Len Colby Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 (edited) Post # 1 from the "Political Conspiracies > John Simkin re: Members Pictures" thread. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=4938&st=0 Is it the policy of this forum that posters submit a photo of themselves to be included with all post? I'm under the impression it is? Some of the most vocal posters apparently believe it is not mandatory. If it is mandatory, please request they follow policy -or- cease posting to the forum. If not , please remove my photo and notify the forum a change has been made Thank you! David Healy From the " Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone" thread, pages 5 & 6 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...opic=4542&st=60 where's you photo Colby? Or are you Colby? hey dude, if its good enough for Josiah Thompson, its good enough for you -- let's see your likeness, or are you a Lamson.... post your picture... … Just post your picture and all will be well. You and Craig can tippty-toe off through the contrails of everlasting heaven -- nice photo.... I suspect you'll be gone in a day or so... ta-ta Dave you asked me for my photo 3 times in 15 minutes then once again 2 days later. You also started a thread about it. What was that obsession about? Funny that you were so adamant that I comply with one of the forum’s rules but feel that you are under no obligation to comply with a similar one. From the "Zapruder, Four questions..." thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=51725 Dave - Rule #1 of this forum is "All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature". Where's yours? I remember you hastling me before I added my photo. You are one of the very few members of the forum not in compliance. Len biography? rofl --- buy the book and read it! Is it the policy of this forum that posters submit a biography of themselves to be included with all posts? I'm under the impression it is.* Some of the most vocal posters apparently believe it is not mandatory. If it is mandatory, please request they follow policy -or- cease posting to the forum. If not please notify the forum a change has been made Thank you! Len Colby * Actually I know it is, it is rule #1 as stated above Edited January 29, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 (edited) Dave you asked me for my photo 3 times in 15 minutes then once again 2 days later. You also started a thread about it. What was that obsession about? Funny that you were so adamant that I comply with one of the forum’s rules but feel that you are under no obligation to comply with a similar one. If one goes back through the forum responses that David Healy has made to date ... it would appear that he is not on this forum to offer actual data concerning the JFK assassination, but rather to have a place to jack around for a more polite way of putting it. Somewhat like the Warren Commission did in the 26 volumes ... Healy runs up threads with a lot of meaningless nonsense replies which seldom, if never, address the issues in an apparent attempt to derail any actual research information from being shared. In other words, a reader has to wade through pages of meaningless responses like the ones you cited in order to see the relevant material to the topic being discussed. If what I have said here is not true, then let someone explain why Healy would post so many times in such a short time span over such nonsense as cited in your opening post. I am personally amazed that it has been allowed to go on. I am of the opinion that the next worst thing to doing what Healy appears to be doing is actually allowing it to continue. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited January 29, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tribe Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 I must admit to a certain sympathy for Mr Healy's position here. I have no idea what his views are about the myriad "conspiracy theories" which exercise so many contributors -- this is, after all an "education" forum, not a "conspiracy" forum -- but I, too, have been hassled by Mr Simkin about my lack of photo and threatened with suspension from the forum unless I provided one forthwith. Despite my technological ineptitude, and with Andy's assistance, I provided a photo. It is, therefore, a bit annoying to see that some members seem to be mysteriously exempt from the requirement so rigorously enforced on others. Perhaps it's a conspiracy... Mike Tribe Educator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 29, 2006 Author Share Posted January 29, 2006 I must admit to a certain sympathy for Mr Healy's position here. I have no idea what his views are about the myriad "conspiracy theories" which exercise so many contributors -- this is, after all an "education" forum, not a "conspiracy" forum -- but I, too, have been hassled by Mr Simkin about my lack of photo and threatened with suspension from the forum unless I provided one forthwith. Despite my technological ineptitude, and with Andy's assistance, I provided a photo. It is, therefore, a bit annoying to see that some members seem to be mysteriously exempt from the requirement so rigorously enforced on others. Perhaps it's a conspiracy...Mike Tribe Educator Worse is when the same member who seems to think he should be exempt from one rule makes so much noise about the non-compliance of others. Perhaps it's hypocrisy.. I'm not sure why you feel sympathy for Healys position, he was the lead noisemaker about our lack of photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 29, 2006 Author Share Posted January 29, 2006 (edited) Miller" I am personally amazed that it has been allowed to go on".Just what is your agenda Bill?You are using the same attempted (and failing here so far) power of suggestion reverse physcology tactics to try and have David removed from this forum,or at least have some of his posts terminated by John Simkin.This is an Education forum,John is an educated man,and i doubt very much if he,like Debs,will fall for your weasel scheming tactics.You practically run the show at Lancer,but you'll never worm your way in to that position here.Everyone is entitled to their views,but if someone has a rigid will not budge attitude towards an argument of yours because that's what they honestly believe,then you get personal with insults to try and distract from the points in question.You argue that David goes over and over the same points,jesus,havent you heard?,that's the only way this case will move forward.The same points have been discussed for 43 years now,and still it goes on.Your objecting to that fact will not end the flow.Get real Duncan Still talking crap i see Bill since i was kicked off Lancer for simply not agreeing with you.I've never known anyone to crawl like a wriggling worm and suck ass the way you do at Lancer Duncan - Funny that you should complain that Bill "get(s) personal with insults", I guess you are as consistent in your views as Dave is. The "agenda" here is not Bill's but mine. Personally I do not care much one why or the other about the forum's requirements for a photo and bio, if it were up to me I would not have submitted them. But they are required here so I did. Do you really think Healy is not playing by a double standard when he was so insistent that all forum members submit photos yet feels he is under no obligation to submit his bio? PS - You are not in compliance either. JOHN - You really should insist that Healy abide by the rules he so insists others must follow or face suspension the same penalty he asked you to enforce for non-compliance. Dave - Do not kid yourself, I really do not care what you say about yourself in your bio, it is just that I believe people should live by the same standards they demand of others Edited January 29, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 (edited) Miller" I am personally amazed that it has been allowed to go on". Just what is your agenda Bill?You are using the same attempted (and failing here so far) power of suggestion reverse physcology tactics to try and have David removed from this forum,or at least have some of his posts terminated by John Simkin. As usual, Duncan ... you fail to understand what is written. I didn't start this thread. I am also not trying to have anyone removed, but merely supporting the idea that we should all follow the same rules. If someone wishes to not follow those rules and ends up suspended because of it, then it is of their own doing. Of course, someone like yourself who never takes responsibility for your own actions probably cannot follow the point I am making ... that I cannot do anything about. You argue that David goes over and over the same points,jesus,havent you heard?,that's the only way this case will move forward.The same points have been discussed for 43 years now,and still it goes on.Your objecting to that fact will not end the flow.Get real Where do you come up with such nonsense? I want David to debate the evidence, but instead he runs up response after response with replies that never had anything to do with the subject matter. Do you need me to go copy and paste some of them for you! Here is a reply Healy gave that didn't address a single fact on the matter ... "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years -- I haven't seen, touched or inspected the alleged camera original film much to my chagrin, why would I claim otherwise -- WAS it possible? Now THAT'S another story -- of course it was POSSIBLE.... makes one wonder what all the howlings' about whenever Z-film possible OR outright alteration is brought up.... $16 million dollars for a film no one can see or touch... So, when was the Zapruder film last laced up on a projector, again? "Easy fix tools"? Why Bill, you haven't read the book HOAX have you? Very complicated tools and some, not so complicated tools, all to do easy fixes, if one knows how.... Hundreds of examples.... All this nonsense from those that have no conception what I'm talking about -- I suppose I should apologize for not making myself clear enouugh -- considering the sources and nearly 3 years since HOAX, I won't --- Have you got in touch with Mr. Zavada or Mr. Fielding either one? Either will do... -- maybe Pat Speer can dig up someone in LA that has a *optical* credit or two -- Certainly naysayers currently posting to this thread haven't any credibility re the subject matter. It's very simple, Bill you're the expert in Dealey Plaza films .gif-.jpeg thumbnail animations....and all the compression artifacts that goes with it, -- post the official Z-film time line, we'll procede from there -- As for, "Wait for me?" Should I be impressed that you and Lamson wait for me? ROFLMFAO.... You actually think I'm doing you bidding -- get real man, you're defending the Z-film, AND why it wasn't altered, remember? so, for the last time: get someone with post film credits here that will tell me I'm talking the impossible -- post haste! You and Lamson have wasted enough LURKER time - there's a few around here that have caught on to the game..." Healy rambled out some disjointed sentences ... never offered any specific data or research on his part ... and instead he merely made assertions and request as if that is all he knows what to do. Part of the time Healy is responding to the poster by calling them someone elses name. In a response to me he asked how the new job was gong and addressed it a "Gary". Then some jerk-off comes out of nowhere in support of such ramblings by posting the