Costella’s new job

[David G. Healy]

'Len Colby' wrote

1- Do you really think you're on the same level as Feilding and Zavada? Don't fool yourself, If any one half as authoritative as them supported your position it would have a little but of credibility. Since you don't even claim to have any FILM post production experience you just don't cut it.

dgh01: LOL ... from this url http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ax/thegang.html

[...]

Roland Zavada seems to be an “affiliate member” of The Gang: [...] but since pulling out of the Duluth Conference—admitting he was completely out of his depth—he has not been as eager to contribute to the cause. Indeed, Zavada’s contribution to the website under discussion is a curious PDF document, responding not to The Great Zapruder Film Hoax itself, but rather to an unnamed member of The Gang, in relation to quotes from David Lifton’s chapter that were sent to Zavada with the request that he comment on them. It would be difficult to know how he could dissociate himself any farther from The Gang without embarrassing them further over the loss of what was, less then twelve months ago, supposed to be their “star witness” at the Duluth Symposium. Zavada appears to be a decent man, who let The Gang’s compliments go to his head somewhat, only to realise that he had been dumped into the middle of a quagmire; and I really do not wish to pursue a man who was clearly lured into this mess in what should have been the relaxing twilight of his career.

[...]

and cut what? A glorified cheerleader telling me "I can't cut it", in the business I've been in for 35+ years? For 3 years you dufuses have ALL sound the same, you can't mount a argument and you can't find a optical film printing expert to tell me I'm wrong... what are we to think, Len ole buddy? Oh-me-o-my -- It doesn't take much for lurkers to conclude, 'you're grasping at straws pal'. Next, you'll be telling me, cinema-technical achivement awards [The Oscars] for optical film printing equipment [circa. 1955-65] never happened! SMPE/SMPTE it's all right there Len....

2 - David you’re like a quadruple amputee on this issue not only don’t you have a leg to stand on you don’t have any hands to grasp at straws. You promised to make your “formal claim soon” on January 19* (74 days ago). 33 days later on Feb. 21 Zavada said he would “…take the time to put together a dissertation… Further this project will not be done “tomorrow” – it will take some time.

dgh01: ah Len, pssst, I didn't write the original Zavada report. "Quad amputee?", considering we're at war--- ugh, no class champ, NONE at all...

Personally I would expect something that a person said ‘would not be done “tomorrow” ’ and ‘would take some time’ to take at least twice as long as something promised soon. So let’s do it like this. First we’ll wait for you to present your “formal claim”, well count how many days it took you double that and that many days after Feb. 21 (2006) you can semi-legitimately ask Zavada where his ‘dissertation’ is. Even if you submit your “formal claim” tomorrow that gives Rollie till July 19. Until then just shut up about it instead of continuing to make an ass of yourself.

dgh01: nice dance, I ain't buying, pal.... LOL!

And with all your braying for Zavada to submit a new thesis on why the Zapruder film can’t be a fake you haven’t even dealt with his last one from 2 ½ years ago in which he stated at the conclusion of a 6 page paper,

“There is no detectable evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the Zapruder in-cameraoriginal" and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto.” The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. !The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. !It has NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.

dgh01: now, do you want to explain to me, and all these lurkers out here just what the hell you quoted and why its germaine? You're a ole film "hobbyist" give it a shot!

and WTF did you mean by “formal claim”? I’ve never heard that phrase used outside a legal context.

dgh:01 WTF? I'm on the record Len ole buddy -- you, amongst others are posting nonsense under the guise of: " gee, I have no experience, BUT......", BS where I come from, you're a horrible cleanup batter Len....

3 - The way you keep bleating out SMPE/SMPTE periodicals" one could not be faulted for wondering if you suffer from Turret’s syndrome or maybe a better comparison would be to Pavlov and his dogs each time you see someone question the possibility of Z- film alteration you reflexively bark out “SMPE/SMPTE”. I like what Joe Durnavich said a few months ago I'm not a drinking man, but I think you could make one of those drinking games for Healy. You know, take one drink every time he mentions "optical printer", take two drinks every time he mentions the SMPTE, and so on.”

dgh01: Joe Durnavich, that the guy that tried to pull the Pov-Ray trick? Trying to prove the Elm Street sign was something or other - pure foolishness, especially when he found out I wrote more than a few Povray .inc/.ini files way back when it was called DKBTrace circa. 1989 -- Costella cleaned his and all the other 'GANG members clock, see:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ax/thegang.html

who does Durnavich and Wimp work for again -- all ghosts these guys! Including you! -- You comfortable with that?

