Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
"No case I worked had a videotape of the actual murder as it was carried out; this is part of what makes the Kennedy assassination unique."

Unique? LOL! A understatement! So, if I understand you, you have NO experience with this kind of evidence - Limo washed and moved out of state -- which means NO blood spatter analysis in the limo. New territory for you, yes?

Lest we forget, film resolution (8mm to 70mm=thousands of lines of resolution) much higher than videotape (large format videotape pre HD, 512 lines of resolution - VHS videotape 210 lines of resolution), AND not knowing what said Z-film dub pedegree or lineage is presents another entire set of problems for "blood" analysis, correct? Have you in your analysis run a color [rgb] gamma test on the frames including and immediately after Z-313?

Would you be satisfied as a licensed investigator to evaluate a dub, of a dub, of a dub, of a dub, of a dub, of a dub (this is conservative number of "dubs when it comes to the Z-film").... and expect to render a "expert blood spatter analysis of a event that took place 40 feet in front of a 8mm camera lens? Request the camera original film, perform a 'supervised' blowup of frames from same, yes?

BTW, your track record looks excellent -- I'd like your thoughts on how the Zapruder film was portrayed in the movie JFK?

Funny Dave you didn't question whether Costella had any experience studing blood splatter on videotape or DVD. As for copies being available for evaluation you DO make good points, but they hurt rather than help your case. Costella based his conclusions upon evidence whose quality you are calling into question. Therefore any conclusion he drew is highly suspect esp. considering his complete ignorance of the subject and inability to use common sense.

Thanks for the help Dave you brought up a point which shows that Costella's "blood mistake" analysis is inconclusive at best.LOL

Len

Edit typo fixed

Edited by Len Colby
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

"Costella based his conclusions upon evidence whose quality you are calling ito question. Therefore any conclusion he drew is highly suspect esp. considering his complete ignorance of the subject and inability to use common sense."

Len, you're exactly right. I don't belive that David meant to do this, but he has inadvertently denounced Costella and any other alteration supports opinions because of the position he has taken. I certainly don't agree with his way of thinking that one needs to see the camera original image to see many of the false claims being made in support of film alteration, but at the same time I have no problem with it as long as he applies it to both sides of the isle so-to-speak.

Bill

Posted
"Costella based his conclusions upon evidence whose quality you are calling ito question. Therefore any conclusion he drew is highly suspect esp. considering his complete ignorance of the subject and inability to use common sense."

Len, you're exactly right. I don't belive that David meant to do this, but he has inadvertently denounced Costella and any other alteration supports opinions because of the position he has taken. I certainly don't agree with his way of thinking that one needs to see the camera original image to see many of the false claims being made in support of film alteration, but at the same time I have no problem with it as long as he applies it to both sides of the isle so-to-speak.

Bill

He also inadvertantly admitted that none of the contributors to TGZFH (who are all members of this forum i.e. 'board') are qualified photo experts. Maybe he is loosing it he forgot '"saying" what he wrote below 6 days later.

I wouldn't worry about acquiring/finding photo experts. None on this board would be consulted, for either side...IMHO

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=54805

Len

Posted (edited)

The idea that one must be an expert to have a correct opinion is a diversion tactic used by a select few IMO so to try and keep a particular belief alive. I have seen things within the films and photos that caused me to take up those observations with experts such as Sherry in order to seek validation from a scientific standpoint. The non-expert can speak intelligently on a subject just by what information they had obtained from an expert ... I used Stu Wexler's CSPAN presentation as one such example.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Posted
'Sherry Gutierrez' responded in bold:

Appreciate your response, Sherry

In ALL the cases posted below - the case photos became evidence, I assume. Which leads one to believe the photos had a clear chain of posession, yes? ?We don't have that with the Zapruder film, do we?

If *your* crime scene photos (evidence) were called into question, for any reason - what's the result?

and the answer to my question initial question is:

"No case I worked had a videotape of the actual murder as it was carried out; this is part of what makes the Kennedy assassination unique."

Unique? LOL! A understatement! So, if I understand you, you have NO experience with this kind of evidence - Limo washed and moved out of state -- which means NO blood spatter analysis in the limo. New territory for you, yes?

