Jack White Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Jim, as someone with a background in the scientific method why do you say this: 'case closed'It is a hypthesis. Albeit one that you are convinced by. However that is not enough. Could you please provide the relevant directions to abstracts of responses within the scientific community (not amateur theorist responses) that are necessary in order to follow this discussion? There are vary few 'laws' in science, very few 'cases closed'. Judgement by peers in reputable independent scientific publications are what is necessary here it seems. Costellos theories are presumably published for the perusal of scientists. What are the headings/abstracts of relevance there? I'm not a scientist so I cannot judge a paper put forward by a scientist, (I'm only aware, through what you say, of the existence of a book and website that promotes this hypothesis) and I must depend on peer responses to guide. So a complete list of classification/field/publications abstracts that will pinpoint the relevant papers particularly those of scientists who have raised critical objections seem necessary here in order for an amateur to make any sort of responses. I have access to local universities and will follow up with any directions provided. (similarly the background papers would be helpful) John...everything you ask for is in TGZFH. I take it you have not read the book. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) Jim, as someone with a background in the scientific method why do you say this: 'case closed' It is a hypthesis. Albeit one that you are convinced by. However that is not enough. Could you please provide the relevant directions to abstracts of responses within the scientific community (not amateur theorist responses) that are necessary in order to follow this discussion? There are vary few 'laws' in science, very few 'cases closed'. Judgement by peers in reputable independent scientific publications are what is necessary here it seems. Costellos theories are presumably published for the perusal of scientists. What are the headings/abstracts of relevance there? I'm not a scientist so I cannot judge a paper put forward by a scientist, (I'm only aware, through what you say, of the existence of a book and website that promotes this hypothesis) and I must depend on peer responses to guide. So a complete list of classification/field/publications abstracts that will pinpoint the relevant papers particularly those of scientists who have raised critical objections seem necessary here in order for an amateur to make any sort of responses. I have access to local universities and will follow up with any directions provided. (similarly the background papers would be helpful) John...everything you ask for is in TGZFH. I take it you have not read the book. Jack Thats just not true Jack. What John is asking for IS NOT in the book. Edited January 16, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 John...everything you ask for is in TGZFH. I take it you have not read the book. Jack Hi Jack, no I haven't read it (I'm happy to deal with individiual items that people choose to present here though) It might be good to use as a reference for studying the papers I hope to see. I find being asked to judge something that at the same time is presented as something only 'educated' people can judge a bit of a dead lock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) As for Len Colby, he is a dupicitious operator, who cannot be taken at face value on any issue--even his own qualifica-tions for research on these issues! Anyone who repeatedly raises the same issues over and over again, even when they have been decisively refuted, is playing a role, not searching for the truth. I have seen him do this over and over again. He is playing a role, not searching for truth. I think he should not be taken seriously. Jim - Your propensity to long windedness, going off on irrelevant tangents, blowing your own horn, and to attack your critics has never been so evident as in your most recent post on this thread. Do you have any evidence to back your slander? Can you cite any examples of my being a "duplicitous operator"? You have repeatedly accused me of dishonesty but never cited any exaples. Don't forget I caught you intentionally misleading your readers (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=40521 ). Speaking of duplicity I just finished reading "American Assassination" your lack of commitment to the truth and slander of the Wellstone family are appalling. I have brought up a few "issues over and over again" but only because neither you nor your 'side kicks' have answered them. Which points have I brought up more than once that has "been decisively refuted?" Your comment that I "cannot be taken at face value on any issue--even (my) own qualifications for research on these issues" left me mystified since I never claimed any special qualifications. Now that we're on the subject care to back your claim that Costella has a background in "optics"? What exactly do Miller and Conway have to do with this thread? Fetzer has a remarkable ability to convince himself he has proven things based on the shakiest of evidence. Jim, as someone with a background in the scientific method why do you say this: 'case closed'It is a hypthesis. Albeit one that you are convinced by. However that is not enough. Could you please provide the relevant directions to abstracts