You're infor one-hell-of-a hangover champ... Damn, you must be getting nervous about those SMPE/SMPTE monthly's. Actually, the first time I talked to Roland was when he came to Lake Tahoe for a SMPTE meeting. Did I tell you I've attended their yearly convention in LA for years now

--Oh, come on.... your sounding like a left out wannabe agent

So when are you ever going to get around to actually citing a specific issue? Or better yet quote a passage from an article (or even Fielding’s book) to support your little theory.

dgh01: You blind or just playing at being dumb -- hell, Len get out Fielding's book, there's over 200 cites regarding SMPE/SMPTE optical film printing. SMPE/SMPTE issues including year, month and page number. -- have Miller get his his bouncing ball going for you. You want everyone to do your work for ya? Geez!

4 – Back to the original topic of this thread, just what is Costella’s mysterious new job? Or is that information on "a need to know basis" (LOL) it isn't like John Nash’s "job" with the federal government is it? He dropped the disclaimer, did he get canned?

dgh01: good gosh man, did this thought ever occur to you: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM? Don't want to get too eserteric on you.... or does the thought make you nervous I mean after all, he's a real live Physicist ON-THE-RECORD.

DH

Len

Edited April 4, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

The guard dog barked:

"dgh01: good gosh man, did this thought ever occur to you: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM? Don't want to get too eserteric on you.... or does the thought make you nervous I mean after all, he's a real live Physicist ON-THE-RECORD."

Yea he's on the record showing just how stupid a Physicist can be. This guy you champion can't figure out how a camera works. It's the height of sillyness to see him try and fool the masses into thinking he can just manipulate a few images taken from different camera positions and make them appear to be taken from the same len axis. What a moron!

Of course if it was possible it would make millions of professional photographers who do high end pano's very happy because we go to great lengths and considerable expence to rotate our cameras on on the nodal point of the lens lest we create images where the frames don't match where they overlap.

The funny thing is that no amount of computer manipulation can fix frames that have been rotated outside of the nodal point, a simple fact of the process. But Costella is trying to hoodwink the willing CT"s with his BS. What a guy. And you buy it too. Just how stupid are you David?

You need a new champion David, this one makes you look very foolish...oh sorry, you have always looked very foolish.

[David G. Healy]

The guard dog barked:

"dgh01: good gosh man, did this thought ever occur to you: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM? Don't want to get too eserteric on you.... or does the thought make you nervous I mean after all, he's a real live Physicist ON-THE-RECORD."

Yea he's on the record showing just how stupid a Physicist can be. This guy you champion can't figure out how a camera works. It's the height of sillyness to see him try and fool the masses into thinking he can just manipulate a few images taken from different camera positions and make them appear to be taken from the same len axis. What a moron!

Of course if it was possible it would make millions of professional photographers who do high end pano's very happy because we go to great lengths and considerable expence to rotate our cameras on on the nodal point of the lens lest we create images where the frames don't match where they overlap.

The funny thing is that no amount of computer manipulation can fix frames that have been rotated outside of the nodal point, a simple fact of the process. But Costella is trying to hoodwink the willing CT"s with his BS. What a guy. And you buy it too. Just how stupid are you David?

You need a new champion David, this one makes you look very foolish...oh sorry, you have always looked very foolish.

and the pussycat meowed:

Millions of professional photog's? Pano's (for the lurkers; pano=panorama photograph) there may be millions who know what the term means, I doubt many know how to shoot one....! But, with software of the day....

Buy, just what do I have to buy? Stay on point champ - I guess you didn't ask him either.....

That the same nodal point Ray Fielding describes in his excellent book on Special Effects Cinematography, Craig? You read that book, too?

Edited April 4, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

The guard dog barked:

Right you are ... once again David has come across as someone who did nothing but make remarks that "DID NOT" get into any specifics pertaining to his position. He has been so use to getting away with such answers on the 'looney forum' that he must have thought he could do it here. John Simkin should put a section on this forum that shows nothing but David Healy replies that actually had factual data presented in them that dealt with the issue being discussed ... I mean - how much space could 0kb take?

Edited April 4, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Len Colby]

David your 'debating' style is reminiscent of White's and Fetzer's, you dodge questions, change the subject use straw men

'Len Colby' wrote

1- Do you really think you're on the same level as Fielding and Zavada? Don't fool yourself, If any one half as authoritative as them supported your position it would have a little but of credibility. Since you don't even claim to have any FILM post production experience you just don't cut it.

dgh01: LOL ... from this url http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ax/thegang.html

[...]

