HAVE AE, Premier, FC7, FCX, Resolve lite... Time for you to give it up, you lost a long time ago. That's why you are say nothing healy.. getting to you son? listen, you have all these words from all these folks, post them, show the entire world you're not a wannabe photo expert and photo consultant, it you have a digital record of their comments, emails etc... post them, certainly no one I know here believes you for one second... time to get off the pot dude, you've hid in fiction long enough.... Final Cut 7? Yeah, sure you do... so where's your body of video work residing these days? And not surprising, Adobe After Effects is missing from you arsenal, obviously you didn't buy Adobe's studio video package, which includes After Effects as well as Illustrator. So is motion image compositing beyond your ken (what we're talking here, son)? Speak up. ROFLMAO! I posted them davie, and you can choose to believe me or not. I don't really care what you think because are just a say nothing xxxxx. Yea, Final Cut 7 and I see you can't read. I told you I had AE, along with the rest of the master collection. I play with video software for fun, and dude a composite is a composite, and unless you have forgotten motion is still just a very long string of STILLS. Lots of interesting differences but its still image making in the end. And "photo consultant". ROFLMAO! My oh my are really are at the very end of your rope. Sure you have AE uh-huh... lmao! Dude it's one of the most sophisticated pieces of software made, was so in its original form when created by COSA. There isn't a successful still photographer that uses AE, to difficult, time consuming and thought processes too much like optical film composing... can't hide behind Photoshop here dude! Remember the image compositor's job number one is: ta-da believability... the WC was sucker punched when it came to the Zapruder Film! So,again, that body of work is where, these days...? End of rope? What end of rope? Man, you're on most USENET photography forums, it's been long rumored folks that do that are either hustling work or building a legend...eh? A composite is a composite? Simple as that? Never, especially not when travelling mattes are concerned..... LMFAO! Oh please grow up davie, you look sooo childish. Its SOFTWARE davie, 10th graders use it. There are LOTS of stills guys transitioning to motion dude. Welcome to reality 101. And yea, a composite is just a composite. Traveling mattes? ROFLMAO. You do understand, don't you that the reason that they existed is for SPEED and making money FASTER? My body of motion work? Lots of nice family stuff. Like I said I just play. Got my Blackmagic Pocket on pre-order. Another toy to play with. No desire to take the pro work away from my video friends. They need to eat too. If i was just starting my career, it would be a no brainer. I have all the work I need without adding video. Forums? Which ones would that be davie? Oh wait, you need proof. ROFLMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 ... Oh please grow up davie, you look sooo childish. Its SOFTWARE davie, 10th graders use it. There are LOTS of stills guys transitioning to motion dude. Welcome to reality 101. And yea, a composite is just a composite. Traveling mattes? ROFLMAO. You do understand, don't you that the reason that they existed is for SPEED and making money FASTER? My body of motion work? Lots of nice family stuff. Like I said I just play. Got my Blackmagic Pocket on pre-order. Another toy to play with. No desire to take the pro work away from my video friends. They need to eat too. If i was just starting my career, it would be a no brainer. I have all the work I need without adding video. Forums? Which ones would that be davie? Oh wait, you need proof. ROFLMAO! these transitioning photo's, who is paying them? Or doing just "family stuff" enough. Sounds like wannabes and we KNOW the world is full of them, right. Photog's looking to make it commercially are like actors wanting to make a living on stage... less than 2 percent get there and even at that, they need supplemental income to support themselves... you do know those kinda stat's don't you? So in closing here, you have no motion work (film or AE digital) to show me or lurkers here, right? Which means you have no, zero, zip, nada compositing experience to base your protestations, nor any evidence to provide, correct? Yet you still profess, through friends you talked to, I know nothing about a certain subject matter concerning certain Zapruder film scenarios... You dream false hope Craig, only in the land of the photo naive, sad! The image compositior's job one is to make one believe what imagery puts forth, NOT, naive protestations about the imagery... So carry on consultant, consultant of what we know not! LMFAO! PROOF, How about your own words...Search is your friend... www.google.com/search?q=Craig+Lamson&oq=Craig+Lamson&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j62l2.6244j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 www.google.com/search?q=Craig+Lamson&oq=Craig+Lamson&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j62l2.6244j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#sclient=psy-ab&q=Craig+Lamson+photography+forums&oq=Craig+Lamson+photography+forums&gs_l=serp.3...62961.72825.0.73281.21.21.0.0.0.0.85.1474.21.21.0...0.0.0..1c.1.12.psy-ab.NpBO5fLY_vc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.cGE&fp=fbd1bee3f373cedb&biw=1622&bih=926 you're everywhere but no where, right? When do you find time to photograph buses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) Richard... A little something I put together years ago, still relevant today. No one, not even Lapoon Lamson can refute this presentation with authority. Most Z-film alteration film debunkers simply do NOT