Zapruder Film Alteration

[Craig Lamson]

David wrote:

"CRAIG you eluded to and suggest; I said the entire film was composited? Why would I have said THAT? "

Thats clearly the point of the book on which your name appears. You dont suscribe to the main theory put forward in said book?

If not than why not lay out your theory so we can all know exactly where you stand.

[David G. Healy]

Craig wrote:

David wrote:

"CRAIG you eluded to, and suggest; I said the entire film was composited? Why would I have said THAT? "

Thats clearly the point of the book on which your name appears. You dont suscribe to the main theory put forward in said book?

dgh01: you've read Technical Aspects of Film Alteration, yes? I don't say the film is altered, I say; "the equipment, technical know-how, personnel and the TIME was available to alter the Zapruder film.

If not than why not lay out your theory so we can all know exactly where you stand.

here's where I stand, I'm not positive the film is altered. WHY? Because I can't get access to the film for review and test purposes. MPI for all their know-how, screwed up, why should anyone trust those from years gone by telling ANYONE they have the "alteration" answer". However, based on attacks that I've personally witnessed to those that do believe the film is altered... [although not the only reason why] I'm leaning toward the alteration side of things. From both professional standpoint and personal, for me and others, all leads me to believe something significant is there. If true, the real question then becomes, WHY did the film need alteration?

I'm frankly amazed at the venom over the years. Who cares if the film was altered? Maybe it was "national security matters", so what -- it was 40+ years ago... we, the American public own that film now, we paid 16 million for it. Zapruder's estate got a nice tidy sum, not to mention a alledged tax deduction windfall, I say more power to them.

Let's get the Z-film into a lab with R E A L production types, all I need is a few frames for forensic purposes and a new set of 4x5's. After that, the alledged camera original can sit in a box at NARA forever, I don't care. Then we'll recreate Dec 1963 - Jan 1964 optical printing conditions, and make a few changes to a *new* Z-film, game?...

IF alteration claims, hold no water, why attack the messangers?

Edited April 26, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Pat Speer]

My God, I think I'm sensing middle ground here! If I'm following you, Dave, you believe there was a film taken by Abraham Zapruder, and that most of what we've seen came from his original film, but that there was some alteration performed on it later, most logically to hide something.

While I believe this is possible, it makes sense to me that if they were gonna change anything on the film, it would have been the "back and to the left" movement of Kennedy's head after frame 313. Since this was left in, do you think it was just an oversight, or do you believe the CIA or whomever stupidly felt this movement would help convince the public Oswald acted alone?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

David Healy wrote "no burden of proof falls here, Ray -- This isn't a courtroom"

David, this forum will do until a courtroom comes along. We try to be reasonable people, and therefore susceptible to sound argument. Most JFK researchers have neever seriosly doubted that the Z-film is authentic, therefore we see no need to question it. If you could create that doubt, however, some of us might be motivated to investigate further, and maybe find evidence of alteration overlooked up to now. But first you must persuade us that there is real, living doubt.

"Based on DP photo evidence of the day, I certainly can't ID Abraham Zapruder as standing atop the pedestal..."

I predict that this argument will not win the Kentucky Derby on Saturday.

when [was] the last time Abe Zapruder saw the **camera original** laced up on a projector and displayed...?

I believe that was when he testified before one of the Warren Commission lawyers. Here I would concede that the Commissioners were shown a copy of a copy of the film, nowhere near the BEST EVIDENCE. But I believe Zapruder himself authenticated the original

"What film, Zapruder camera original or a Jamiseon optical print [which of the three] was used in the Clay Shaw trial?"

I would say that, as an alteration theorist speaking to agnostics, you should be answering this question and explaining its significance to us.

Ray

"Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce

[David G. Healy]

David, this forum will do until a courtroom comes along. We try to be reasonable people, and therefore susceptible to sound argument.

dgh02: seeing that I'm not selling the argument at the time Ray, that doesn't hold much for me...