Roland Zavada seems to be an "affiliate member" of The Gang: [...] but since pulling out of the Duluth Conference—admitting he was completely out of his depth

He admitted what to whom? Do you have a citation for that?

—he has not been as eager to contribute to the cause. Indeed, Zavada's contribution to the website under discussion is a curious PDF document, responding not to The Great Zapruder Film Hoax itself, but rather to an unnamed member of The Gang, in relation to quotes from David Lifton's chapter that were sent to Zavada with the request that he comment on them. It would be difficult to know how he could dissociate himself any farther from The Gang without embarrassing them further over the loss of what was, less then twelve months ago, supposed to be their "star witness" at the Duluth Symposium. Zavada appears to be a decent man, who let The Gang's compliments go to his head somewhat, only to realise that he had been dumped into the middle of a quagmire; and I really do not wish to pursue a man who was clearly lured into this mess in what should have been the relaxing twilight of his career.

1) He didn't really distance himself he said in no uncertain terms that you guys are wrong and he said it again recently.

2) That little blurb you quoted was cute but unsubstantiated and no where does it degenerate Zavada's authority let alone Fielding's. It's still the opinion of a videographer against 2 of the World's leading FILM experts (not to mention Stone and Groden among others)

and cut what? A glorified cheerleader telling me "I can't cut it", in the business I've been in for 35+ years?

I've never denied you were an authority on video production.

For 3 years you dufuses have ALL sound the same, you can't mount a argument and you can't find a optical film printing expert to tell me I'm wrong

You mean other than Zavada, Fielding, Stone, Groden etc? How about YOUR side comes up with an optical film printing expert to say you're right!!!

... what are we to think, Len ole buddy? Oh-me-o-my -- It doesn't take much for lurkers to conclude, 'you're grasping at straws pal'. Next, you'll be telling me, cinema-technical achivement awards [The Oscars] for optical film printing equipment [circa. 1955-65] never happened! SMPE/SMPTE it's all right there Len....

SOSM – David, Same Old Straw Man. For the umpteenth time NO ONE IS SAYING THAT OPTICAL EFFECTS DON'T PREDATE THE Z-FILM. What is in dispute is if the type of effects your co-authors allege were used were possible at the time and if they could have escaped detection.

OK 'smarty pants' tell me which films were nominated the special effects Oscars those years (easy enuff just look it up on IMDB) and (now come the hard part) tell us what scenes in those movies have effects such as having people's arms and legs move around differently, realistically enough that it doesn't look obviously fake and technically perfect enough to escape detection.

2 - David you're like a quadruple amputee on this issue not only don't you have a leg to stand on you don't have any hands to grasp at straws. You promised to make your "formal claim soon" on January 19* (74 days ago). 33 days later on Feb. 21 Zavada said he would "…take the time to put together a dissertation… Further this project will not be done "tomorrow" – it will take some time.

dgh01: ah Len, pssst, I didn't write the original Zavada report. "Quad amputee?", considering we're at war--- ugh, no class champ, NONE at all...

?????????????????????

Personally I would expect something that a person said 'would not be done "tomorrow" ' and 'would take some time' to take at least twice as long as something promised soon. So let's do it like this. First we'll wait for you to present your "formal claim", well count how many days it took you double that and that many days after Feb. 21 (2006) you can semi-legitimately ask Zavada where his 'dissertation' is. Even if you submit your "formal claim" tomorrow that gives Rollie till July 19. Until then just shut up about it instead of continuing to make an ass of yourself.

dgh01: nice dance, I ain't buying, pal.... LOL!

Of course you say you "ain't buying" it. But you don't have a reply now do you? Nor arms or legs indeed. I'm surprised you were dumb enough to bring this up when you still haven't fulfilled your earlier promise to make your "formal claim, SOON". Until then STFU!

[Len Colby]

And with all your braying for Zavada to submit a new thesis on why the Zapruder film can't be a fake you haven't even dealt with his last one from 2 ½ years ago in which he stated at the conclusion of a 6 page paper,

"There is no detectable evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the Zapruder in-camera original" and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto." The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. !The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. !It has NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.

dgh01: now, do you want to explain to me, and all these lurkers out here just what the hell you quoted and why its germaine? You're a ole film "hobbyist" give it a shot!

David, I said what I was quoting and gave a link, do you think the average "lurker" is retarded? It's germane because it's the opinion of the man who invented the type of film used (Kodachrome II) as to why for technical reasons the Z-film could not be a print and thus could not have been altered as alleged in TGZFH

and WTF did you mean by "formal claim"? I've never heard that phrase used outside a legal

context.

dgh:01 WTF? I'm on the record Len ole buddy

Answer the question asked for once in your life!