following ... "Still talking crap i see Bill since i was kicked off Lancer for simply not agreeing with you. I've never known anyone to crawl like a wriggling worm and suck ass the way you do at Lancer,it's sickening..jesus..... Anyway...David is correct.You are completely out of your depth here as his expertise and knowledge in this particular field is superior to anything you can offer.The fact is non deniable..The technology to fake films beyond detected fakery existed in 1963 and earlier..live with it.I have uploaded a faked Zapruder frame.I wonder how many people who have never had access to this frame could spot the fakery.99.9%plus i suspect." Like Healy ... you merely repeated what he had said and didn't even so much as offer a shred of proof. You guys have become little more than mouth pieces and it was your big mouth posting to Debra Conway something about me having my mouth to her asshole is what got you booted. As the possible film alteration thread is being played out ... go read it as a whole and see who has offered any proof on the subject matter and who has not. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited January 29, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Dave you asked me for my photo 3 times in 15 minutes then once again 2 days later. You also started a thread about it. What was that obsession about? Funny that you were so adamant that I comply with one of the forum’s rules but feel that you are under no obligation to comply with a similar one. If one goes back through the forum responses that David Healy has made to date ... it would appear that he is not on this forum to offer actual data concerning the JFK assassination, but rather to have a place to jack around for a more polite way of putting it. Somewhat like the Warren Commission did in the 26 volumes ... Healy runs up threads with a lot of meaningless nonsense replies which seldom, if never, address the issues in an apparent attempt to derail any actual research information from being shared. In other words, a reader has to wade through pages of meaningless responses like the ones you cited in order to see the relevant material to the topic being discussed. If what I have said here is not true, then let someone explain why Healy would post so many times in such a short time span over such nonsense as cited in your opening post. I am personally amazed that it has been allowed to go on. I am of the opinion that the next worst thing to doing what Healy appears to be doing is actually allowing it to continue. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Is it a requirement, better yet; are you forced to post here? The defacto voice in support of the Zapruder film? Now THAT would be a interesting turn of events! What's TRULY amazing here, There are quite a few with the same questions as I, IF it was, WHY? So here's a little gem for you from a website a few years back: "...A sign that we researchers are on to something significant, and of contemporary relevance, is the vigorous defense of the "lone nut" hypothesis, and the resistance we meet to our critiques of it, from dominant elements on the right (Buckley), the center (all of the mainstream media) and the left (Cockburn and Chomsky). The virulence of the attack on Stone's JFK, the mindless praise heaped on Posner's fallacious book, are symptoms of a general weakness. All the people in this mindless anti-conspiracy consensus rightly see a major challenge to their First and Second positional analysis, not just of the Kennedy assassination, but of American politics in general. Peter Dale Scott I believe Peter Dale Scott posts here on ocassion the entire article can be found here http://www.assassinationweb.com/scotte.htm so.... Amazing, clutter on my screen cleared up once you "ignore", or in old time lingo <plonk> the nonesense -- so, listen Bill if your so interested in what I look like, you can buy my HOAX presentation DVD re: the Univ of Minnesota Zapruder film get together, hell, you can buy ALL presenters DVD's, find out what we ALL look like - even David Lifton... Or buy the book HOAX, my photo is in there a few times, actually the photo posted accompanying my posts re this forum is a video frame lift used in the book, I believe [JSimkin did that for me, I couldn't get it to work at the time, either].... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 (edited) I must admit to a certain sympathy for Mr Healy's position here. I have no idea what his views are about the myriad "conspiracy theories" which exercise so many contributors -- this is, after all an "education" forum, not a "conspiracy" forum -- but I, too, have been hassled by Mr Simkin about my lack of photo and threatened with suspension from the forum unless I provided one forthwith. Despite my technological ineptitude, and with Andy's assistance, I provided a photo. It is, therefore, a bit annoying to see that some members seem to be mysteriously exempt from the requirement so rigorously enforced on others. Perhaps it's a conspiracy...Mike Tribe Educator Mike -- My interest surrounds the John Kennedy Assassination, only. The Zapruder film in particular. Other's far more knowledgable than I about others... I've been on and IN the public record, regarding same for years ... EXEMPT? Exempt, from what Professor Tribe? It is professor is it not? It seems that whereever I go on the internet, I have a following... pests actually! DH Edited January 29, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 29, 2006 Author Share Posted January 29, 2006 (edited) Dave once again you are displaying your penchant for babbling on without addressing the issue at hand. That is your standard tactic, when you don’t have a good answer change the subject. Your continued and blatant hypocrisy and