David G. Healy Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant to the assassination are: ... Craig - photography ... LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave... Bring it on davie, but then again you don't have the 'chops'. sitdown, you're a waste of time... bring what on? I'm waiting for YOUR proof your correspondence with Moe, Rollie Zavada and any other you deem necessary, with headers. Now if they request you not post proof of their correspondence here, simply say so. Then we can keep you in that good old tard-pit reserved for noise makers, of which there are many here these days.... The closer to Nov 2013 the more your compatriots seem overwrought and full of ill feelings. For something that happened 50 years ago, amazing... <sigh> Carry on Sluggo! 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 Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant to the assassination are: ... Craig - photography ... LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave... Bring it on davie, but then again you don't have the 'chops'. sitdown, you're a waste of time... bring what on? I'm waiting for YOUR proof your correspondence with Moe, Rollie Zavada and any other you deem necessary, with headers. Now if they request you not post proof of their correspondence here, simply say so. Then we can keep you in that good old tard-pit reserved for noise makers, of which there are many here these days.... The closer to Nov 2013 the more your compatriots seem overwrought and full of ill feelings. For something that happened 50 years ago, amazing... <sigh> Carry on Sluggo! You are waiting for NOTHING davie. I've posted the the contents, and I'll NOT post their personal information. You can take it or leave it, I could care less. That's how it works. If ANYONE here needs to sit down its you say nothing davie. Talk about a waste, why don't you get bac kto us when you actually SAY SOMETHING. Based on your track record that will be never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant to the assassination are: ... Craig - photography ... LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave... Bring it on davie, but then again you don't have the 'chops'. sitdown, you're a waste of time... bring what on? I'm waiting for YOUR proof your correspondence with Moe, Rollie Zavada and any other you deem necessary, with headers. Now if they request you not post proof of their correspondence here, simply say so. Then we can keep you in that good old tard-pit reserved for noise makers, of which there are many here these days.... The closer to Nov 2013 the more your compatriots seem overwrought and full of ill feelings. For something that happened 50 years ago, amazing... <sigh> Carry on Sluggo! You are waiting for NOTHING davie. I've posted the the contents, and I'll NOT post their personal information. You can take it or leave it, I could care less. That's how it works. If ANYONE here needs to sit down its you say nothing davie. Talk about a waste, why don't you get bac kto us when you actually SAY SOMETHING. Based on your track record that will be never. dude, thank gawd you took the cop-out I threw, you're easy hon! Now, rumor has it Dr. John Costella may be in Dallas for the 50th (not as a presenter, but a tourist). Reasoning has something to do with those that can't quite wrap themselves around real world & things-physics, plus discussing his Univ.of Minn 2003 Zapruder film presentation(s). Can't guarantee cameras will be around, but I'm sure a place can be made for you and your widely publicized protestations. Up for it hon? There's nothing like proving yourself to an audience, don't you agree, it does take a man, these days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 dude, thank gawd you took the cop-out I threw, you're easy hon! Now, rumor has it Dr. John Costella may be in Dallas for the 50th (not as a presenter, but a tourist). Reasoning has something to do with those that can't quite wrap themselves around real world & things-physics, plus discussing his Univ.of Minn 2003 Zapruder film presentation(s). Can't guarantee cameras will be around, but I'm sure a place can be made for you and your widely publicized protestations. Up for it hon? There's nothing like proving yourself to an audience, don't you agree, it does take a man, these days! You threw me a cop out? ROFLMAO! You need to take a really long drink of reality. And Dr. John? LMAO! Whats he afraid of? I'm here, I can't help it he is to afraid to get beaten to a pulp in a public forum. Here he is failing real world physics...PARALLAX. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Dr, John has no chops. That's why he can't face the music here. I've proven my point in a very public forum. Dr. John, is still hiding away. Time for YOU to sit down, say-nothing. Heck you can't even UNDERSTAND the argument I just posted. No chops for YOU either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) sitdown, you're a waste of time... bring what on? I'm waiting for YOUR proof your correspondence with Moe, Rollie Zavada and any other you deem necessary, with headers. Now if they request you not post proof of their correspondence here, simply say so. Then we can keep you in that good old tard-pit reserved for noise makers, of which there are many here these days.... The closer to Nov 2013 the more your compatriots seem overwrought and full of ill feelings. For something that happened 50 years ago, amazing... <sigh> Carry on Sluggo! Uh Davie you were CC;ed most of my correspondence with Zavada. If you think I made up any of the rest you can ask him if he really said what I quoted him as saying. Ditto my exchanges with Ray Fielding, you know the expert YOU kept citing who ended up saying what you and your buddies proposed was impossible at the time. I have no idea who "Moe" is, are your years catching up with you? Edited May 26, 2013 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant to the assassination are: Shelly Fiester (sp?) - blood splatter Craig - photography Evan Marshall - homicide investigation Greg Burnham - dignitary protection Sorry to see you go, Len, but I do admire your consistency... Huh? I'm not going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant to the assassination are: ... Craig - photography ... LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave... Oh, and who determined you to be the elector of experts for the JFK assassination? I seem to recall Roland Zavada putting you in your place some years ago, right on this very forum... Blair asked about people with technical expertise, the people I cited have relevant professional experience. If I missed anyone who posts here let me know. And your recollection regarding Zavada is incorrect, I have pointed this out to you several times. I'll send you $1000 if you can cite when he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant to the assassination are: ... Craig - photography ... LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave... Oh, and who determined you to be the elector of experts for the JFK assassination? I seem to recall Roland Zavada putting you in your place some years ago, right on this very forum... Blair asked about people with technical expertise, the people I cited have relevant professional experience. If I missed anyone who posts here let me know. And your recollection regarding Zavada is incorrect, I have pointed this out to you several times. I'll send you $1000 if you can cite when he did. Blair would do better surfing the internet for experts, asking here is utter foolishness. You're giving bad advice, Len. Unless of course Blair's just another wander in the dark looking for societal meaning in that 11/22/63 murder on the streets of Dallas. If so the wanderer, I applaud him. Here's some good advice: do your own research, come to your own conclusions--then publish... there's enough unpublished wannabe researchers posting to forums these days... Frankly, I could care less about your bet, if you were Redd Foxx, then I might pay attention and only because I sat at a Las Vegas table with him a few times. And it was Rollie Zavada who called me, Len. Not I him! Age has a way of clouding things over time Len, no surprise there. All this Zapruder film alteration topic attention paid me, a guy who can't prove anything... you guys dropping the ball or what? go figure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Rheberg Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) Hi Bob, Feeling fine. Good to hear from you again. Herb Blenner has posted an interesting comment on Duncan's site. "Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning? Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides. Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides? Governor CONNALLY. We took - you are talking about the number of the slides? Mr. SPECTER. Yes. Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket. Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231? Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then. Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was - Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range. Governor Connally set a clever trap when he identified frames of the 130's as showing when he was shot. Specter took the bait and suggested 231 as showing the shot. Apparently shaken by his mistake, Specter mindlessly acknowledged that the numbering system starts when the car comes around the turn before leading Connally to relate the time of his wounding to emergence from behind the sign. This turn of the car is not seen in our copy of the Zapruder film. " What happened to the hundred frames? Worth keeping handy: Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? (# 230) Paul, Yes, it's worth keeping handy alright. And interesting to see how quickly that 17-page Muchmore thread of yours died so soon after the subject of Dan Rather's viewing of the Zapruder film was posted. Rather viewed the film on Monday November 25 at KRLD for nearly an hour. From his notes, he reported on it four times that day. Once