-- you, amongst others are posting nonsense under the guise of: " gee, I have no experience, BUT......", BS where I come from, you're a horrible cleanup batter Len....

Aren't you fond of that saying comparing opinions to assholes? Got any facts to back your theories?

3 - The way you keep bleating out SMPE/SMPTE periodicals" one could not be faulted for wondering if you suffer from Turret's syndrome or maybe a better comparison would be to Pavlov and his dogs each time you see someone question the possibility of Z- film alteration you reflexively bark out "SMPE/SMPTE". I like what Joe Durnavich said a few months ago "I'm not a drinking man, but I think you could make one of those drinking games for Healy. You know, take one drink every time he mentions "optical printer", take two drinks every time he mentions the SMPTE, and so on."

dgh01: Joe Durnavich, that the guy that tried to pull the Pov-Ray trick? Trying to prove the Elm Street sign was something or other - pure foolishness, especially when he found out I wrote more than a few Povray .inc/.ini files way back when it was called DKBTrace circa. 1989 -- Costella cleaned his and all the other 'GANG members clock, see:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ax/thegang.html

I didn't see any clock cleaning there David, are you so desperate for citations for backing that you have to cite the same page twice (see above) a page that proves nothing at that. Did you guys ever get around to debunking the pov-ray argument?

You're infor one-hell-of-a hangover champ... Damn, you must be getting nervous about those SMPE/SMPTE monthly's. Actually, the first time I talked to Roland was when he came to Lake Tahoe for a SMPTE meeting. Did I tell you I've attended their yearly convention in LA for years now

--Oh, come on.... your sounding like a left out wannabe agent

Nope David never wanted to go into filmmaking, nice name dropping though. It wouldn't surprise me that a VIDEOGRAPHER would attend meetings of the Society of Motion Picture and TELEVISON Engineers. What does your attendance at such meetings prove?

So when are you ever going to get around to actually citing a specific issue? Or better yet quote a passage from an article (or even Fielding's book) to support your little theory.

dgh01: You blind or just playing at being dumb -- hell, Len get out Fielding's book, there's over 200 cites regarding SMPE/SMPTE optical film printing. SMPE/SMPTE issues including year, month and page number.

C'mon Dave you copping out again you hinted that you would cite specific articles I guess that was more smoke (which is about all we get out of you). I know that many articles are cited in Fielding's book. I want to know which ones YOU think support your unfounded theory that such fakery was possible and undetectable, Fielding can't tell me that only YOU can.

4 – Back to the original topic of this thread, just what is Costella's mysterious new job? Or is that information on "a need to know basis" (LOL) it isn't like John Nash's "job" with the federal government is it? He dropped the disclaimer, did he get canned?

dgh01: good gosh man, did this thought ever occur to you: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM?

1) I sent him an e-mail and some PM's awhile back and he never got back to me.

2) Do you not know or are you "not at liberty to disclose that information".

Don't want to get too eserteric on you.... or does the thought make you nervous I mean after all, he's a real live Physicist ON-THE-RECORD.

??????????"Esertetic" is not a word in the English or any other language.

1) Yeah he is a particle physicist who spent his entire career until (perhaps) a few month ago teaching math and science to school children, never published a peer review paper, has no demonstrable qualification related to film/photo analysis, made glaring errors, and seems to be a paranoid nutcase. Is he really the best you guys have to offer? He must be because Fetzer called him "the foremost technical expert" on the film.

2) What record is he on? Is he a musician?

I'm willing to bet anyone on this forum (except for the Fetzer Bunch) that, Healy never will:

1] prove he has any substantive experience in FILM compositing using optical printers

2] name a recognized optical printing/film compositing expert who backs his claim that such effects were possible back in '63

3] cite a quotation from Fielding's book, SMPE/SMPTE publications or any other authoritative source establishing that the types of effects alleged in TGZFH could have been done "back in the day" and could have been done so undetectably.

4] name a movie from before or about the time of the assassination that has effects similar to what was supposedly done to the Z-film.

Anyone willing to take me up on it? (John / Andy if for any reasons you object to a wager being proposed on this forum let me know and/or erase it.)

Len

[Bill Miller]

"SOSM – David, Same Old Straw Man. For the umpteenth time NO ONE IS SAYING THAT OPTICAL EFFECTS DON'T PREDATE THE Z-FILM."