Most JFK researchers have neever seriosly doubted that the Z-film is authentic, therefore we see no need to question it. If you could create that doubt, however, some of us might be motivated to investigate further, and maybe find evidence of alteration overlooked up to now. But first you must persuade us that there is real, living doubt.

dgh02: as with advances in ANY endeavour Ray, they're just not done in the light of day. Most Lone Neuter's wouldn't know an film optical printer if it hit 'em between the eyes...

"Based on DP photo evidence of the day, I certainly can't ID Abraham Zapruder as standing atop the pedestal..."

I predict that this argument will not win the Kentucky Derby on Saturday.

dgh02: now thats pretty good, Ray! You telling me you can ID ole Abe through the Moorman 5 photo. Hell most of us mere mortals can't even tell its a male up there much let alone Abe Zapruder....

when [was] the last time Abe Zapruder saw the **camera original** laced up on a projector and displayed...?

I believe that was when he testified before one of the Warren Commission lawyers. Here I would concede that the Commissioners were shown a copy of a copy of the film, nowhere near the BEST EVIDENCE. But I believe Zapruder himself authenticated the original

dgh02: "you believe..."? not good enough Ray, and btw, no where, to the best of my knowledge has it ever been published that the Warren Commission members EVER saw the Zapruder film. Now if you know different, might be a good idea to spread the good news -- aides and gophers aside of course...

"What film, Zapruder camera original or a Jamison optical print [which of the three] was used in the Clay Shaw trial?"

I would say that, as an alteration theorist speaking to agnostics, you should be answering this question and explaining its significance to us.

dgh02: There's no agnostics on this one Ray, either it is or isn't -- having said that, seeing that I know the field, and haven't inspected the alledged camera original --I'm on the record Ray as; not sure! What keeps me interested is those that have no clue about film are so 'dead certain'it isn't altered.

WHY are they so certain? Little birdy tell 'em so?

Edited April 27, 2005 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

Pat wrote:

My God, I think I'm sensing middle ground here! If I'm following you, Dave, you believe there was a film taken by Abraham Zapruder, and that most of what we've seen came from his original film, but that there was some alteration performed on it later, most logically to hide something.

dgh01: Zapruder and/or whomever, from the pedestal, yes! The most logical thing removed was the Limo turn onto Elm AND the Limo stop on Elm [as stated by many witnesses, and those that have seen the OTHER film]

While I believe this is possible, it makes sense to me that if they were gonna change anything on the film, it would have been the "back and to the left" movement of Kennedy's head after frame 313. Since this was left in, do you think it was just an oversight, or do you believe the CIA or whomever stupidly felt this movement would help convince the public Oswald acted alone?

dgh01: The CIA did not have the facilities at the time to do ANY alteration, they did not have multi-projector optical film printers at their disposal, They could and DID extract frames for single pic blow-up... Back and to the left, in my estimation is a canard, the SS and the FBI determined soon after the assassination that the fatal headshot occured further down Elm Street, across from the steps to be exact, if that was the case, frame removal MAY be the cause for the 'back and to the left' movement... As to Oz, he may of been involved, I have no certainty regarding his innocence -or- guilt. Simply put, he's convenient!

My gut? He, Oz was a unwitting accomplice, whether he manned one of the two rifles [TSBD - Dal-Tex, I believe] to the REAR is up for debate, of course...

Edited April 27, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

"here's where I stand, I'm not positive the film is altered. WHY? Because I can't get access to the film for review and test purposes. MPI for all their know-how, screwed up, why should anyone trust those from years gone by telling ANYONE they have the "alteration" answer". However, based on attacks that I've personally witnessed to those that do believe the film is altered... [although not the only reason why] I'm leaning toward the alteration side of things. From both professional standpoint and personal, for me and others, all leads me to believe something significant is there. If true, the real question then becomes, WHY did the film need alteration?"

Wow...did Fetzer write that one for you? Lets review, you dont know if the film has been altered and since YOU have not put your hands on it you cant decide. Never mind others have and concluded its original, you cant trust them. Did I get that part right?