Lest we forget, film resolution (8mm to 70mm=thousands of lines of resolution) much higher than videotape (large format videotape pre HD, 512 lines of resolution - VHS videotape 210 lines of resolution), AND not knowing what said Z-film dub pedegree or lineage is presents another entire set of problems for "blood" analysis, correct? Have you in your analysis run a color [rgb] gamma test on the frames including and immediately after Z-313?

Would you be satisfied as a licensed investigator to evaluate a dub, of a dub, of a dub, of a dub, of a dub, of a dub (this is conservative number of "dubs when it comes to the Z-film").... and expect to render a "expert blood spatter analysis of a event that took place 40 feet in front of a 8mm camera lens? Request the camera original film, perform a 'supervised' blowup of frames from same, yes?

BTW, your track record looks excellent -- I'd like your thoughts on how the Zapruder film was portrayed in the movie JFK?

David Healy

Although most certainly a long, long way from the elusive "expert" status, I am nevertheless fully aware that items which are fully visible in one film, can be made to completely disappear in another, based merely on emulsion grain sizing.

http://www.astrophotography.com/info.htm

Therefore, an absolute "First Generation" copy of the original can certainly have items which can not be observed, yet can be fully seen in the original, provided that the emulsion grain size of the copy happens to be larger than the grain size of the original.

Completely amazing as to the variety of items which can be made to either completely, or almost completely disappear, merely by this.

Then when one adds in the "fuzziness" which any experienced technician can add to the film merely from the developing process, and many more things can become so fuzzy that one can not distinguish them.

And, without a proper "stop bath" and final rinse, the fuzziness will continue with the age of the film.

Certainly, an experienced and trained person can make some judgement based on "what they see". That however is not the question.

The question is , can this judgement be deemed as correct when there are items which they may no longer be able to see and/or evaluate.

Posted

Hi Sherry,

I've seen and read your analyse (at Lancer) of the Tippit shooting concerning the bloodstain pattern. As I understand your work I’d like you to ask you one question?

Does the well known scenario that Tippit was shot by Oswald in order to avoid getting arrested matches with your experience of crime scenes that may had similar circumstances?

George

Posted
David Healy

Appreciate your response, Sherry

If *your* crime scene photos (evidence) were called into question, for any reason - what's the result?

Anytime photographs are entered into evidence, regardless of the established chain of custody, there must still be verbal testimony to establish the photographs are representative of the crime scene. If the initial witness agrees the photos presented in court for evidence are representative of the scene THEN they are accepted as evidence. Normally, each subsequent witness that testifies about something in a photograph will be asked that very same question. Occasionally, courts use photographs taken by private individuals with no documented chain of custody and they are readily accepted into evidence by the court. The problem would occur if verbal testimony established the photographs were not representative of the scene.

So, if I understand you, you have NO experience with this kind of evidence - Limo washed and moved out of state -- which means NO blood spatter analysis in the limo. New territory for you, yes?

No, NOT new territory for me. Crime scenes are cleaned by perpetrators and cars moved to other locations everyday, and I have worked hundreds of cases where the scene was cleaned. But, I did not state I used blood in the limo in analysis; I simply stated the Hoax claim below to be false.

Hoax Claim: But what tells us that this “blood” is fake is the fact that it disappears into thin air! If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether. It would have gone all over the Connallys, and the windows and interior of the limousine. But a frame published only weeks after the assassination, in color, showed no blood at all.

Most people really don’t need photographs (although there are many) or witness statements (although there are many) to believe that if someone is shot in the head while in a car, there will be blood within the car. The webpage statement is contrary to testimony, available photographs and common sense thinking.

Have you in your analysis run a color [rgb] gamma test on the frames including and immediately after Z-313?

No, and what does that have to do with what we are addressing here? I stated the pattern in the Zapruder film was consistent with what I had professionally observed and that blood was documented as being in the vehicle and on other persons. I was specific about what page and statements I was addressing.

My stance is that on the webpage in question there are erroneous statements presented as facts. Do you disagree with that?

David, do you personally believe there was no blood in the car from a victim with a gaping head wound?