Len - David has to keep saying such things because it is the only factual thing he has said about the entire matter. To address anything else is to admit that his part in Fetzer's book was a waste of time. What David did was to take one small piece of a puzzle and then imply that he had it in the right place on the board without actually checking to see if the other remaining pieces that surrounded it would fit. I am sure that he now knows he was in error, but having the character to admit it is another matter altogether for him. Instead - he just repeats the one thing that he was able to cite correctly even if it didn't go anywhere. I know he has seen these replies of mine and his inability to address them speaks volumes ... but just wait a few days or so and he'll be back to either offer more say nothing remarks that don't address anything or he will have to conclude that without the latter issues being resolved, then there could not have been any undetected alterations made to the Zapruder film by means of using an optical printer.

Bill

Edited April 4, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

The guard dog barked:

"dgh01: good gosh man, did this thought ever occur to you: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM? Don't want to get too eserteric on you.... or does the thought make you nervous I mean after all, he's a real live Physicist ON-THE-RECORD."

Yea he's on the record showing just how stupid a Physicist can be. This guy you champion can't figure out how a camera works. It's the height of sillyness to see him try and fool the masses into thinking he can just manipulate a few images taken from different camera positions and make them appear to be taken from the same len axis. What a moron!

Of course if it was possible it would make millions of professional photographers who do high end pano's very happy because we go to great lengths and considerable expence to rotate our cameras on on the nodal point of the lens lest we create images where the frames don't match where they overlap.

The funny thing is that no amount of computer manipulation can fix frames that have been rotated outside of the nodal point, a simple fact of the process. But Costella is trying to hoodwink the willing CT"s with his BS. What a guy. And you buy it too. Just how stupid are you David?

You need a new champion David, this one makes you look very foolish...oh sorry, you have always looked very foolish.

and the pussycat meowed:

Millions of professional photog's? Pano's (for the lurkers; pano=panorama photograph) there may be millions who know what the term means, I doubt many know how to shoot one....! But, with software of the day....

Buy, just what do I have to buy? Stay on point champ - I guess you didn't ask him either.....

That the same nodal point Ray Fielding describes in his excellent book on Special Effects Cinematography, Craig? You read that book, too?

You show an amazing amount of ignorance for someone who claims to have spent years in the imaging business. Maybe you are just a poser after all.

In any case, you you were actually smart enough to understand, there is no software to fix pano frames that have been rotated at some point outer than the nodal point. At best the the current software can only mask the bad frames by doing unsightly blends in the effected areas. You would know this if you actually had any expertise at all. Seems you don't. I guess they did'nt teach you this stuff while shooting fluff as a local tv news cameraman eh "mr. optical printer"?

Of course what the "scientists" of tgzfh, (yea thats a laugh!) failed to understand (or perhaps they did and were just trying to shine everyone on) was that Costellas "gotta ya" proof was a failure because he blew it when the said he could normalize the two zapruder frames and them compare them directly. Too bad he did'nt take the time to research something as simple as nodial point rotation before he made himself look like a total fool and a nutjob. Oh wait, he did THAT first with the rain sensors...ROFLMAO!

[David G. Healy]

The guard dog barked:

"dgh01: good gosh man, did this thought ever occur to you: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM? Don't want to get too eserteric on you.... or does the thought make you nervous I mean after all, he's a real live Physicist ON-THE-RECORD."

Yea he's on the record showing just how stupid a Physicist can be. This guy you champion can't figure out how a camera works. It's the height of sillyness to see him try and fool the masses into thinking he can just manipulate a few images taken from different camera positions and make them appear to be taken from the same len axis. What a moron!

Of course if it was possible it would make millions of professional photographers who do high end pano's very happy because we go to great lengths and considerable expence to rotate our cameras on on the nodal point of the lens lest we create images where the frames don't match where they overlap.

The funny thing is that no amount of computer manipulation can fix frames that have been rotated outside of the nodal point, a simple fact of the process. But Costella is trying to hoodwink the willing CT"s with his BS. What a guy. And you buy it too. Just how stupid are you David?

You need a new champion David, this one makes you look very foolish...oh sorry, you have always looked very foolish.

and the pussycat meowed:

Millions of professional photog's? Pano's (for the lurkers; pano=panorama photograph) there may be millions who know what the term means, I doubt many know how to shoot one....! But, with software of the day....

Buy, just what do I have to buy? Stay on point champ - I guess you didn't ask him either.....

That the same nodal point Ray Fielding describes in his excellent book on Special Effects Cinematography, Craig? You read that book, too?