lack of a bio are what’s in question here, what do either of your posts above have to do with that? I must admit to a certain sympathy for Mr Healy's position here. I have no idea what his views are about the myriad "conspiracy theories" which exercise so many contributors -- this is, after all an "education" forum, not a "conspiracy" forum -- but I, too, have been hassled by Mr Simkin about my lack of photo and threatened with suspension from the forum unless I provided one forthwith. Despite my technological ineptitude, and with Andy's assistance, I provided a photo. It is, therefore, a bit annoying to see that some members seem to be mysteriously exempt from the requirement so rigorously enforced on others. Perhaps it's a conspiracy... Mike Tribe Educator Mike -- My interest surrounds the John Kennedy Assassination, only. The Zapruder film in particular. Other's far more knowledgable than I about others... I've been on and IN the public record, regarding same for years ... EXEMPT? Exempt, from what Professor Tribe? It is professor is it not? It seems that whereever I go on the internet, I have a following... pests actually! DH Exempt from complying with the forum's rules obviously. Were you being ingenious or are you so lacking of gray matter that you did not understand. If you spent less energy on sarcasm and more on thinking you would be a lot better off Edited January 29, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 (edited) Bill Miller pressed on.... [...] Where do you come up with such nonsense? I want David to debate the evidence, but instead he runs up response after response with replies that never had anything to do with the subject matter. Do you need me to go copy and paste some of them for you! [...] Ah, excuse me -- those that wish to debate/distract or just make noise, press on -- As for me; I debate/discuss with NO one unless I am fully aware of their **motion** media post production qualifications-- NO ONE I'm aware of, knows your media (film/video) post production qualifications, if in fact there are any. Debate Peters.... or of course Len -- better yet, how about Craig Lamson Feel free to post commercial broadcast 'productiuon' or film credits here? For the lurkers out there, the only reason why this forum isn't beseiged with endless .gif animations re the Dealey plaza "seamless" films, is the 'well planned' upload limit restriction on Forum posters -- otherwise, the JFK anti alteration film crowd would have thousands, upon thousands of posts filling forum pages! A huge, non-sensical waste of time creating expensive bandwidth problems -- post animation to ftp sites, provide a url Also for lurkers benefit -- when HOAX was published in 2003 a not so surprising (in my eyes anyway) event happened on the JFKLancer board (Lancer --which BMiller played a signicant re-organization role early on - I believe he provided more than technical support in the reorganization of the Lancer board - I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong ) -- I personally could not post to any of the lancer Zapruder film debate (was locked out) re Jim Fetzer's: The Great Zapruder film HOAX... Did I piss and moan about that? Nah! -- To this day - the non-alteration crowd can't counter, with any sense of authority John Costella's thesis -- no matter how hard they try... and I STILL can't claim the camera original Z-film is altered -- makes on wonder why the DP crowd insist on keeping the Z-film issue in the forefront -- who cares if the Z-film was altered? Well, I and others do. Me, confirmation from the technical standpoint -- hence all the credibility attacks -- attacks, from those with no published signs of expertise in the 'craft' of post production compositing video and optical film printing -- including; Kodak's Roland Zavada -- who in fact, will NOT debate anyone regarding film effects printing techniques, WHY? He simply doesn't know that end of the field. (I suspect he's a bit more familiar with that end now) No big deal! If in fact, Zavada made a trip to Florida to discuss with Raymond Fielding Z-film alteration subject matter, to me, that's another sign of Roland Zavada's investigative skills AND thourghness - Let's have Bill get Fielding here... aside: I'd presume NOT to counter Roland Zavada's authority regarding film property composition, manufacturing of same or how motion picture cameras function. His entire report, in which I'm fully aware, a great piece of work -- nothing of consequence regarding/concerning film alteration ... I don't believe that was part of his 'charge' -- Doug Horne who posts here now and again, whom worked directly with Roland Zavada (and the HSCA) investigation may or may not confirm same... Edited January 29, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Is it a requirement, better yet; are you forced to post here? The defacto voice in support of the Zapruder film? Now THAT would be a interesting turn of events! What's TRULY amazing here, There are quite a few with the same questions as I, IF it was, WHY? So here's a little gem for you from a website a few years back: No, David ... I am sure this site was created for jerk-offs to run up threads with meaningless schoolyard banter that seldom, if ever, cites actual JFK related data ... give us a break! The difference between you and most everyone else who ask "why?" is that they do address the issues with facts and save the drama for the drama queens. Just like your mentioning Scott - why? You aren't up against LNrs here, but rather CT's wanting actual facts to be presented instead of you just making assertions without evidence to support what you're saying. We aren't looking to be right as much as we are wanting to be accurate. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Ah, excuse me -- those that wish to debate/distract or just make noise, press on -- As for me; I debate/discuss with NO one unless I am fully aware of their **motion** media post production qualifications-- NO ONE I'm aware of, knows your media (film/video) post production qualifications, if in fact there are any. Debate Peters.... or of course Len -- better yet, how about Craig Lamson Feel free to post commercial broadcast 'productiuon' or film credits here? You asked for the opinions of those experts who could address your concerns. I believe that has been done. Groden details several flaws concerning your opinions and why you are not qualified to render such an opinion. This forum says in its heading that it is designed for debating the JFK assasination, so feel free to start at any time and save the dancing for the looney forum. For the lurkers out there, the only reason why this forum isn't beseiged with endless .gif animations re the Dealey plaza "seamless" films, is the 'well planned' upload limit restriction on Forum posters -- otherwise, the JFK anti alteration film crowd would have thousands, upon thousands of posts filling forum pages! A huge, non-sensical waste of time creating expensive bandwidth problems -- post animation to ftp sites, provide a url Really? I have no problem posting animations, so when you create one ... email it to me and I'll post it for you! Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Is it a requirement, better yet; are you forced to post here? The defacto voice in support of the Zapruder film? Now THAT would be a interesting turn of events! What's TRULY amazing here, There are quite a few with the same questions as I, IF it was, WHY? So here's a little gem for you from a website a few years back: No, David ... I am sure this site was created for jerk-offs to run up threads with meaningless schoolyard banter that seldom, if ever, cites actual JFK related data ... give us a break! The difference between you and most everyone else who ask "why?" is that they do address the issues with facts and save the drama for the drama queens. Just like your mentioning Scott - why? You aren't up against LNrs here, but rather CT's wanting actual facts to be presented instead of you just making assertions without evidence to support what you're saying. We aren't looking to be right as much as we are wanting to be accurate. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator What? tsk-tsk, CT's? I'm not newby, Bill. save it for them .... ROFLMFAO Are you suggesting PDScott's quote is wrong? Post your post production qualifications, we can then move on -- Gott'a be the 100th time I've asked, what's the problem? -- Mine are out there -- 35+ years post production editing and compositing -- verifiable! Let the lurkers determine your qualifications for passing judgement on the subject matter. Roland Zavada or Ray Fielding can explain the process to you -- If you don't want to do that, buy Ray's book -- ALL over the internet these day's -- Maybe he'll send me a commission .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 29, 2006 Author Share Posted January 29, 2006 As for me; I debate/discuss with NO one unless I am fully aware of their **motion** media post production qualifications-- NO ONE I'm aware of, knows your media (film/video) post production qualifications, if in fact there are any. Debate Peters.... or of course Len -- better yet, how about Craig Lamson Feel free to post commercial broadcast 'productiuon' or film credits here? Great Dave another totally off topic post. Speaking of post-production qualifications you have yet to inform us of YOUR post-production experience with FILM sans computer technology. Maybe to can put in your bio which your are requied to submit. To this day - the non-alteration crowd can't counter, with any sense of authority John Costella's thesis -- no matter how hard they try...Bullxxxx - here's one of several. debunkings http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/And just what are Costella's qualifications as a photo analyst, his career as a school teacher, his degrees in electrical engineering and particle physics or his grand total of zero published peer reviewed technical papers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) "And just what are Costella's qualifications as a photo analyst, his career as a school teacher, his degrees in electrical engineering and particle physics or his grand total of zero published peer reviewed technical papers?" Costella's qualifications as a photo analyst is not good. He was one of the alteration supporters who also missed the obvious point about Moorman's camera height being shorter than the known height of the cycles windshields and what that meant when Mary's photo showed her camera above those same windshields and looking down. Costella also wrote a chapter on this imaginary window possibly being present where someone could have altered Moorman's photograph. Too bad Costella didn't consult the right people or he would have found out that Moorman had her photo filmed not more than 30 minutes after the shooting for an afternoon broadcast on the day of the assassination. Costella's window had just had a brick thrown through it! Robert Groden mentioned the process needed to alter a film such as Zapruder's. Robert told of the tell tale signs that would be present by transfering an 8mm film to 35mm and then back to 8mm again, especially when dealing with Kodachrome II film. Costella, nor anyone else in the 'Hoax' book mentioned this problem because none of them considred it ... WHY? The reason can only be that they were not qualified to take on the task they were claiming they had accomplished. Edited January 30, 2006 by Bill Miller 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