Dr. J. Thompson... please

[David G. Healy]

In the interest of fairness regarding possible Z-film alteration a link to Dr. Josiah Thompson's 3 part article concerning same is included below:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...y_Assassination

Dr. Thompson mentions at the end of his essay

quote on

...

The efforts of those who sought to show the Zapruder film was a fake have produced unanticipated results. The failure of their effort has disclosed a region of evidence in the case which is incontrovertibly genuine. This evidence, in turn, can be used to test the authenticity of other evidentiary elements. In the photographic record from Dealey Plaza, we have available to us a single fabric of self-authenticating evidence which can be used as bedrock for reconstructing the event.

quote off

I suspect if the altered Z-film camp has failed, little of what is now finding its way to the internet would be there, including your essay...

Also in the interest of fairness and possible closure, I wonder if Dr. Thompson's reference to self-authenticating evidence might be provided to the Z-film alteration side of the argument? In the form of first generation Life-Time Inc. 35mm frames of the Z-film.

I, as well as others would like to know if Roland Zavada magnified, in any form, by any means, the actual in-camera 8mm Zapruder film frames or 1st generation 35mm/4x5's trannies, during the course of his investigation. If so, under what circumstances i.e., film content and/or film structure, and where? Did he confirm (if so, by what means) Life-Time Inc. 35mm/4x5 trannies were in fact, single frame blow-ups of the Zapruder film frames? Was review of film content part of RZavada's KODAK sponsored investigation mandate?

I understand why Harry Livingstone's current book regarding the Zapruder film is cause for angst, I'd like to see the debate (if it ever get's to that) end, too! I'm ready to move on...

I'd lend Dave Wimp's measurements credibility once I'm convinced the Z-film is NOT altered (I'll run his theory past JCostella if and when he comes out of retirement - before I comment though).

Thanks for your time

David Healy

[Michael Hogan]

Yet another new thread on a subject that has been repeatedly beaten to death for years and appears in one form or another in numerous recent threads on this forum.

This forum, as was previously noted in another thread, does sometimes seem to exhibit the distinct feel of a chat room. There's always a few people that apparently just enjoy seeing their name in print, to the point where they post the same stuff over and over. Not content to remain in the threads they have already started or responded to or hijacked, for some reason they find it necessary to start a new one. I've heard it referred to as the "chat testosterone syndrome."

This syndrome is marked by an obsessive, compulsive desire to always get in the last word and have others see it. Often misguided, idiosyncratic attempts at humor come off as nothing more than ignorance and rudeness. Believing that they somehow are the star of the chatroom, the afflicted one thinks that everyone else is interested in their worn out banalities and insults. They seem to delight in provoking others, like they guy that pulls out in front of you in traffic or interrupts you when you are talking to someone else. This person feels that everyone else is hanging on their every word.

Thank goodness for the dozens of intelligent men and women I've observed in this forum. They are they reason I visit often and try to learn something new about a subject that has interested me for a long time. Thanks in part to significant efforts by John Simkin, this forum has become an important tool for learning, as was probably intended from inception. Many informed and brilliant thinkers come here to articulate their thoughts. I would begin to list them, but then I would invariably leave some out.

I know I have a tendency to ascribe an importance to my posts that does not exist. I know that it matters not much in the scheme of things what I write or post in here. I have learned, however, that if someone feels the need to be constantly adversarial, constantly insulting, and generally negative and disagreeable and focus on basically one subject for years and years like it was the Rosetta Stone of the Kennedy assassination, offering little, if nothing new.......well, I'll let the reader complete the thought.

Mike Hogan

Edited May 20, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[David G. Healy]

Yet another new thread on a subject that has been repeatedly beaten to death for years and appears in one form or another in numerous recent threads on this forum.

This forum, as was previously noted in another thread, does sometimes seem to exhibit the distinct feel of a chat room. There's always a few people that apparently just enjoy seeing their name in print, to the point where they post the same stuff over and over. Not content to remain in the threads they have already started or responded to or hijacked, for some reason they find it necessary to start a new one. I've heard it referred to as the "chat testosterone syndrome."