You show an amazing amount of ignorance for someone who claims to have spent years in the imaging business. Maybe you are just a poser after all.

In any case, you you were actually smart enough to understand, there is no software to fix pano frames that have been rotated at some point outer than the nodal point. At best the the current software can only mask the bad frames by doing unsightly blends in the effected areas. You would know this if you actually had any expertise at all. Seems you don't. I guess they did'nt teach you this stuff while shooting fluff as a local tv news cameraman eh "mr. optical printer"?

Of course what the "scientists" of tgzfh, (yea thats a laugh!) failed to understand (or perhaps they did and were just trying to shine everyone on) was that Costellas "gotta ya" proof was a failure because he blew it when the said he could normalize the two zapruder frames and them compare them directly. Too bad he did'nt take the time to research something as simple as nodial point rotation before he made himself look like a total fool and a nutjob. Oh wait, he did THAT first with the rain sensors...ROFLMAO!

sounds like a silly ole fart making like a photog, foisting away the winter, in the dear old midwest... Get a life Lamson, you've no excuse explaining the rigors of photo manipulation to anyone.... well on second thought, get brushed up in 35mm compositing -- maybe Ray Fielding will give you quickie seminar so you don't make an ass out of yourself...

NODAL point? that sounds like something you'd lance, that on someones rearend or a tripod? LOL

and if you haven't rolled a CP16 -- sit down, you're beyond redemption trailer boy....

Edited April 6, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

sounds like a silly ole fart making like a photog, foisting away the winter, in the dear old midwest... Get a life Lamson, you've no excuse explaining the rigors of photo manipulation to anyone.... well on second thought, get brushed up in 35mm compositing -- maybe Ray Fielding will give you quickie seminar so you don't make an ass out of yourself...

NODAL point? that sounds like something you'd lance, that on someones rearend or a tripod? LOL

and if you haven't rolled a CP16 -- sit down, you're beyond redemption trailer boy....

Hey Baghdad Bob Healy ... just address the issues and save the stupid say-nothing replies for another forum.

[David G. Healy]

sounds like a silly ole fart making like a photog, foisting away the winter, in the dear old midwest... Get a life Lamson, you've no excuse explaining the rigors of photo manipulation to anyone.... well on second thought, get brushed up in 35mm compositing -- maybe Ray Fielding will give you quickie seminar so you don't make an ass out of yourself...

NODAL point? that sounds like something you'd lance, that on someones rearend or a tripod? LOL

and if you haven't rolled a CP16 -- sit down, you're beyond redemption trailer boy....

Hey Baghdad Bob Healy ... just address the issues and save the stupid say-nothing replies for another forum.

What are you drinking Miller? Back on that Dr. Pepper, again.... careful there Sonnyboy -- Groden ready to come to your rescue?

So, ah, Miller -- so we're squared away on one issue, you support (through your 10 thousand internet posts) the current photo record as it stands regarding the films of Dealey Plaza, YES?

If your going to be taking pot shots at someone regarding these films we're gonna have to know your expertise in photo matters -- Being a cheapshot artist you gonna have to pay your dues, especially if you expect to be recognized when it gets down to the nitty-gritty - don't-cha-know...

I can sympathize, I know its tough keeping the interest up, isn't it? You guy's don't have much to say when the varsity is in town do ya?

"Baghdad Bob Healy..." what are you doing making fun of ones military background? Bad taste champ! Typical, no class! Probably not even a veteran..... LOL

Edited April 6, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

The guard dog barked:

"dgh01: good gosh man, did this thought ever occur to you: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM? Don't want to get too eserteric on you.... or does the thought make you nervous I mean after all, he's a real live Physicist ON-THE-RECORD."

Yea he's on the record showing just how stupid a Physicist can be. This guy you champion can't figure out how a camera works. It's the height of sillyness to see him try and fool the masses into thinking he can just manipulate a few images taken from different camera positions and make them appear to be taken from the same len axis. What a moron!

Of course if it was possible it would make millions of professional photographers who do high end pano's very happy because we go to great lengths and considerable expence to rotate our cameras on on the nodal point of the lens lest we create images where the frames don't match where they overlap.

The funny thing is that no amount of computer manipulation can fix frames that have been rotated outside of the nodal point, a simple fact of the process. But Costella is trying to hoodwink the willing CT"s with his BS. What a guy. And you buy it too. Just how stupid are you David?

You need a new champion David, this one makes you look very foolish...oh sorry, you have always looked very foolish.

and the pussycat meowed:

Millions of professional photog's? Pano's (for the lurkers; pano=panorama photograph) there may be millions who know what the term means, I doubt many know how to shoot one....! But, with software of the day....

