Bill Miller Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 simple, No case in point, Bill -- just start your own thread..... on disagreement. There's NO room for disagreement regarding a proposed discussion. Unless of course you disagree that two or three known experts in their field may present thoughts, ideas and evidence review regarding a certain crime committed in Dallas Texas? A comment was made in this thread that I responded to ... I have no intention of starting new threads when replying to statements made within this thread. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 simple, No case in point, Bill -- just start your own thread..... on disagreement. There's NO room for disagreement regarding a proposed discussion. Unless of course you disagree that two or three known experts in their field may present thoughts, ideas and evidence review regarding a certain crime committed in Dallas Texas? A comment was made in this thread that I responded to ... I have no intention of starting new threads when replying to statements made within this thread. Bill fine, then you won't mind posting your bio to the forum, will you? Or is just me than can't view it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 fine, then you won't mind posting your bio to the forum, will you? Or is just me than can't view it? I posted my bio when I joined this forum ... contact the admistrator and have him run it down for you. BTW .... do you think asking about my bio is staying within the topic of this thread. If you wish to be taken seriously - you may not want to do the things that you just complained about others doing. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Is there any chance that we could just drop all this and hear what Fielding and Zavada have to say, and what David and Jack and others have to say? I know this personal stuff goes back a long way, and I think all the combatants are guilty of bad judgment at various times. Who was the first to be bad? Who cares? Who will be the first to do the right thing and back off? The meat of the debate is interesting, and there are some good minds on each side. But this "I know better than you" stuff is schoolboy posturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 [...] If you wish to be taken seriously - you may not want to do the things that you just complained about others doing. Bill I think I'm done with you, Bill-goodnight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Is there any chance that we could just drop all this and hear what Fielding and Zavada have to say, and what David and Jack and others have to say?I know this personal stuff goes back a long way, and I think all the combatants are guilty of bad judgment at various times. Who was the first to be bad? Who cares? Who will be the first to do the right thing and back off? The meat of the debate is interesting, and there are some good minds on each side. But this "I know better than you" stuff is schoolboy posturing. I probably will have very little to say about Zavada. In his report he admitted that HE DID NOT STUDY THE IMAGES of the Zfilm for authenticity...only the technical aspects of the film used. I have no doubts that the film was GENUINE KODACHROME, with all the relevant coding and technical specifications. It is the IMAGES that are in question...not the film stock. Zavada is not aware of the real issues. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 Is there any chance that we could just drop all this and hear what Fielding and Zavada have to say, and what David and Jack and others have to say?I know this personal stuff goes back a long way, and I think all the combatants are guilty of bad judgment at various times. Who was the first to be bad? Who cares? Who will be the first to do the right thing and back off? The meat of the debate is interesting, and there are some good minds on each side. But this "I know better than you" stuff is schoolboy posturing. yes there is, Stephen -- Bill Miller and I have had our last exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Is there any chance that we could just drop all this and hear what Fielding and Zavada have to say, and what David and Jack and others have to say? I know this personal stuff goes back a long way, and I think all the combatants are guilty of bad judgment at various times. Who was the first to be bad? Who cares? Who will be the first to do the right thing and back off? The meat of the debate is interesting, and there are some good minds on each side. But this "I know better than you" stuff is schoolboy posturing. I probably will have very little to say about Zavada. In his report he admitted that HE DID NOT STUDY THE IMAGES of the Zfilm for authenticity...only the technical aspects of the film used. I have no doubts that the film was GENUINE KODACHROME, with all the relevant coding and technical specifications. It is the IMAGES that are in question...not the film stock. Zavada is not aware of the real issues. Jack Jack you missed the point of Zavada's finding's. In ADDITION to the above he determined 1) The Z film could not have been a copy but had to an "in camera" original for various technical reasons 2) the film showed no signs of compositing 3) the types of alterations alleged were not possible at the time. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 (edited) Is there any chance that we could just drop all this and hear what Fielding and Zavada have to say, and what David and Jack and others have to say? I know this personal stuff goes back a long way, and I think all the combatants are guilty of bad judgment at various times. Who was the first to be bad? Who cares? Who will be the first to do the right thing and back off? The meat of the debate is interesting, and there are some good minds on each side. But this "I know better than you" stuff is schoolboy posturing. I probably will have very little to say about Zavada. In his report he admitted that HE DID NOT STUDY THE IMAGES of the Zfilm for authenticity...only the technical aspects of the film used. I have no doubts that the film was GENUINE KODACHROME, with all the relevant coding and technical specifications. It is the IMAGES that are in question...not the film stock. Zavada is not aware of the real issues. Jack Jack you missed the point of Zavada's finding's. In ADDITION to the above he determined 1) The Z film could not have been a copy but had to an "in camera" original for various technical reasons 2) the film showed no signs of compositing 3) the types of alterations alleged were not possible at the time. Len why not let the "dissertation-presentation" presenters come forth when they're ready, please. I wouldn't want lurkers to think anyone has the inside track as to what may, or may NOT be presented ... As some might presume, Mr. Colby may/will have a place in this, assisting the Roland Zavada dissertation (up to Roland Zavada, I've made my thought known - I do NOT object) with Ed forum protocol for dissertaion-presentation. I've made a request to John Simkin for assistance. Details are in the works at the moment, I'll make further comments regarding same when appropriate, I expect soon. As I said, we're speaking with John Simkin and The Ed Forum regarding the "how's". Dissertation-presentation parameters will be posted in a "**new***" unemcumbered, hopefully *moderated* thread. David Healy [whom is viewing Mr. Colby's posts these day's] Edited February 23, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 "I probably will have very little to say about Zavada. In his report he admitted that HE DID NOT STUDY THE IMAGES of the Zfilm for authenticity...only the technical aspects of the film used. I have no doubts that the film was GENUINE KODACHROME, with all the relevant coding and technical specifications. It is the IMAGES that are in question...not the film stock. Zavada is not aware of the real issues. Jack" Groden is aware of the issues and he has said that he has personally held the film - studied every aspect of it - and claims that it was the genuine artifact.. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Bartetzko Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 David coerced them into this discussion because I quoted them as saying that the alterations alleged in Hoax were impossible in 1963 Coercion or not, it's a great idea and I'm looking forward to their comments. I've always had mixed feelings about alleged alteration and alleged pseudo Z films that others claim to have seen, but can never get their hands on a copy. My concern with the Z film is that some of the movements depicted don't seem possible and eyewitness testimony/comments contradict what is shown. Thanks for your work and comments in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 My concern with the Z film is that some of the movements depicted don't seem possible and eyewitness testimony/comments contradict what is shown. Thanks for your work and comments in this area. Can you be more specific about any one thing that you would like to see addressed? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Bartetzko Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 My concern with the Z film is that some of the movements depicted don't seem possible and eyewitness testimony/comments contradict what is shown. Thanks for your work and comments in this area. Can you be more specific about any one thing that you would like to see addressed? Bill I don't have a copy of the film to review. Many of my books are still in storage after my move, so all my comments are from memory. I also want to be clear that I'm not experienced at all in video, having seen maybe 30-40 8mm home videos over the years. The discepancies that come to mind right now are: 1) The blob...the head wound that does not appear to be real. Appears to be painted on. 2) The movement of Jackie's arm after the fatal shot. Seems too quick for the frames involved. 3) The description by Rather and Hill as to some forward head movement, yet it is barely seen on film. Add that to the evidence of a shot to the rear of the head, but Vince Palamera's reference to Sam Kinney saying that there was tissue and bone in the followup secret service car. I don't see how that is physically possible. 4) There was a study years ago regarding the car's front blinker lights and the sequencing of same versus the number of fps of the Z film. 5) the actual movement of JFK after the head shot. Seems very unusual and unlikely to me in that brief time frame. If there was any alteration, then removal of frames would seem most likely. Is it possible? Apparently not based on what many experts have said. Those are some of my thoughts on the subject. You needn't address them as these have all been covered over the years, but those are my thoughts. My thanks to you for your work and posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Locke Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 David coerced them into this discussion because I quoted them as saying that the alterations alleged in Hoax were impossible in 1963Coercion or not, it's a great idea and I'm looking forward to their comments. I've always had mixed feelings about alleged alteration and alleged pseudo Z films that others claim to have seen, but can never get their hands on a copy. My concern with the Z film is that some of the movements depicted don't seem possible and eyewitness testimony/comments contradict what is shown. Thanks for your work and comments in this area. Hi Nick, Another section (can't find it this minute, has you saying that you can't find your Z film stuff). In case you don't have this link. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...%3Doff%26sa%3DN Don't know if it will work here. Maybe it shows up under Costello in google. John Locke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) Zavader study for those new to the case. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Zavada/zat-1.htm http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Zavada/Zavada_Report.html Edited February 25, 2006 by Robin Unger 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