of responses within the scientific community (not amateur theorist responses) that are necessary in order to follow this discussion? There are vary few 'laws' in science, very few 'cases closed'. Judgement by peers in reputable independent scientific publications are what is necessary here it seems. Costellos theories are presumably published for the perusal of scientists. What are the headings/abstracts of relevance there? I'm not a scientist so I cannot judge a paper put forward by a scientist, (I'm only aware, through what you say, of the existence of a book and website that promotes this hypothesis) and I must depend on peer responses to guide. So a complete list of classification/field/publications abstracts that will pinpoint the relevant papers particularly those of scientists who have raised critical objections seem necessary here in order for an amateur to make any sort of responses. I have access to local universities and will follow up with any directions provided. (similarly the background papers would be helpful) Edited January 17, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) Pat wrote: [...] I support Len's efforts to get White and Healy to present an alteration scenario that is consistent and makes sense. From what I've read this is yet to have been done. Not sure if I'll agree with it or not once (and if) it is presented. [...] __________________ Pat Have either Len or yourself post what they KNOW (not think, KNOW) about the *camera original Zapruder film lineage and chain of posession/custody time line* then we'll discuss the matter -- some knowledge regarding optical film printing and travelling mattes is necessary -- my understanding [based on film, analog and digital compositing experience] stands. That understanding/scenario is in GZFH, till someone refutes that optical film printing scenario (either scientific or supported by other film industry professionals) thats where it will stand... All the hot air around here regarding (non-alteration) the Zapruder film is just that, HOT air -- get other pros here or read the 1964 standard for the art craft -- what's a matter with you guys, lazy? If you don't understand how it works, ask... When the other non alteration side of the argument re the camera original Zapruder Film chain of posession/custody time line is understood, I'll be open to meaningful discussion -- Last question here, Pat -- your friend, the one in the biz? Is he/she open to discussing SMPE/SMPTE documents related to Optical Film Printing and the Zapruder film in particular? Edited January 17, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 PatHave either Len or yourself post what they KNOW (not think, KNOW) about the *camera original Zapruder film lineage and chain of posession/custody time line* then we'll discuss the matter -- some knowledge regarding optical film printing and travelling mattes is necessary -- my understanding [based on film, analog and digital compositing experience] stands. That understanding/scenario is in GZFH, till someone refutes that optical film printing scenario (either scientific or supported by other film industry professionals) thats where it will stand... All the hot air around here regarding (non-alteration) the Zapruder film is just that, HOT air -- get other pros here or read the 1964 standard for the art craft -- what's a matter with you guys, lazy? If you don't understand how it works, ask... When the other non alteration side of the argument re the camera original Zapruder Film chain of posession/custody time line is understood, I'll be open to meaningful discussion -- Last question here, Pat -- your friend, the one in the biz? Is he/she open to discussing SMPE/SMPTE documents related to Optical Film Printing and the Zapruder film in particular? You repeatedly mention Feildings book and the SMPE/SMPTE rags but have yet to quote a single word from them doing so would bolster your cause.Neither Pat nor I have to prove our knowledge about Z-film history but you have yet to come up with credible answers to my questions. Being able to answer these simple questions would make your claims more credible but your continued refusal to address them makes your theories suspect. Your wish to reverse the "burden of proof" is absurd there is not one recognized photo analyst, film compositing expert amongsts you, no independant experts have backed you. You continue to claim expertise in compositing yet refuse to go into details or provide examples of your work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) Following the presentation of the Zapruder footage in the Geraldo Rivera videotape, there are a series of what appear to be outakes. I have attached two of the frames. One depicts the head shot, and the other depicts what appears to be JFK's head in profile just prior to the head shot. Hopefully, viewers will study them closely. Edited January 17, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) I had heard you were arrogant but hadn't noticed myself until now. You are suggesting that you have the competence and the expertise to interpret X-rays; in particular, that your competence and expertise is even greater than that of David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.? I am astounded. Let me ask: How many trips into the National Archives have you made? How extensively have you tested the "original" X-rays using optical densitometry? Have you ever even studied David's chapters on the