on radio. Three times on TV: 4:18 pm, 4:30 pm, and 8:26 pm EST. All TV reports were completely different video presentations. No replays of previous broadcasts. So no real, viable excuse for him to report and demonstrate over and over again that Kennedy's head moved forward in a violent motion. The research community should be crawling all over this. One more thing for now. Considering the above, Rather was clearly not the first person to see the Zapruder film, having viewed it on Monday. Hard to understand, then, why Dan Rather critic Jim DiEugenio would pass on Rather's version of this event to us, i.e. that Rather was the first person to see the film (p. 304 of DiEugenio's "The Assassinations"). Maybe there's a retraction out there somewhere from DiEugenio since that book of his was published, and I've just missed it. Ken Edited May 27, 2013 by Ken Rheberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Hi Bob, Feeling fine. Good to hear from you again. Herb Blenner has posted an interesting comment on Duncan's site. "Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning? Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides. Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides? Governor CONNALLY. We took - you are talking about the number of the slides? Mr. SPECTER. Yes. Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket. Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231? Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then. Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was - Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range. Governor Connally set a clever trap when he identified frames of the 130's as showing when he was shot. Specter took the bait and suggested 231 as showing the shot. Apparently shaken by his mistake, Specter mindlessly acknowledged that the numbering system starts when the car comes around the turn before leading Connally to relate the time of his wounding to emergence from behind the sign. This turn of the car is not seen in our copy of the Zapruder film. " What happened to the hundred frames? Worth keeping handy: Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? (# 230) Paul, Yes, it's worth keeping handy alright. And interesting to see how quickly that 17-page Muchmore thread of yours died so soon after the subject of Dan Rather's viewing of the Zapruder film was posted. Rather viewed the film on Monday November 25 at KRLD for nearly an hour. From his notes, he reported on it four times that day. Once on radio. Three times on TV: 4:18 pm, 4:30 pm, and 8:26 pm EST. All TV reports were completely different video presentations. No replays of previous broadcasts. So no real, viable excuse for him to report and demonstrate over and over again that Kennedy's head moved forward in a violent motion. The research community should be crawling all over this. One more thing for now. Considering the above, Rather was clearly not the first person to see the Zapruder film, having viewed it on Monday. Hard to understand, then, why Dan Rather critic Jim DiEugenio would pass on Rather's version of this event to us, i.e. that Rather was the first person to see the film (p. 304 of DiEugenio's "The Assassinations"). Maybe there's a retraction out there somewhere from DiEugenio since that book of his was published, and I've just missed it. Ken Mr. Rheberg To quote from the "Lone Nut Quick Response Handbook", Dan Rather was: a) Confused Mistaken c) Lying d) Mis-remembering (my personal favorite) e) Seeking fifteen minutes of fame f) All of the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Hi Bob, Feeling fine. Good to hear from you again. Herb Blenner has posted an interesting comment on Duncan's site. "Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning? Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides. Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides? Governor CONNALLY. We took - you are talking about the number of the slides? Mr. SPECTER. Yes. Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket. Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231? Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then. Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was - Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range. Governor Connally set a clever trap when he identified frames of the 130's as showing when he was shot. Specter took the bait and suggested 231 as showing the shot. Apparently shaken by his mistake, Specter mindlessly acknowledged that the numbering system starts when the car comes around the turn before leading Connally to relate the time of his wounding to emergence from behind the sign. This turn of the car is not seen in our copy of the Zapruder film. " What happened to the hundred frames? Worth keeping handy: Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? (# 230) Paul, Yes, it's worth keeping handy alright. And interesting to see how quickly that 17-page Muchmore thread of yours died so soon after the subject of Dan Rather's viewing of the Zapruder film was