This syndrome is marked by an obsessive, compulsive desire to always get in the last word and have others see it. Often misguided, idiosyncratic attempts at humor come off as nothing more than ignorance and rudeness. Believing that they somehow are the star of the chatroom, the afflicted one thinks that everyone else is interested in their worn out banalities and insults. They seem to delight in provoking others, like they guy that pulls out in front of you in traffic or interrupts you when you are talking to someone else. This person feels that everyone else is hanging on their every word.

Thank goodness for the dozens of intelligent men and women I've observed in this forum. They are they reason I visit often and try to learn something new about a subject that has interested me for a long time. Thanks in part to significant efforts by John Simkin, this forum has become an important tool for learning, as was probably intended from inception. Many informed and brilliant thinkers come here to articulate their thoughts. I would begin to list them, but then I would invariably leave some out.

I know I have a tendency to ascribe an importance to my posts that does not exist. I know that it matters not much in the scheme of things what I write or post in here. I have learned, however, that if someone feels the need to be constantly adversarial, constantly insulting, and generally negative and disagreeable and focus on basically one subject for years and years like it was the Rosetta Stone of the Kennedy assassination, offering little, if nothing new.......well, I'll let the reader complete the thought.

Mike Hogan

appreciate your comments, thanks... So, if you find the subject matter so mundane, why post to the thread?

Feel free to remove yourself from the thread. Perhaps YOU by chance can provide answers about a few Z-film concerns? Any representative of Josiah Thompson is fine by me. Actually anyone representing Roland Zavada and/or Ray Fielding will do nicely too... I've been waiting a few months, you up to the task, Mike?

David Healy

[Michael Hogan]

I'm not about to get into a back and forth with you. As I noted, you are always determined to have the last word.

You didn't even mention the subject of my post, the affinity of some to start a new thread when one already exists. Instead you resort to asking me why I posted if I found the subject matter mundane. Such an irrelevant question, much like most of your others.

It doesn't take a photo expert to recognize someone with a severe ego problem. There are a lot of people on this forum I'd love to have a cup of coffee or a spot of lunch, as John Geraghty put it. You ain't one of them.

Your weak attempts at condescension lack the power to provoke me. You don't intimidate me in the least, David. However these are my last words ever on the subject of David G. Healy. I've already spent too much time.

[Blair Dobson]

Yet another new thread on a subject that has been repeatedly beaten to death for years and appears in one form or another in numerous recent threads on this forum.

This forum, as was previously noted in another thread, does sometimes seem to exhibit the distinct feel of a chat room. There's always a few people that apparently just enjoy seeing their name in print, to the point where they post the same stuff over and over. Not content to remain in the threads they have already started or responded to or hijacked, for some reason they find it necessary to start a new one. I've heard it referred to as the "chat testosterone syndrome."

This syndrome is marked by an obsessive, compulsive desire to always get in the last word and have others see it. Often misguided, idiosyncratic attempts at humor come off as nothing more than ignorance and rudeness. Believing that they somehow are the star of the chatroom, the afflicted one thinks that everyone else is interested in their worn out banalities and insults. They seem to delight in provoking others, like they guy that pulls out in front of you in traffic or interrupts you when you are talking to someone else. This person feels that everyone else is hanging on their every word.

Thank goodness for the dozens of intelligent men and women I've observed in this forum. They are they reason I visit often and try to learn something new about a subject that has interested me for a long time. Thanks in part to significant efforts by John Simkin, this forum has become an important tool for learning, as was probably intended from inception. Many informed and brilliant thinkers come here to articulate their thoughts. I would begin to list them, but then I would invariably leave some out.

I know I have a tendency to ascribe an importance to my posts that does not exist. I know that it matters not much in the scheme of things what I write or post in here. I have learned, however, that if someone feels the need to be constantly adversarial, constantly insulting, and generally negative and disagreeable and focus on basically one subject for years and years like it was the Rosetta Stone of the Kennedy assassination, offering little, if nothing new.......well, I'll let the reader complete the thought.