understand (and that makes them nervous) the Art of Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1963/pre. 1963, aka Optical Film Printing... http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html LOL the correct title of the book is Techniques of Special Effects of Cinematography, David cited it repeatedly but its author said, "I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruder film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6096&page=4#entry55431 Edited May 26, 2013 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Richard, I purchased a camera identical to that of Zapruder a number of years ago and I also purchased ALL of the remaining Kodachrome film stock in existence at the time. Kodak has since discontinued Kodachrome production and processing. I filmed the last possible sequence from the Zapruder pedestal on November 22nd, 2010 that could still be processed. History in the making... Now, while it's true that Ektachrome film would suffice for the same purposes, it's also true that the nay sayers would possibly, if not most certainly, have discredited the experiment if the FILM STOCK did not match Zapruder's Kodachrome--even as irrelevant as that is. So, I took no chances. Suffice it to say that a number of studies are imminent. My recent surgery has delayed the process, but some progress has been made. I did not have the opportunity to conduct the experiment that you are suggesting because it is very difficult--if not impossible--to get the City of Dallas to cooperate. After all, Elm Street is heavily trafficked and such a project would have required the street to have been shut down for a period of time by the DPD. However, I think your experiment could be conducted using Ektachrome film and could perhaps be set on a less trafficked street. It is also important to note that restricting the experiment to 1963 technology is harder that it sounds. Much of that technology exists only in the memory of those who worked with it 50 years ago, but by now it has passed into the void of obsolescence. Having said all of that, I think your suggestion is instructive--albeit challenging to accomplish. Greg did you use a Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera? That would actually be more relevant than the film stock especially since the Kodachromel available till 2009-10 was different from the film available in 1963. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) these transitioning photo's, who is paying them? Or doing just "family stuff" enough. Sounds like wannabes and we KNOW the world is full of them, right. Photog's looking to make it commercially are like actors wanting to make a living on stage... less than 2 percent get there and even at that, they need supplemental income to support themselves... you do know those kinda stat's don't you? Who is paying them? Their clients. You seem to be able to do a google. Try it. I love James Russell for example... http://www.jamesrussellphotography.com/ or Christoper Barrett http://christopherbarrett.net/ Or Vincent LaFloret http://www.laforetvisuals.com/ The list is endless. Time for you to step into the real world davie So in closing here, you have no motion work (film or AE digital) to show me or lurkers here, right? Which means you have no, zero, zip, nada compositing experience to base your protestations, nor any evidence to provide, correct? Yet you still profess, through friends you talked to, I know nothing about a certain subject matter concerning certain Zapruder film scenarios... You are correct that I'm not sharing my personal family videos here on a JFK forum. Again welcome to reality davie. I'm not a motion guy, Never claimed to be one. I AM a very competent adverting photographer and I DO have years of FILM based compositing experience. Not to mention digital since rh beginnign f commercial digital. As to compositing experience, I have DECADES. And about you, I don't hide my words about you I say them in public. You don't have the first clue when it comes to the Zapruder film being altered. Lets face davie, you are just a video guy. Heck we have asked you for YEARS to show us your film based composites, heck even your basic reel but you run away every time you are asked. You try and make rhe world THINK you are some sort of film compositing geek, but the reality is you are nothing more than a newsie and equipment repairman. The image compositior's job one is to make one believe what imagery puts forth, NOT, naive protestations about the imagery... So carry on consultant, consultant of what we know not! LMFAO! You dream false hope Craig, only in the land of the photo naive, sad! Not a thing naive with my posts, but its REALLY clear your claims are quite naive. If you could refute me you would do it instead of your never ending say nothing posts. PROOF, How about your own words...Search is your friend... www.google.com/search?q=Craig+Lamson&oq=Craig+Lamson&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j62l2.6244j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 www.google.com/search?q=Craig+Lamson&oq=Craig+Lamson&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j62l2.6244j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#sclient=psy-ab&q=Craig+Lamson+photography+forums&oq=Craig+Lamson+photography+forums&gs_l=serp.3...62961.72825.0.73281.21.21.0.0.0.0.85.1474.21.21.0...0.0.0..1c.1.12.psy-ab.NpBO5fLY_vc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.cGE&fp=fbd1bee3f373cedb&biw=1622&bih=926 you're everywhere but no where, right? When do you find time to photograph buses? Did you even read what you googled, say-nothing? Can you find even a SINGLE USENET photo forum? EVEN ONE? Oh, and for ME....not some other Craig Lamson..,Roflmao! Edited May 27, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) Richard... A