And since people defend their stance that the film is unaltered you consider it attack so that means there is a good chance you are on to something. Sheesh Fetzer DID write this for you. And no...the real questions is it real or not. Fetzer wrote that one too eh?

"Let's get the Z-film into a lab with R E A L production types, all I need is a few frames for forensic purposes and a new set of 4x5's. After that, the alledged camera original can sit in a box at NARA forever, I don't care. Then we'll recreate Dec 1963 - Jan 1964 optical printing conditions, and make a few changes to a *new* Z-film, game?..."

Its been there, you just dont want to believe the results. And why give what amounts to a national treasure to YOU? Based on your gut feeling that since you and others are getting "attacked" that something is amiss? I dont think so. I can clearly understand why others will not provide it to you as well.

Why wait to do your "recreation" do it now, make your own. You dont need the zframes to do that. The cameras exist, film can be had, go do your thing. Provide some emperical evidence for a change. You might want to suggest that to the rest of your "horde" as well. Seems all of the work you guys do is a bit shy in that regard.

Nice try at a fade dude but you need some original lines. Cribbing from Fetzer aint gonna cut it.

You still doing important work like shooting rodeos?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Gavid Healy wrote: "You telling me you can ID ole Abe through the Moorman 5 photo. Hell most of us mere mortals can't even tell its a male up there much let alone Abe Zapruder...."

Well there's a male and a female who look like Zapruder & Sitzman. They both testified that they were there and no one contradicted them as far as I know. It is undisputed that Zapruder did own the camera, and he was phographed holding it after he came down from the pedestal. I'm sure there is further corroboration if I had time to look for it, but I have no serious doubt on this particular issue. Sadly, however, I havn't yet figured out who WILL win the roses on Saturday

.

"has it ever been published that the Warren Commission members EVER saw the Zapruder film."

Three of the Commission members were present for a screening of the film, per this link.

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/..._Vol5_0093b.htm

Apparently they were shown a copy made from the camera original (I mistakenly said a copy of a copy in a previous post). This particular session is very interesting. The Z film was shown only once, and no one noticed that JFK was driven backward by the fatal bullet (or if they noticed they made no comment). I get the impression that Spector virtually sneaked the film past them, in such a way that the record would show that they had seen the film, when in reality they barely got a glimse.

"those that have no clue about film are so 'dead certain'it isn't altered. WHY are they so certain? Little birdy tell 'em so?"

The WC session above is one of the little birdys that argues against alteration. The sneaky way that Spector ran the film indicates to me that he was terrified that they would notice that the film depicted a murder that was nothing like the one he had portrayed for them via the medical evidence. Spector conned the WC, and the con came unglued with Josiah Thompson's book and again when the film went public in 1975. Hence the need to conjure rationalizations like the Jet Effect.

Ray

"Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce

[David G. Healy]

JRCarroll wote:

Gavid Healy wrote: "You telling me you can ID ole Abe through the Moorman 5 photo. Hell most of us mere mortals can't even tell its a male up there much let alone Abe Zapruder...."

Well there's a male and a female who look like Zapruder & Sitzman. They both testified that they were there and no one contradicted them as far as I know. It is undisputed that Zapruder did own the camera, and he was phographed holding it after he came down from the pedestal. I'm sure there is further corroboration if I had time to look for it, but I have no serious doubt on this particular issue.

dgh01: As I said: based on the photograpic record of Dealey Plaza that day, one cannot identify Zapruder and/or Sitzman on the pedestal -- granted a few eyewitnesses ID someone on the pedestal -- but, we all know how how unrelieable eye witness testimony can be, don't we?

Sadly, however, I havn't yet figured out who WILL win the roses on Saturday

if your IRISH, you'll know

.

"has it ever been published that the Warren Commission members EVER saw the Zapruder film."

Three of the Commission members were present for a screening of the film, per this link.

dgh01: my mistake, should of said; no WC member has ever seen the camera 'original' Zapruder film, I'll give the benefit of the doubt that some generation of the film was shown, based on this testimony -- how much and of what cannot be gleened from Shanneyfelt...