Mike Hogan

You sound like a paid stooge for the CIA Hogan and my theory is better than yours.

furthermore, your pedigree in interior decoration or cake decoration or whatever it is you do (when you aren't drinking or smoking pot with communists) is questionable at best.

I know this as i am simply more bettr than you and you ahd three typos in your post to boot.

I know a guy who knows a guy who invented the internet chatroom and he says you are not only misguided, but probably skitzofrenic. i bet it took you two hours to type that post because you can barely read..otherwise you would know my resaerch is the best and beyond reproach....

you will see this to be true when i wrestle Jack White to the ground and get a best selling bookdeal and break this case wide open Hogan.

mark my words......

Is this the kind of behaviour you meant?

(all kidding aside)

Mr Hogan,

i agree with your post whole heartedly.

there are some big ego's with small theories. i agree people should be a little less testy and a little more adult.

while some here would make fine dinner dates, others would be petulant children banging their fists

and being disruptive, childish agenda pushers.

Mr Hogan you beat me to the punch with your post.

cheers

dobson

Edited May 21, 2006 by Blair Dobson

[Bill Miller]

appreciate your comments, thanks... So, if you find the subject matter so mundane, why post to the thread?

I think Mike replied because he saw through your intentions. What puzzles some of us is that you have heard the things Zavada has said, you've heard the things Groden has said, you have seen the Kodak information posted, you have even seen the science involved in checking films for authenticity and how experts have validated the Zapruder films authenticity, and you have seen the faulty alteration claims made by Jack White and you've gone as far as to say after all this ... that you have not seen any proof of film alteration. So there is no reason that I can see why you haven't moved on. Take some time off and study the other evidence of the case ... there is plenty of material to learn about.

Bill

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

appreciate your comments, thanks... So, if you find the subject matter so mundane, why post to the thread?

I think Mike replied because he saw through your intentions. What puzzles some of us is that you have heard the things Zavada has said, you've heard the things Groden has said, you have seen the Kodak information posted, you have even seen the science involved in checking films for authenticity and how experts have validated the Zapruder films authenticity, and you have seen the faulty alteration claims made by Jack White and you've gone as far as to say after all this ... that you have not seen any proof of film alteration. So there is no reason that I can see why you haven't moved on. Take some time off and study the other evidence of the case ... there is plenty of material to learn about.

Bill

________________

I don't pariculary care what YOU think or know about anything, actually. My response was to Mike, not YOU. Can't help yourself, can you? --

I recently noticed Dr. Thompson had to help you out in another thread... LOL, course he's having a hardtime answering questions directed to him, such as THIS thread... what's expected --

'Michael Hogan' wrote:

I'm not about to get into a back and forth with you. As I noted, you are always determined to have the last word.

simple Mikey -- don't respond to a thread I start, REAL simple...

[snip the nonesense]

[Bill Miller]

I don't pariculary care what YOU think or know about anything, actually. My response was to Mike, not YOU. Can't help yourself, can you? --

I was trying to help you beause I know you have severe dyslexia when it comes to reading responses on JFK forums. Besides, I thought you were busy reading Costella's web page and trying to learn what John has said so when you advise people to look at it in the future ... you will actually know what is written on it. Btw, here is that URL again in case you have lost it ... http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html

In referring to the Life Magazine prints, Costella said, "But in their rush to publish something, the forgers made mistakes."

I recently noticed Dr. Thompson had to help you out in another thread... LOL, course he's having a hardtime answering questions directed to him, such as THIS thread... what's expected --

How did Josiah help me? He merely said he witnessed the things I said first hand and told everyone they were true. The points I posted are valid and could be understood by a child. Now do you have anything to dispute the observations I made or are you just trying to make it look like you have something to say when in fact you have nothing of any value that you can say?

Bill Miller

Edited May 23, 2006 by Bill Miller