Buy, just what do I have to buy? Stay on point champ - I guess you didn't ask him either.....

That the same nodal point Ray Fielding describes in his excellent book on Special Effects Cinematography, Craig? You read that book, too?

You show an amazing amount of ignorance for someone who claims to have spent years in the imaging business. Maybe you are just a poser after all.

In any case, you you were actually smart enough to understand, there is no software to fix pano frames that have been rotated at some point outer than the nodal point. At best the the current software can only mask the bad frames by doing unsightly blends in the effected areas. You would know this if you actually had any expertise at all. Seems you don't. I guess they did'nt teach you this stuff while shooting fluff as a local tv news cameraman eh "mr. optical printer"?

Of course what the "scientists" of tgzfh, (yea thats a laugh!) failed to understand (or perhaps they did and were just trying to shine everyone on) was that Costellas "gotta ya" proof was a failure because he blew it when the said he could normalize the two zapruder frames and them compare them directly. Too bad he did'nt take the time to research something as simple as nodial point rotation before he made himself look like a total fool and a nutjob. Oh wait, he did THAT first with the rain sensors...ROFLMAO!

sounds like a silly ole fart making like a photog, foisting away the winter, in the dear old midwest... Get a life Lamson, you've no excuse explaining the rigors of photo manipulation to anyone.... well on second thought, get brushed up in 35mm compositing -- maybe Ray Fielding will give you quickie seminar so you don't make an ass out of yourself...

NODAL point? that sounds like something you'd lance, that on someones rearend or a tripod? LOL

and if you haven't rolled a CP16 -- sit down, you're beyond redemption trailer boy....

LOL! Its good to see that this stuff really is WAY over your nutjob head!

CP16, sorry...no I used an Arri.

Been very busy this wnter with a couple of trips to Georgia an such for some interesting work. Just statarted a very big new project for a national client yesterday...I have a great life thank you. And I love the midwest farbetter that the looney left coast.

You can lance what every you want where ever you want but it wont change the fact that what Costella says he did cant be done. Funny when ever he has been asked to deal with the issues involved in this "secret sauce" he slinks away. I wonder why that is?

Photo manipulation? Been my lifes works for for over two decades. I CAN make a film composite on any number of equipment platforms. YOU? Well of course not. We've all seen your third grade level efforts at doing it on a computer. You are a laughing stock! 35mm compositing...I''ve made thousands upon thousands of compositied 35mm frames. You? But I'm sure that Mr. Fielding can teach me a thing or tow and I'm always open for more knowlege.

Exactly how much optical printing did you do when you spent all of those years at the tv station shooting traffic accidents, football games and the local anchorman doing a standup in front of city hall? Big time stuff....

So bring it on woff woff...as usual your bark is far worse than your bite.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

Funny how Healy pavlovily continues to cite Fielding even though the man has gone on record as saying he (Healy) is dead wrong and our VIDEOgrapher friend can't cite a single sentence from Dean Fielding's writings that support his theory!

[Bill Miller]

Below is just one more example of how David Healy does nothing more than masturbate on these forums. Carefully look at the ramblings he responded with and tell me where did he address one single issue presented to him over the reasons the assassination films have not been altered. I find it sad that Healy will cite books and experts (usually by name only without being specific on anything) and yet make idiotic remarks about experts someone else has gone to who has presented data and issues pertaining to the matter at hand without David rebutting a single fact that was presented to him. Some of us here are investigators .... something David Healy apparently is not. For instance ... to be good at the game of pool - one only needs to understand 'angles' and how to apply them to the game. In other words ... one doesn't need to have a degree in geometry to become a pool shark. But in the case of JFK's assassination - one can find experts and solicit information from them that applies to the evidence of the case and I am sure that many researchers have done this very same thing from time to time. Has anyone ever noticed that the experts they have spoken to are most always to the point and have no problem in addressing the matter being dicussed .... yet David Healy who seems so interested in others credentials and who never addresses a thing presented to him, continues to create replies with the type of asinine remarks as those shown below.