X-rays in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And is your vast compentence supposed to extent to issues of alteration of the Zapruder film as well? You must be some kind of mental giant! Why don't you explain to us how optical denistometry works and how David was able to ascertain empirically that the X-rays were altered? I would like to see a demonstration of your expertise. Believe it or not, I actually asked him to come to this forum and review claims that have been made about the X-rays. He has scanned many posts but has yet to find something that merits comment. So why don't you make a condensed case for your own views and I will share them with him, right after you show us the extent of your own competence to render these findings. Are you aware that David is Board Certified in Radiation Oncology? Are you Board Certified in Radiation Oncology? Frankly, I think all these issues are far beyond your competence, that you are completely out of your depth, but that some fantastic egoistic motivation drives you to pretend that you know things you don't and possess skills you never had. That is simply stupifying. And are you implying that you can understand the alteration issues with regard to the film WITHOUT studying Costella's work, which is visually displayed on my web site? You are truly an amazing guy! You appear to be ignorant of the most basic issues. Dr. Fetzer, you're obviously a bright guy. Can't you see the slope you're on? (Other people's "experts" don't agree with my "experts" so their "experts" must not be as "expert" as my "experts".) If the case has shown us anything, it's that being an "expert" is no substitute for using one's common sense. Larry Sturdivan has admitted that he made a mistake in his testimony and mis-identified exhibit F-114. Why didn't any of the experts catch that? Why did a non-expert catch something that all the experts seem to have missed? In my presentation I also offer a rational explanation for the white spot on the x-rays (it's the wing of bone seen in the right lateral autopsy photo) and the mystery bullet slice on the back of Kennedy's skull (it's not on the back of his skull at all but behind his right eye-precisely where Humes found it.) Why did I catch this when none of the "experts" could? Is it because I'm smarter than them? Or is it because I came to the case with few pre-dispositions and tried not to let myself get caught up in proving anything? I support Len's efforts to get White and Healy to present an alteration scenario that is consistent and makes sense. From what I've read this is yet to have been done. Not sure if I'll agree with it or not once (and if) it is presented. If I'm incorrect, and you feel that a logical and consistent alteration scenario has been achieved, I apologize for my ignorance. I would consider it helpful if someone out there would list a short scenario--the when-where-and what--so all of us can better understand what's being argued. In your last post you stated that Costella's study of the sprocket holes indicated little alteration of the film, but instead a re-staging. I'm confused. What does that mean? Does that mean that the film was taken of a crowded plaza, and that all the cars and witnesses were added in later? Or was the whole motorcade re-created using look-alikes? Edited January 17, 2006 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 In 256 colors : Moment of the head shot , but not what we usually see depicted, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) John...everything you ask for is in TGZFH. I take it you have not read the book.Jack Hi Jack, no I haven't read it (I'm happy to deal with individiual items that people choose to present here though) It might be good to use as a reference for studying the papers I hope to see. I find being asked to judge something that at the same time is presented as something only 'educated' people can judge a bit of a dead lock. Hello, John. I see Fetzer mentions that Bill Miller is untrustworthy, well allow me to show you why Fetzer says what he does and you can judge who is untrustworthy for yourself. In the Great Zapruder Film Hoax, Jack White, along with Fetzer said they had shown that Moorman was in the street when she took her number five Polaroid. Miller pointed out to these guys a couple of years before the book came out that Moorman's camera was above the windshields of the cycles passing by her. Miller knew this because the cycles stacked upward across her photo. Miller confirmed his opinion when he was the only researcher who bothered to find out that the standing height for a DPD cycle was 58" from the ground to the top of the windshield. White gave Moorman's camera lens height off the street as lower than 54". Now let me stop and show you a caption that is written in the Great Zapruder Hoax book about James Altgens photograph number six - At a time when Fetzer and White were saying that Moorman and Hill were in the street, Altgens photo which they claim is genuine proves them to be in serious error, yet they ignored this evidence when presented to them and they pushed a known falsehood in their book. Study the photo for yourself. There are three shadows in the lower right hand corner. One belongs to Charles Brehm, the other two belong to Hill and Moorman. Some time ago I posted the above information on this forum and added that Jean Hill was on record as saying that she stepped back out of the street by the