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/..._Vol5_0093b.htm

Apparently they were shown a copy made from the camera original (I mistakenly said a copy of a copy in a previous post). This particular session is very interesting. The Z film was shown only once, and no one noticed that JFK was driven backward by the fatal bullet (or if they noticed they made no comment). I get the impression that Spector virtually sneaked the film past them, in such a way that the record would show that they had seen the film, when in reality they barely got a glimse.

"those that have no clue about film are so 'dead certain'it isn't altered. WHY are they so certain? Little birdy tell 'em so?"

The WC session above is one of the little birdys that argues against alteration.

dgh01: it does? How? Actually, that birdy "don't fly" "a copy of the film..." What's that suppose to mean, maybe your apology for mistating was a little premature, maybe it was a copy of a COPY of the film, how many generations down? Transcript -Testimony doesn't say the film Z-film actually 'RAN', we assume it did - but hey we all know about assumptions regarding THIS case

The sneaky way that Spector ran the film indicates to me that he was terrified that they would notice that the film depicted a murder that was nothing like the one he had portrayed for them via the medical evidence. Spector conned the WC, and the con came unglued with Josiah Thompson's book and again when the film went public in 1975. Hence the need to conjure rationalizations like the Jet Effect.

dgh01: good points, Ray... but, we're no closer to the "conspiracy' conclusion than we were when Thompson did his work, why the continue cover-up, opinion?

DHealy

Ray

"Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[David G. Healy]

"here's where I stand, I'm not positive the film is altered. WHY? Because I can't get access to the film for review and test purposes. MPI for all their know-how, screwed up, why should anyone trust those from years gone by telling ANYONE they have the "alteration" answer". However, based on attacks that I've personally witnessed to those that do believe the film is altered... [although not the only reason why] I'm leaning toward the alteration side of things. From both professional standpoint and personal, for me and others, all leads me to believe something significant is there. If true, the real question then becomes, WHY did the film need alteration?"[/i][/b]

Wow...did Fetzer write that one for you?  Lets review, you dont know if the film has been altered and since YOU have not put your hands on it you cant decide.  Never mind others have and concluded its original, you cant trust them.  Did I get that part right?

dgh01: clear you haven't read HOAX, but that's okay -- as to the "others" I'm not quite as impressed as you seem to be with their "investigations' and/or research -- so sure, and you've never seen the film loaded onto a projector much less PASS through a projector, never held the film in your hand, never seen a frame under a lupe, yet you can tell me, an many others around here (not to mention elsewhere), your positive the film was NOT altered. Nice try!

And since people defend their stance that the film is unaltered you consider it attack so that means there is a good chance you are on to something. 

dgh01:How did these "people determine the film was the camera original, the timeline, Gary tell'em it was? You? roflmfao!

Sheesh Fetzer DID write this for you.  And no...the real questions is it real or not.  Fetzer wrote that one too eh?

dgh01: didn't realize your problems extend to the english language, No, Jim Fetzer wrote nothing for me -- Now I KNOW you haven't readthe Great Zapruder Film HOAX -- IS the film altered or isn't it, tough to answer? Especially when not many from the film community have a chance to look the question.

"Let's get the Z-film into a lab with R E A L production types, all I need is a few frames for forensic purposes and a new set of 4x5's. After that, the alledged camera original can sit in a box at NARA forever, I don't care. Then we'll recreate Dec 1963 - Jan 1964 optical printing conditions, and make a few changes to a *new* Z-film, game?..."

Its been there, you just dont want to believe the results. 

dgh01: the MPI fiasco, those fools! The latest along the line of Z-film alterationists. You do agree they altered the film, correct?

And why give what amounts to a national treasure to YOU? 

dgh01: GIVE? xxxx, I paid for it! So'd you. What are you smoking back there? Do I have to fill you in on how NARA deals with film duplication at NARA approved facilities?

