Jump to content
The Education Forum

Old Costella errors still hanging around


Recommended Posts

Work that asked to be taken seriously must be researched in depth to assure all facets of the matter in question are considered. When addressing an investigation you can not start with a pre-disposed idea (like the Zapruder film is altered) and search for supporting evidence. You must uncover and expose all information possible and then form conclusions based upon your findings.

If we know something to be in error are we to just ignore it? For years, this community sought experts in various fields to enter the research of the Kennedy assassination. But, if their findings are in opposition to long held, and vested theories - what shall we do? Find someone else to present themselves as an opposing expert, even if the person selected is not experienced or even well read in the subject at hand? That's what I think happened with John Costella; because the scientific basis for information contained at http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/blood.html the JFK Assassination Film Hoax part 7 - The Blood Mistake is incorrect.

It is very misleading, and borderline unethical to insinuate scientific work when there has been none. Even a casual read through forensic topics for high school students on the internet would disprove most of the erroneous claims on this page. Moreover, there are numerous publications available that address this subject and collaborate my statements. Or, perhaps the writers could publish their credentials for making such wild claims. Since one necessary component for using scientific material as evidence is that the results of testing are consistent and reproducible; perhaps their study and results could be published so we can see how they come to conclusions hundreds of other bloodspatter experts would be at odds with.

I encourage all researchers to thoroughly investigate this subject to determine the validity of their claims. And I encourage the writers and publishers of JFK Assassination Film Hoax: The Blood Mistake to reconsider the contents of that page. The excuse that Costella can not make corrections to his work is ridiculous, and if true – then just remove the page. Because if you allow that to go uncorrected, I’ll have to wonder what else might be incorrect that you knowingly allow to stand? In fact, can anything you publish be trusted?

Here are the claims made and my rebuttal to them:

JFK Assassination Film Hoax: Part 7 - The Blood Mistake

Hoax Claim:

“More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film.

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

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, prompting an interest in the characteristics of shed blood and how it related to crime scenes. Prior to this, most publications addressed only the most general of characteristics of spatter analysis. Therefore, even if the technology to fake the blood spatter in the Zapruder film existed, the knowledge of what it would look like and how fast it traveled did not.

Hoax Claim:

The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. 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: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! “

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

Since 1983 I have been actively involved in the study and recreation of bloodstain pattern created as a result of high velocity impact. This type of analysis is founded in physics and mathematics and based on the study of research performed by many criminalists. Data collection by experts in this field is accomplished by shooting through a variety of samples of whole human blood at a series of distances and with a wide diversity of projectile calibers.

Videotape is routinely used to capture the results of the bullets passing through the bloody targets. The blood used in all cases is whole human blood. Currently videotape records approximately 30 frames per second. This speed videotape utilizes approximately 4-5 frames to capture forceful impact pattern when a low velocity, large caliber projectile with a high KE rate impacts a large volume of blood. This means a pattern is created in its entirety in 1/6 of a second; faster projectiles result in patterns being created in less than 1/6 of a second. The Zapruder film was recorded at approximately 18 frames per second. If blood is observed in 3 frames that would mean the pattern was created and dissipated in a time frame of 1/6th of a second - a time frame consistent with patterns created with a high velocity projectile. This timeframe for a pattern being created and dissipating is reproducible and consistent. A lead weight falling is being acted upon by gravity; blood expelled from a wound is forcefully expressed and moves much faster.

Hoax Claim:

The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314.

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

When filming, Zapruder’s camera captured 18.3 frames each second, but not everything that occurred was captured, since spatter can be expelled between frames and/or travel outside the area recorded before being captured by the camera. In frame 313 there is an object believed to be bone or tissue traveling from the President’s head in an upward and forward direction. Bone fragments and pieces of tissue are commonly found in forward spatter. This object is traveling fast enough for approximately 5 feet of movement to have been recorded in one frame equaling 1/18th of a second in duration. This is a good visual demonstration of the speed of forward spatter as it is leaving the exit wound at over 160 feet per second. At that speed, forward spatter could be created and move out of the area being photographed faster than the speed of the film could record it. The size of the forward spatter must also be considered. The majority less than of the droplets would have a diameter of 1 mm. If the detail

The velocity and volume of the blood leaving the impact site as backspatter has much less velocity than blood leaving exit wounds as forward spatter; and the backspatter droplets only travel about 3-4 feet from the source. When Bill Newman described the blood visible in front of the President’s face, it he said it was like a mist. Back spatter does not travel more than 3 or 4 feet and is often described as a multitude of minuscule blood droplets that resemble an atomized spray or mist.