Do you personally believe all the statements and or testimony of Bobby Hargis, Nellie Connally, Roy Kellerman, Samuel Kinney, William Joseph "B. J." Martin, Robert A. Frazier, James Chaney, William Greer, Governor Connally and others describing the blood either in the car or on their persons to be fabrication?

If your answer is no to either question, and I do expect an answer; may I ask how can you defend information presented as scientific fact when you know it is incorrect? If your answer is yes, please provide a specific example of a why you believe the testimony concerning blood on a person or in the limo to be a lie.

Additionally, may I bring up one more important point? In the years 1969 to 1971, Herbert L MacDonnell did research for the government under the Department of Justice. In 1971, the U.S. Department of Justice published his work as Flight Characteristics and Stain Patterns of Human Blood. Shortly after that publication, MacDonnell began teaching this investigative tool to law enforcement officers. Prior to this, no major work had been done in spatter analysis and certainly not focusing on high velocity impact spatter. So, prior to this time, who would have had the expertise to determine how long blood would take to dissipate, or what the pattern in mid-flight might look like, or how far it might travel?

I appreciate the time and effort you are taking to address items related to this issue, however, I prefer to adhere to the original comments I made. It is easy to become distracted and wander off topic, however, my first post was specific in nature. The information presented as fact on the specific web page in question is incorrect and needs to be acknowledged as such and corrected.

My best to you as you continue to search for the truth in the Kennedy assassination,

Sherry

Posted (edited)

'Bill Miller' wrote:

I have a tendency to listen to opinions from those with trackable experience, especially when it concerns format matter I understand and work with daily -- and quite frankly those belong to none other than Jack White and yes, Gary Mack! And I don't agree with either 100% of the time

According to you ... you have disagreed with Jack's claims of film and photo alteration 100% of the time for you have stated that you HAVE NOT seen proof of alteration.[/b]

dgh01: Bill: so even you can understand: post right here: [ ] where have I said Jack White is wrong 100% of the time? -- Who do you think your dealing with -- btw, where's YOUR forum bio it was not available a few minutes ago?

There's no damage control, Bill -- How can there be damage control? You can't prove a damn thing - Jack can't prove anything and neither can I we don't have access to originals -- when it comes to educated guesses regarding still photography, my money's on Jack -- The issue is photo credibility, its always been photo credibility. What the hell do you think Zavada did DP film testing for? Who cared about full claw issues between 1967-1990? and WHY care?

There two issues here ...

1) If you are sincere in your beliefs, then apply them to Jack's post as well.

2) Even if all the photos and films were fake - the misreading of them is what Jack is being accused of and has nothing to do with their validity.

dgh01: there's only one issue here Bill -- YOUR EGO and no tractable film photo/experience [just internet boards and I might say the same of quite a few others on this board]....

based on your above: "...Even if all the photos and films were fake..." How praytell, can you mis-read a "fake photo?"

Bill

Edited by David G. Healy
Posted (edited)

'Sherry Gutierrez' wrote:

David Healy earlier wrote:

----------------

Appreciate your response, Sherry

If *your* crime scene photos (evidence) were called into question, for any reason - what's the result?

Anytime photographs are entered into evidence, regardless of the established chain of custody, there must still be verbal testimony to establish the photographs are representative of the crime scene. If the initial witness agrees the photos presented in court for evidence are representative of the scene THEN they are accepted as evidence. Normally, each subsequent witness that testifies about something in a photograph will be asked that very same question. Occasionally, courts use photographs taken by private individuals with no documented chain of custody and they are readily accepted into evidence by the court. The problem would occur if verbal testimony established the photographs were not representative of the scene.

So, if I understand you, you have NO experience with this kind of evidence - Limo washed and moved out of state -- which means NO blood spatter analysis in the limo. New territory for you, yes?

No, NOT new territory for me. Crime scenes are cleaned by perpetrators and cars moved to other locations everyday, and I have worked hundreds of cases where the scene was cleaned. But, I did not state I used blood in the limo in analysis; I simply stated the Hoax claim below to be false.