Based on your gut feeling that since you and others are getting "attacked" that something is amiss? I dont think so.  I can clearly understand why others will not provide it to you as well.

dgh01: Jack White must be off for a few day's -- Or is Owen taking your shift?

Why wait to do your "recreation" do it now, make your own.  You dont need the zframes to do that.  The cameras exist, film can be had, go do your thing.  Provide some emperical evidence for a change.

dgh01: yeah, yeah-yeah, I've heard that nonsense before -- let's cut to the chase, nobody on the other side of this debate wants to see ANY testing done on the "alledged" camera original Z-film -- which leaves you with: the best you could do was challenge John Costella humorous "rain sensor" sthick

You might want to suggest that to the rest of your "horde" as well.  Seems all of the work you guys do is a bit shy in that regard.

dgh01: haven't seen one argument disputing the alteration side of things that amounts to a hill of beans. Lots and lots of noise, gnashing of teeth oh yeah! You know, from folks that need attention and recognition, they've no experience in the motion picture field, but they're trying to sound knowledgable and important

Nice try at a fade dude but you need some original lines.  Cribbing from Fetzer aint gonna cut it.

dgh01: is that line from the 'preserver' of history crowd...? "Cribbing from Fetzer..."? rofl, ah, your just jealous -- keep coming back though, you get anything, ANYTHING original -- we'll give it a look [that original enough :-)]

You still doing important work like shooting rodeos?

dgh01: if they make money, of course we do them, the company is in business, you know.

You shooting triple wide interiors?

Edited April 27, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

dgh01: clear you haven't read HOAX, but that's okay -- as to the "others" I'm not quite as impressed as you seem to be with their "investigations' and/or research -- so sure, and you've never seen the film loaded onto a projector much less PASS through a projector, never held the film in your hand, never seen a frame under a lupe, yet you can tell me, an many others around here (not to mention elsewhere), your positive the film was NOT altered. Nice try!

More fetzerisms I see, you guys are like a broken record. Yes I read hoax...got the galleys from Tink, don't you remember? Read and it and then tossed it in the trash where it and all of Fetzers work belongs. Did I say I was positive the film was not altered? Trying to put words in my mouth now eh? The evidence supports it being unaltered. "hoax" offers nothing that changes that.

dgh01:How did these "people determine the film was the camera original, the timeline, Gary tell'em it was? You? roflmfao

I'm happy with what Roland Zavada had to say. Besides where is the evidence that the film is altered? Whites crackpot work? Costellas study of his interpolated frames? Sheesh...

dgh01: didn't realize your problems extend to the english language, No, Jim Fetzer wrote nothing for me -- Now I KNOW you haven't readthe Great Zapruder Film HOAX -- IS the film altered or isn't it, tough to answer? Especially when not many from the film community have a chance to look the question.[/b]

Then why do all of your words sound exactly like his? You a clone? Read your book, tossed it in the trash... again see my comments above on the alteration of the film. Zavada has inspected the film. As to you, we dont even know it you have ever been in the lab and made a composite.

dgh01: haven't seen one argument disputing the alteration side of things that amounts to a hill of beans. Lots and lots of noise, gnashing of teeth oh yeah! You know, from folks that need attention and recognition, they've no experience in the motion picture field, but they're trying to sound knowledgable and important.

Good for you. I feel otherwise. Heres a news flash for you David. Compositing exists outside of the film busiiness and the principals are exactly the same. In fact they came from the still world. I've got hands on experience in making film based composites, from start to finish, in the lab and from behind the camera. Can you say the same or are you just a digital geek. The "film world" means nothing when it comes to composites. BTW, your attempt at creating a z frame in AF sucked.

dgh01: yeah, yeah-yeah, I've heard that nonsense before -- let's cut to the chase, nobody on the other side of this debate wants to see ANY testing done on the "alledged" camera original Z-film -- which leaves you with: the best you could do was challenge John Costella humorous "rain sensor" sthick