Am I an expert in photography ... not really. However, I have probably studied the assassination films frame by frame as much as any person who has ever entered into this case and I have seen the Zapruder film frames under about every lighting, color, and contrast change that can be given to it. So when I do talk to a photo expert who tells me about the contrast, quality, and color changes that take place by copying film from generation to generation ... I know of the changes that that take place that they are speaking of. I also know that the optical prints of the Zapruder film never show the area between the sprocket holes. So when one compares these areas between the sprocket holes with the remaining area of the actual film frames in question and finds that no changes in contrast, clarity, color, and lighting are present, then someone like David Healy should have an obligation to address these findings. Instead, David takes on the role of Baghdad Bob. (By the way, David ... your trying to skirt away from the similarities between Baghdad Bob's role in the Gulf War and what you do on these forums isn't going to happen as easily as you might hope. You both are mouth pieces who make statements as if they are fact and do all you can to avoid having to address the facts needed to back up what you have said) I also want to say that if you are implying that you are a veteran .... I only hope that those who served around you found more use for your presence than anyone does on any of the JFK forums you lurk on.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

"What are you drinking Miller? Back on that Dr. Pepper, again.... careful there Sonnyboy -- Groden ready to come to your rescue?

So, ah, Miller -- so we're squared away on one issue, you support (through your 10 thousand internet posts) the current photo record as it stands regarding the films of Dealey Plaza, YES?

If your going to be taking pot shots at someone regarding these films we're gonna have to know your expertise in photo matters -- Being a cheapshot artist you gonna have to pay your dues, especially if you expect to be recognized when it gets down to the nitty-gritty - don't-cha-know...

I can sympathize, I know its tough keeping the interest up, isn't it? You guy's don't have much to say when the varsity is in town do ya?

"Baghdad Bob Healy..." what are you doing making fun of ones military background? Bad taste champ! Typical, no class! Probably not even a veteran..... LOL"

Edited April 6, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Len Colby]

I never like the Bushes (or all but a small handful of republicans) and opposed the invasion of Iraqi but the comparisson to Bagdad Bob was apt. [it had nothing to do with your military service David, if so I imagine he would have called you "Saigon Dave"]. Some famous quotes from "Bagdad Bob"

Attempting to Acknowledge What Was Happening Militarily Beyond Baghdad:

March 22, 2003

"Maybe they will enter Umm Qasr and Basra, but how will they enter Baghdad? It will be a big oven for them. They can penetrate our borders but they cannot reach Baghdad. They will try to pull our army and troops out but we are well aware of their plans and they will fail."

March 23, 2003

"In Umm Qasr, the fighting is fierce and we have inflicted many damages. The stupid enemy, the Americans and British, failed completely. They're not making any penetration."

As Televised Reports of U.S. Forces Approaching the Outskirts of Western Baghdad Are Shown:

"They are not any place. They are on the move everywhere. They are a snake moving in the desert. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion."

After U.S. Forces Seized Baghdad's Airport:

"We butchered the force present at the airport. We have retaken the airport! There are no Americans there!"

After U.S. Troops Penetrated Central Baghdad:

April 5, 2003

"Nobody came here. Those America losers, I think their repeated frequent lies are bringing them down very rapidly.... Baghdad is secure, is safe."

April 5, 2003

"They are not near Baghdad. Don't believe them.... They said they entered with... tanks in the middle of the capital. They claim that they - I tell you, I... that this speech is too far from the reality. It is a part of this sickness of their plan. There is no an... - no any existence to the American troops or for the troops in Baghdad at all."

April 6, 2003

"Whenever we attack, they retreat. When we pound them with missiles and heavy artillery, they retreat even deeper. But when we stopped pounding, they pushed to the airport for propaganda purposes."

April 7, 2003

"The Americans are not there. They're not in Baghdad. There are no troops there. Never. They're not at all."

April 7, 2003

"U.S. forces learned a lesson last night they will never forget. We slaughtered them and will continue to slaughter them."

April 7, 2003

"There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad."

With Media Pictures of U.S. Troops Being Shown Standing Under the Giant Crossed Swords in Saddam's Favorite Parade Grounds in Baghdad, While Giving a Press Briefing Around the Corner:

"There you can see, there is nothing going on."

After U.S. Missiles Destroyed His Office in the Information Ministry and He was Forced to Give Press Briefings on the Street:

"They will be burnt. We are going to tackle them."

Disputing His Own Assertions of No Coalition Troops in Baghdad:

"We blocked them inside the city. Their rear is blocked.... They pushed a few of their armored carriers and some tanks with their soldiers. We besieged them and I think we will finish them soon."

While American Soldiers Are Showering in Saddam's Bathroom Nearby Presidential Palace:

"We have killed most of the [coalition] infidels, and I think we will finish off the rest soon."

After Being Shown Footage of Iraqi Soldiers Surrendering:

"Those are not Iraqi soldiers at all."

April 7, 2003

"This invasion will end in failure."

LOL

Len