Hoax Claim:

The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. But even if the blood could have, where would it have ended up? 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:

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

In addition to this single frame of the Zapruder film, there are other sources available to determine if blood was present either within or outside the Limo. Consider the following statements documenting blood landing both within and outside the limo.

Nellie Connally; from Nellie Connally: That Day in Dallas by Robert R. Rees.

"I felt something falling all over me. My sensation was of spent buckshot. My eyes saw bloody matter in tiny bits all over the car."

Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman, Special Agent, Secret Service beginning at 2H61; Agent Kellerman was in the right front seat of the Presidential limo.

Mr. Kellerman: Senator, between all the matter that was--between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person, this stuff all came over.

Senator Cooper: What was that?

Mr. Kellerman: Body matter; flesh.

Mr. Specter: When did you first notice the substance which you have described as body matter?

Mr. Kellerman: When I got to the hospital, sir, it was all over my coat.

Robert A. Frazier testimony, Feb 21st and 22nd 1969, Criminal District Court Parish of Orleans State of Louisiana State Of Louisiana Vs. Clay L. Shaw 198-059 1426 Section "C"

"We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area."

ABC Television station WFAA reporter Bill Lord

In an interview with Chaney stated that he was "riding on the right rear fender" of JFK's limo during the shooting, and that "the President was struck in the face" by the second shot. Lord ended the interview by telling the audience that "[Chaney] was so close his uniform was splattered with blood".

Officer William Joseph "B J" Martin Warren Commission Testimony

Mr. BALL: Did you notice any stains on your helmet?

Mr. MARTIN: Yes, sir; during the process of working traffic there, I noticed that there were blood stains on the windshield, on my motor, and then I pulled off my helmet and I noticed there were blood stains on the left side of my helmet.

Clint Hill 3/9/1964 Warren Commission Testimony of Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (H 2 132-44)

"There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car."

Why I am qualified to respond:

I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida; including US Federal District Court. I formerly headed the Forensic Investigative Unit for St. Charles Parish of the Louisiana Sheriff's Department and prior to that was second in command at the Lafayette Parish Metro Forensic Unit which served eight parishes. When I retired, I allowed my professional memberships expire. However, I was a member of the International Association for Identification and acquired the Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst certification. I have served on the International Association for Identification subcommittee for bloodstain pattern evidence, and have presented at international and state conferences for that organization. I was also a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction. I am recognized as a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis course instructor by the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the International Association for Identification; and taught that field of investigation to law enforcement agencies and at police academies for over 20 years. I have published 15 articles in peer reviewed journals, and given lectures at national and international levels.

Last time I ask for this to be corrected, I answered alot of questions with as much detail as possible, and as graciously as I could. Finally the post failed because the Costella supporters gave up. Since their opposing views are often rebutted with " show me your expert or shut up" attitude I'm not jumping throught the same hoops this time. Just make the corrections or pull the page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

'Sherry Gutierrez' wrote:

Work that asked to be taken seriously must be researched in depth to assure all facets of the matter in question are considered. When addressing an investigation you can not start with a pre-disposed idea (like the Zapruder film is altered) and search for supporting evidence. You must uncover and expose all information possible and then form conclusions based upon your findings.

dgh: Ah.... who started with pre-determined or pre-disposed ideas? Strike: ONE

If we know something to be in error are we to just ignore it? For years, this community sought experts in various fields to enter the research of the Kennedy assassination. But, if their findings are in opposition to long held, and vested theories - what shall we do? Find someone else to present themselves as an opposing expert, even if the person selected is not experienced or even well read in the subject at hand? That's what I think happened with John Costella; because the scientific basis for information contained at http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/blood.html the JFK Assassination Film Hoax part 7 - The Blood Mistake is incorrect.

dgh: The community sought? baloney! We are now waiting for experts -- What you think happened to John Costella is of course your business, if you hold a Ph.D. in Physics dissect his presentation and give us the blood splatter expert analysis scientific eqivalent... If your side could produce a physicist I doubt you'd use him/her -- you have to much bandwidth to fill up

It is very misleading, and borderline unethical to insinuate scientific work when there has been none. Even a casual read through forensic topics for high school students on the internet would disprove most of the erroneous claims on this page. Moreover, there are numerous publications available that address this subject and collaborate my statements. Or, perhaps the writers could publish their credentials for making such wild claims. Since one necessary component for using scientific material as evidence is that the results of testing are consistent and reproducible; perhaps their study and results could be published so we can see how they come to conclusions hundreds of other bloodspatter experts would be at odds with.

dgh: perhaps you can find a expert in optics and light that will support your contentions, after all if high school students can see the error of Costella's ways, certainly the USofA should be flooded with experts that will heed your call for confirmation?