Hoax Claim: But what tells us that this “blood” is fake is the fact that it disappears into thin air! If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether. It would have gone all over the Connallys, and the windows and interior of the limousine. But a frame published only weeks after the assassination, in color, showed no blood at all.

Most people really don’t need photographs (although there are many) or witness statements (although there are many) to believe that if someone is shot in the head while in a car, there will be blood within the car. The webpage statement is contrary to testimony, available photographs and common sense thinking.

contrary to testimony -- hmm, I do believe thats why we have a advisarial legal system. As for common sense thinking, well murdering a guy, shooting him in the back, to die in his wifes arms, on a American City street who happens to be the "leader of the free world", does that defy common sense or do you know something we don't? --

and is that 'most people' as in jury panel members?

Have you in your analysis run a color [rgb] gamma test on the frames including and immediately after Z-313?

No, and what does that have to do with what we are addressing here? I stated the pattern in the Zapruder film was consistent with what I had professionally observed and that blood was documented as being in the vehicle and on other persons. I was specific about what page and statements I was addressing.

if you utilized the Z-film as evidence, and you were on the stand at this point I'd say; "I rest my case Your Honor"... You'll do much better WITHOUT the Zapruder Film!

Then again here's that old; "consistent with", so I ask consistent with WHAT?

My stance is that on the webpage in question there are erroneous statements presented as facts. Do you disagree with that?

that should be obvious -- nothing CSI sexy here -- where's the blood, where'd it go? Your talking high resolution ASA25 8mm film here, not lousy VHS tape dupes of same

David, do you personally believe there was no blood in the car from a victim with a gaping head wound?

Do you personally believe all the statements and or testimony of Bobby Hargis, Nellie Connally, Roy Kellerman, Samuel Kinney, William Joseph "B. J." Martin, Robert A. Frazier, James Chaney, William Greer, Governor Connally and others describing the blood either in the car or on their persons to be fabrication?

Of course not! I do wonder why the DPD motor officer 'closest' to JFK was not questioned by the WC though. Did he wear blood and brains?

If your answer is no to either question and I do expect an answer; may I ask how can you defend information presented as scientific fact when you know it is incorrect?

Sherry, you've proved nothing -- your status as a expert regarding what you think YOU see on film is challenged - big deal! I know film - you know blood spatter -- where'd the blood go in the Z-film? Does the film show blood dissapation correctly?

If your answer is yes, please provide a specific example of a why you believe the testimony concerning blood on a person or in the limo to be a lie.

frankly, concerning the Z-film, I can't see a drop of blood on the limo, in particular the trunk, I can only assume there'd be plenty IN the LIMO, I've seen pics that shows same --

So, have the alledged camera original Z-film undergo forensic testing, we'll go from there -- till then Sherry, its all eyewitness testimony and we know how Lone Nutter's and WC advocates treat eye witness testimony, don't we

[...]

Edited by David G. Healy
Posted

Healy ignorantly says:

"Your talking high resolution ASA25 8mm film here, not lousy VHS tape dupes of same"

Come on David what a rookie mistake. And somehow you want people to take you seriously? ROFLMAO!

The resolution of the film stock plays only a part in the overall resolution of an image recorded on film. Don't you know better David?

So why dont you give us the actual lp/mm of resolution the hand held Zapruder camera was able to record at full telephoto zoom. And please specify the contrast ratio used for your testing and why you chose that ratio.

Posted
Healy ignorantly says:

"Your talking high resolution ASA25 8mm film here, not lousy VHS tape dupes of same"

Come on David what a rookie mistake. And somehow you want people to take you seriously? ROFLMAO!

The resolution of the film stock plays only a part in the overall resolution of an image recorded on film. Don't you know better David?

So why dont you give us the actual lp/mm of resolution the hand held Zapruder camera was able to record at full telephoto zoom. And please specify the contrast ratio used for your testing and why you chose that ratio.

if your a blood spatter expert, please step up, if NOT sit down, Thanks

Posted (edited)

Healy ignorantly says:

"Your talking high resolution ASA25 8mm film here, not lousy VHS tape dupes of same"

Come on David what a rookie mistake. And somehow you want people to take you seriously? ROFLMAO!