posted. Rather viewed the film on Monday November 25 at KRLD for nearly an hour. From his notes, he reported on it four times that day. Once on radio. Three times on TV: 4:18 pm, 4:30 pm, and 8:26 pm EST. All TV reports were completely different video presentations. No replays of previous broadcasts. So no real, viable excuse for him to report and demonstrate over and over again that Kennedy's head moved forward in a violent motion. The research community should be crawling all over this. One more thing for now. Considering the above, Rather was clearly not the first person to see the Zapruder film, having viewed it on Monday. Hard to understand, then, why Dan Rather critic Jim DiEugenio would pass on Rather's version of this event to us, i.e. that Rather was the first person to see the film (p. 304 of DiEugenio's "The Assassinations"). Maybe there's a retraction out there somewhere from DiEugenio since that book of his was published, and I've just missed it. Ken Mr. Rheberg To quote from the "Lone Nut Quick Response Handbook", Dan Rather was: a) Confused Mistaken c) Lying d) Mis-remembering (my personal favorite) e) Seeking fifteen minutes of fame f) All of the above you're going to do just fine around here, Robert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 So no real, viable excuse for him to report and demonstrate over and over again that Kennedy's head moved forward in a violent motion. The research community should be crawling all over this. Well, other than the fact that JFK'S head DID move violently forward.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 So no real, viable excuse for him to report and demonstrate over and over again that Kennedy's head moved forward in a violent motion. The research community should be crawling all over this. Well, other than the fact that JFK'S head DID move violently forward.... Mr. Lamson JFK's forward head movement lasts for exactly one frame and cannot even be seen unless individual still frames of the Zapruder film are viewed. I would hardly describe that as moving violently forward, unless I was a desperate Lone Nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 So no real, viable excuse for him to report and demonstrate over and over again that Kennedy's head moved forward in a violent motion. The research community should be crawling all over this. Well, other than the fact that JFK'S head DID move violently forward.... Mr. Lamson JFK's forward head movement lasts for exactly one frame and cannot even be seen unless individual still frames of the Zapruder film are viewed. I would hardly describe that as moving violently forward, unless I was a desperate Lone Nut. So, lets review bob... A two inches or so forward movement of JFKs head over the course of 1/18 or so of a second is a slow, lazy movement to hapless bob. And this slow, lazy forward movement can only be see if your slow the film down or watch ti frame by frame. WOW! That's quite a pantload for you bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 sitdown, you're a waste of time... bring what on? I'm waiting for YOUR proof your correspondence with Moe, Rollie Zavada and any other you deem necessary, with headers. Now if they request you not post proof of their correspondence here, simply say so. Then we can keep you in that good old tard-pit reserved for noise makers, of which there are many here these days.... The closer to Nov 2013 the more your compatriots seem overwrought and full of ill feelings. For something that happened 50 years ago, amazing... <sigh> Carry on Sluggo! Uh Davie you were CC;ed most of my correspondence with Zavada. If you think I made up any of the rest you can ask him if he really said what I quoted him as saying. Ditto my exchanges with Ray Fielding, you know the expert YOU kept citing who ended up saying what you and your buddies proposed was impossible at the time. I have no idea who "Moe" is, are your years catching up with you? Len (compatriot of Craigster), you'll notice my above comment was toward Lampoon Lamson, not you. Having said that, I do recall you nominating yourself spokesperson for Rollie Zavada and his new and improved, rewritten Zavada Report. Which was to shortly appear right here on the Education Forum. Of course we know what happened. It should be noted that the Gang of 8, of which you were sniffing around its edges at the time, did not heartedly endorse Rollies new venture, in fact, they tried to dissuade him with much vigor. Which the gang of 8 finally succeeded. The was no reissue of the Zavada report, which is a damn shame. For the record your "exchanges with Ray Fielding and Rollie Zavada are irrelevant, especially after your admission you knew nothing about optical film printing. It was then you attained the rank of Tink's cheerleader in my eye. Nice enough guy, aren't all Redd Foxx fans nice guys? My, we have a crowd gathering Len... Moe? My-oh-my. Ask Groden, Len. Without Moe and his goodies they'd probably be no Z-film controversy. 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