So get off your high horse and actually do something. Miller is right you are all bluster and no action. I dont care if they test the film but it seems pointless to cut it up based on the silly theories your side is making. But since it has been tested, I can live with that. No, Durnavich showed the total weakness of Costellas work. What a joke trying to normalize two 2-d images to the same camera position. Costella needs to spend some time with a real camera. Maybe he should stop by and I can even show him how a shadow works LOL! As to the rain sensors...Costella put a fine point to his being a woo woo.

dgh01: is that line from the 'preserver' of history crowd...? "Cribbing from Fetzer..."? rofl, ah, your just jealous -- keep coming back though, you get anything, ANYTHING original -- we'll give it a look [that original enough :-)

No its the truth. And the truth is you have nothing that makes giving the film up to you or the rest of the horde meaningful. When you have something other than z frames that have been altered, what 4-5 times via interpolation, then maybe we can talk.

upps...missed one...

dgh01: the MPI fiasco, those fools! The latest along the line of Z-film alterationists. You do agree they altered the film, correct?

Did I say anything about MPI? How about this one. Did Costella alter the Z film? Yes he did.

dgh01: if they make money, of course we do them, the company is in business, you know. You shooting triple wide interiors?

Your company or are you working on OPM? At least I own my company.

Triple wides? What are those? No I shoot RV's, Motorhomes, High End Boats, Automotive. You know stuff that makes money, kind of like rodeos.

Gotta run now, need to finish the shot I am working on. Its part of a composite...

Edited April 27, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

dgh01: Jack White must be off for a few day's -- Or is Owen taking your shift?

Oh no, Jacks been around, but his lack of a voice makes it look like he has run off with his tail between his legs. Rightly so, he has been shown to be ...shall we say...foolish and ignorant about most things photographic. Pretty sad when he is billed as a photographic expert LOL!

And who is Owen? More quality research from the horde? LOL!

[Shanet Clark]

The film was obviously doctored.

The County records and Jail are matted over and fuzzy.

A mysterious blob clings to JFK's parietal temple area.

The cloud of blood dissipates in a miraculous fashion.

The color is oversaturated and the splices are obvious.

The approach to the kill zone is simply missing.

(I expect a long winded McAdams style denial, but this is fact)

[David G. Healy]

dgh01: clear you haven't read HOAX, but that's okay -- as to the "others" I'm not quite as impressed as you seem to be with their "investigations' and/or research -- so sure, and you've never seen the film loaded onto a projector much less PASS through a projector, never held the film in your hand, never seen a frame under a lupe, yet you can tell me, an many others around here (not to mention elsewhere), your positive the film was NOT altered. Nice try!

More fetzerisms I see, you guys are like a broken record. Yes I read hoax...got the galleys from Tink, don't you remember? Read and it and then tossed it in the trash where it and all of Fetzers work belongs. Did I say I was positive the film was not altered? Trying to put words in my mouth now eh? The evidence supports it being unaltered. "hoax" offers nothing that changes that.

dgh01:How did these "people determine the film was the camera original, the timeline, Gary tell'em it was? You? roflmfao

I'm happy with what Roland Zavada had to say. Besides where is the evidence that the film is altered? Whites crackpot work? Costellas study of his interpolated frames? Sheesh...

dgh02: Interpolated frames? On a optical 'film' printer? Hey listen, I understand how difficult and sore your side feels -- they couldn't BS JCostella, he didn't buy the nonsense -- so, just dig up your own Physicist that can challenge John and give it a whirl -- been 2 going on 3 years now, still NO experts from your side... Just Rollie hiding behind; " Doug Horne must not of understood..." please!

dgh01: didn't realize your problems extend to the english language, No, Jim Fetzer wrote nothing for me -- Now I KNOW you haven't readthe Great Zapruder Film HOAX -- IS the film altered or isn't it, tough to answer? Especially when not many from the film community have a chance to look the question.[/b]

Then why do all of your words sound exactly like his? You a clone? Read your book, tossed it in the trash... again see my comments above on the alteration of the film. Zavada has inspected the film. As to you, we dont even know it you have ever been in the lab and made a composite.

dgh02: I certainly hope you paid or it, knowing how the galley's were acquired, I suspect NOT!

dgh01: haven't seen one argument disputing the alteration side of things that amounts to a hill of beans. Lots and lots of noise, gnashing of teeth oh yeah! You know, from folks that need attention and recognition, they've no experience in the motion picture field, but they're trying to sound knowledgable and important.