The resolution of the film stock plays only a part in the overall resolution of an image recorded on film. Don't you know better David?

So why dont you give us the actual lp/mm of resolution the hand held Zapruder camera was able to record at full telephoto zoom. And please specify the contrast ratio used for your testing and why you chose that ratio.

if your a blood spatter expert, please step up, if NOT sit down, Thanks

You a blood splatter expert now too? Or just playing guard dog for aussieboy?

And since you made the silly statement about the "resolution" of kodachrome 25, its fair to ask you exactly what you know about the resolution of the entire imaging system Zapruder used....which appears to be nothing. Of course the entire exhange in your post was a simple strawman built to give yourself the air of authority...you should be ashamed.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Posted (edited)

Healy ignorantly says:

"Your talking high resolution ASA25 8mm film here, not lousy VHS tape dupes of same"

Come on David what a rookie mistake. And somehow you want people to take you seriously? ROFLMAO!

The resolution of the film stock plays only a part in the overall resolution of an image recorded on film. Don't you know better David?

So why dont you give us the actual lp/mm of resolution the hand held Zapruder camera was able to record at full telephoto zoom. And please specify the contrast ratio used for your testing and why you chose that ratio.

if your a blood spatter expert, please step up, if NOT sit down, Thanks

You a blood splatter expert now too? Or just playing guard dog for aussieboy?

And since you made the silly statement about the "resolution" of kodachrome 25, its fair to ask you exactly what you know about the resolution of the3 oentire imaging system Zapruder used....which appears to be nothing. Of course the entire exhance in your post was a simple strawman built to give yourself the air of authority...you should be ashamed.

Of course the school teacher from Australia didn't examine the original Z-film, or if I am not mistaken, any film version and only DVD copies. What was the highest resolution copy he examined?

Not that it's really relevant, Shelly and common sense show him to be in error. I feel sorry for his students, if he couldn't figure out that the bullet would have accelerated the blood splatter, PhD and all he hardly seems qualified to teach school children let alone try to analyze the Z-film.

Edited by Len Colby
Posted (edited)

What this tells me is that as there was matter expelled 360 degrees from the wound, you can not use the blood, or matter, shown on the film, as an indicator of the direction the shot came from.

If there had been a quantitative analysis of how much, and where, debris from the victim had landed, throughout that 360 degrees in the area surrounding the spot where the bullet had impacted JFK's skull, it might have indicated, which direction was most likely for the shot to have been fired from.

Since, as we can see from film taken then, crime scene preservation was not on the agenda.

The President is just murdered, in broad daylight, in front of hundreds of witnesses, and yet, people were allowed to walk over and drive through the crime scene, destroying any chance of collecting evidence to help ensure a successful prosecution of anyone arrested for the crime.

Did they know something that no one else did?

Like, maybe, there being no trial for the perp?

Chuck

Edited by Chuck Robbins
Posted

Healy ignorantly says:

"Your talking high resolution ASA25 8mm film here, not lousy VHS tape dupes of same"

Come on David what a rookie mistake. And somehow you want people to take you seriously? ROFLMAO!

The resolution of the film stock plays only a part in the overall resolution of an image recorded on film. Don't you know better David?

So why dont you give us the actual lp/mm of resolution the hand held Zapruder camera was able to record at full telephoto zoom. And please specify the contrast ratio used for your testing and why you chose that ratio.

if your a blood spatter expert, please step up, if NOT sit down, Thanks

You a blood splatter expert now too? Or just playing guard dog for aussieboy?

And since you made the silly statement about the "resolution" of kodachrome 25, its fair to ask you exactly what you know about the resolution of the entire imaging system Zapruder used....which appears to be nothing. Of course the entire exhange in your post was a simple strawman built to give yourself the air of authority...you should be ashamed.

Well whats the resolution of the Z-film, photog? Dazzle us with brilliance -- you need a formula?

I suspect when the need for a guard dog arises, the guard dog will present itself -- as for the moment, you or any other "photo expert" hereabouts, with no trackable photo record, don't make that necessary... as they say in Indy, buzz off Conroy.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...