time Mary took her photograph. I even gave the reference to Jean Hill's interview on Black Op Radio where Jean was asked point blank by a caller if she was standing in the street when the President passed her? Jean replied that she had stepped in the street, but before the first shot sounded she had gotten back out of it. How did Jack White then reply ------ Jack countered with a carefully edited film clip where Jean told someone she had stepped into the street. Jack made sure to have stopped the clip before one could see what point in time Jean was talking about, as well as he totally ignored Jean's own words telling the listener to the radio show that she was back out of the street before the first shot was fired. So now who is unstrustworthy and who is credible enough to stand up and tell it like it is? These guys bad mouth Miller because he stood up to them and systematically debunked all their ridiculous claims. They bad mouth Conway because she has banned both men from ever speaking at another one of Lancer's conferences because they have ruined their credibilty amoung the JFK research community, which by the way John Simkin was a speaker at Lancer this year. The same can be said for Copa because they won't have White or Fetzer as speakers either. Kevin Costener said in the JFK movie while portraying Jim Garrison, "Let justice be done, though the Heavens fall!" Now watch them guys try and paint you a different picture, but the truth is the truth just like a tree is a tree and a rock is a rock, regardless of what ever name they try to give it. Larry Edited January 18, 2006 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Well, as I live and breathe -- Bill Miller, er Larry Peters is back -- just can't stay away, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 All the hot air around here regarding (non-alteration) the Zapruder film is just that, HOT air -- get other pros here or read the 1964 standard for the art craft -- what's a matter with you guys, lazy? If you don't understand how it works, ask... When the other non alteration side of the argument re the camera original Zapruder Film chain of posession/custody time line is understood, I'll be open to meaningful discussion -- David, You are on record on this very Forum stating that you have not seen any proof that the Zapruder film has been altered. Your position was only that the ability to alter the film was present at the time of the assassination. So if you are going to start talking about "hot air" when mentioning non-alterationist, just remember that you in a sense have said the same things they have. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Mr. Colby, What, I say WHAT version (split or unsplit) of the Zapruder film did Dan Rather/Mr. Stolley of LIFE magazine see see -- can't quite find your answer amongst the clutter above.... You've had well over a week now to detmine the answer -- we can go on from there...... Mr. Peter's er, Bill Miller or vice-versa is present -- give 'em a call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Anyone who is serious about the issues of alteration--and those who are arguing without looking at the evidence presented in the book are not--should go to my public issues web site and study the Intro to Zapruder Film Alteration presented there by John P. Costella, Ph.D., who is the leading expert on technical issues related to the film. I cannot imagine how anyone who studies the evidence he presents could possibly continue to deny that the film has been massively altered--actually, recreated, because otherwise ghost- images in the sprocket areas, which link successive frames toget- ther, would have revealed the deception immediately! Mr. Fetzer, can you provide this forum with any names of photographic experts who have peer reviewed Costells'a work and agreed with it? It seems to me that I read once that his formula for how he reached is conclusions was solicited so it could be validated, but he had declined to share it. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 When the other non alteration side of the argument re the camera original Zapruder Film chain of posession/custody time line is understood, I'll be open to meaningful discussion -- Larry peters [sic] wrote: David, You are on record on this very Forum stating that you have not seen any proof that the Zapruder film has been altered. Your position was only that the ability to alter the film was present at the time of the assassination. So if you are going to start talking about "hot air" when mentioning non-alterationist, just remember that you in a sense have said the same things they have. Larry _________________ Absolutely correct! Why haven't I seen evidence of alteration? Simple, I haven't held the Zapruder camera original film in my hand (actually, I don't beleive the *ORIGINAL* Zapruder camera original is in existence today - not much of the original 3 optical prints remain in existence, either. GMack has one at the 6th floor -- the other two, a shame), nor to the best of my knowledge has forensic testing been performed on the alledged camera original film currently stored at the National Archives. We also know how to do simple testing -- Moe Weitzman in his HSCA testimony told everyone how to test AND determine if, in fact, the original, is THE original ---- Despite current Lone Neuter efforts, questions concerning the Z-film are not new... 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