little something I put together years ago, still relevant today. No one, not even Lapoon Lamson can refute this presentation with authority. Most Z-film alteration film debunkers simply do NOT understand (and that makes them nervous) the Art of Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1963/pre. 1963, aka Optical Film Printing... http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html LOL the correct title of the book is Techniques of Special Effects of Cinematography, David cited it repeatedly but its author said, "I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruder film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6096&page=4#entry55431 Let's try a get facts correct Len, you haven't a clue as to what was and what could or would pass for film composition scrutiny. It's amazing how beholden the author was to Rollie Zavada and KODAK. After all, he and the schools he worked for were recipients of much KODAK largess during the era... And Fielding's book, just another bump in the road and just another possible undoing of the WCR/SBT/LHO did it all by his lonesome foolishness... who'd a thunk. So, survived scrutiny by whom, Len? The Warren Commission? If alteration was performed on the Z-film it was in support and to convince the WC of one shooter in Dealey Plaza that day. Want answers concerning film composition go to the glossary in Fielding's book, the SMPE periodical listings is all you need, right there in black and white.... Ya know the last time I spoke to Ray Fielding he said: I want no part, NO PART of a Zapruder film debate,end of discussion. Then Rollie calls me he going to Florida and talk with Fielding...perhaps old Rollie isn't so sure... What's always amazed me about the Gang of Eight is they never, ever, found a optical film lab technician or optical film lab post production director to comment on what can and can't be done, provide a few compositing scenarios concerning the Zapruder film. 10 years and counting... NOTHING! So it's one shooter from the rear, from the TSBD no less.... a simple minded WCR conclusion, no Grassy Knoll, no ruskies, no cubans, no mob, no conspiracy and no right-wing whack jobs involved in Dallas that day-they think... just little old Lee Harvey Oswald a carrier of U2 secrets, disgruntled, wife beating defector to the USSR. That tripe isn't even worthy for Ed forum much let alone a dime novel...LMFAO! And thanks for showing up, Lampoon Lamson was blowing the lone nut position badly! Edited May 27, 2013 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Ya know the last time I spoke to Ray Fielding he said: I want no part, NO PART of a Zapruder film debate,end of discussion. Then Rollie calls me he going to Florida and talk with Fielding...perhaps old Rollie isn't so sure... What's always amazed me about the Gang of Eight is they never, ever, found a optical film lab technician or optical film lab post production director to comment on what can and can't be done, provide a few compositing scenarios concerning the Zapruder film. 10 years and counting... NOTHING! Except for Ray Fielding who called you and your work technically naive, and oh yea how about Rod Roderick, who said after viewing the film UNDER A MICROSCOPE, it was not altered. You don't have clue, say-nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Ya know the last time I spoke to Ray Fielding he said: I want no part, NO PART of a Zapruder film debate,end of discussion. Then Rollie calls me he going to Florida and talk with Fielding...perhaps old Rollie isn't so sure... What's always amazed me about the Gang of Eight is they never, ever, found a optical film lab technician or optical film lab post production director to comment on what can and can't be done, provide a few compositing scenarios concerning the Zapruder film. 10 years and counting... NOTHING! Except for Ray Fielding who called you and your work technically naive, and oh yea how about Rod Roderick, who said after viewing the film UNDER A MICROSCOPE, it was not altered. You don't have clue, say-nothing I believe anything you say? Surely you jest... And who is Rod Roderick? And whose microscope did he use and when did he view the alleged incamera Zapruder film, with whom and when, is there an affidavit stating such ANYWHERE? ... can you wannabes be a tad more specific? Say something a little meatier than the lone nut version of, "hey, my mother told me," perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Ya know the last time I spoke to Ray Fielding he said: I want no part, NO PART of a Zapruder film debate,end of discussion. Then Rollie calls me he going to Florida and talk with Fielding...perhaps old Rollie isn't so sure... What's always amazed me about the Gang of Eight is they never, ever, found a optical film lab technician or optical film lab post production director to comment on what can and can't be done, provide a few compositing scenarios concerning the Zapruder film. 10 years and counting... NOTHING! Except for Ray Fielding who called you and your work technically naive, and oh yea how about Rod Roderick, who said after viewing the film UNDER A MICROSCOPE, it was not altered. You don't have clue, say-nothing I believe anything you say? Surely you jest... And who is Rod Roderick? And whose microscope did he use and when did he view the alleged incamera Zapruder film, with whom and when, is there an affidavit stating such ANYWHERE? ... can you wannabes be a tad more specific? Say something a little meatier than the lone nut version of, "hey, my mother told me," perhaps? Believe whatever you want, say-nothing. My bad, forgot the last name, Rod - Roderick Ryan As for the rest it has been posted MANY times. Try to do better with your google this time. 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