Good for you. I feel otherwise. Heres a news flash for you David. Compositing exists outside of the film busiiness and the principals are exactly the same. In fact they came from the still world. I've got hands on experience in making film based composites, from start to finish, in the lab and from behind the camera. Can you say the same or are you just a digital geek. The "film world" means nothing when it comes to composites. BTW, your attempt at creating a z frame in AF sucked.

dgh02: yeah, I know compositing comes from way back, made mention of that somewhere, and of course the black art of motion compositing came from the 'still' world...

Hands on? Well lets see a few pieces your film work, after all if your claiming compositing expertise, I think I can pass judgement on that -- you've done motion work? Post a URL, more than one of us would like to see your 'expertise' in action....

dgh01: yeah, yeah-yeah, I've heard that nonsense before -- let's cut to the chase, nobody on the other side of this debate wants to see ANY testing done on the "alledged" camera original Z-film -- which leaves you with: the best you could do was challenge John Costella humorous "rain sensor" sthick

So get off your high horse and actually do something. Miller is right you are all bluster and no action. I dont care if they test the film but it seems pointless to cut it up based on the silly theories your side is making. But since it has been tested, I can live with that. No, Durnavich showed the total weakness of Costellas work. What a joke trying to normalize two 2-d images to the same camera position. Costella needs to spend some time with a real camera.

dgh02: F L A S H --it's not the camera, Craig it's the L E N S, I can't believe I had to remind you of this -- now JCostella has a PhD in Physics specializing in OPTICS and Joe D qualifications is what?

Maybe he should stop by and I can even show him how a shadow works LOL! As to the rain sensors...Costella put a fine point to his being a woo woo.

dgh02: Durnavich showed what? roflmfao! You are behind the times... Loved his Pov-Ray (sign)nonsense though tsk-tsk... Miller? Well we know all about him, it does provide comedic relief at times!

dgh01: is that line from the 'preserver' of history crowd...? "Cribbing from Fetzer..."? rofl, ah, your just jealous -- keep coming back though, you get anything, ANYTHING original -- we'll give it a look [that original enough :-)

No its the truth. And the truth is you have nothing that makes giving the film up to you or the rest of the horde meaningful. When you have something other than z frames that have been altered, what 4-5 times via interpolation, then maybe we can talk.

dgh02: then I suspect you'll endorse the release of the NARA alledged camera original Z-film to a team of film experts for further study, yes?

upps...missed one...

dgh01: the MPI fiasco, those fools! The latest along the line of Z-film alterationists. You do agree they altered the film, correct?

Did I say anything about MPI? How about this one. Did Costella alter the Z film? Yes he did.

dgh02: the MPI version, and added the missing frames --

dgh01:if they make money, of course we do them, the company is in business, you know. You shooting triple wide interiors?

Your company or are you working on OPM? At least I own my company.

dgh02: What's this? mine is bigger than yours? Company's been in the family for 29 years.

Triple wides? What are those? No I shoot RV's, Motorhomes, High End Boats, Automotive. You know stuff that makes money, kind of like rodeos.

Gotta run now, need to finish the shot I am working on. Its part of a composite...

dgh02: triple wide = 3 section mobile home, they're all over the place out here... bet that composite is digital... LOL

Edited April 28, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

The film was obviously doctored.

The County records and Jail are matted over and fuzzy.

A mysterious blob clings to JFK's parietal temple area.

The cloud of blood dissipates in a miraculous fashion.

The color is oversaturated and the splices are obvious.

The approach to the kill zone is simply missing.

(I expect a long winded McAdams style denial, but this is fact)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for your reply Shanet. You showed us all your photographic skill in the apollo threads. But keep trying.