I encourage all researchers to thoroughly investigate this subject to determine the validity of their claims. And I encourage the writers and publishers of JFK Assassination Film Hoax: The Blood Mistake to reconsider the contents of that page. The excuse that Costella can not make corrections to his work is ridiculous, and if true – then just remove the page. Because if you allow that to go uncorrected, I’ll have to wonder what else might be incorrect that you knowingly allow to stand? In fact, can anything you publish be trusted?

dgh: someone with the approriate credentials drops by and takes Costella's presentation apart, we'll see... of course this hasn't happened yet...so why should he waste his time responding to you, Miller, the GANG and company -- that a bottomless pit -- you should know that by now..... and for the below absolutelty the same thing you posted what, a year ago? No confirming scientific expertise to support the contentions -- lots of bluster though....

Here are the claims made and my rebuttal to them:

JFK Assassination Film Hoax: Part 7 - The Blood Mistake

Hoax Claim:

“More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film.

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

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, prompting an interest in the characteristics of shed blood and how it related to crime scenes. Prior to this, most publications addressed only the most general of characteristics of spatter analysis. Therefore, even if the technology to fake the blood spatter in the Zapruder film existed, the knowledge of what it would look like and how fast it traveled did not.

Hoax Claim:

The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. 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: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! “

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

Since 1983 I have been actively involved in the study and recreation of bloodstain pattern created as a result of high velocity impact. This type of analysis is founded in physics and mathematics and based on the study of research performed by many criminalists. Data collection by experts in this field is accomplished by shooting through a variety of samples of whole human blood at a series of distances and with a wide diversity of projectile calibers.

Videotape is routinely used to capture the results of the bullets passing through the bloody targets. The blood used in all cases is whole human blood. Currently videotape records approximately 30 frames per second. This speed videotape utilizes approximately 4-5 frames to capture forceful impact pattern when a low velocity, large caliber projectile with a high KE rate impacts a large volume of blood. This means a pattern is created in its entirety in 1/6 of a second; faster projectiles result in patterns being created in less than 1/6 of a second. The Zapruder film was recorded at approximately 18 frames per second. If blood is observed in 3 frames that would mean the pattern was created and dissipated in a time frame of 1/6th of a second - a time frame consistent with patterns created with a high velocity projectile. This timeframe for a pattern being created and dissipating is reproducible and consistent. A lead weight falling is being acted upon by gravity; blood expelled from a wound is forcefully expressed and moves much faster.

Hoax Claim:

The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314.

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

When filming, Zapruder’s camera captured 18.3 frames each second, but not everything that occurred was captured, since spatter can be expelled between frames and/or travel outside the area recorded before being captured by the camera. In frame 313 there is an object believed to be bone or tissue traveling from the President’s head in an upward and forward direction. Bone fragments and pieces of tissue are commonly found in forward spatter. This object is traveling fast enough for approximately 5 feet of movement to have been recorded in one frame equaling 1/18th of a second in duration. This is a good visual demonstration of the speed of forward spatter as it is leaving the exit wound at over 160 feet per second. At that speed, forward spatter could be created and move out of the area being photographed faster than the speed of the film could record it. The size of the forward spatter must also be considered. The majority less than of the droplets would have a diameter of 1 mm. If the detail

The velocity and volume of the blood leaving the impact site as backspatter has much less velocity than blood leaving exit wounds as forward spatter; and the backspatter droplets only travel about 3-4 feet from the source. When Bill Newman described the blood visible in front of the President’s face, it he said it was like a mist. Back spatter does not travel more than 3 or 4 feet and is often described as a multitude of minuscule blood droplets that resemble an atomized spray or mist.

Hoax Claim:

The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. But even if the blood could have, where would it have ended up? 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:

Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds:

In addition to this single frame of the Zapruder film, there are other sources available to determine if blood was present either within or outside the Limo. Consider the following statements documenting blood landing both within and outside the limo.

Nellie Connally; from Nellie Connally: That Day in Dallas by Robert R. Rees.

"I felt something falling all over me. My sensation was of spent buckshot. My eyes saw bloody matter in tiny bits all over the car."

Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman, Special Agent, Secret Service beginning at 2H61; Agent Kellerman was in the right front seat of the Presidential limo.

Mr. Kellerman: Senator, between all the matter that was--between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person, this stuff all came over.

Senator Cooper: What was that?

Mr. Kellerman: Body matter; flesh.

Mr. Specter: When did you first notice the substance which you have described as body matter?

Mr. Kellerman: When I got to the hospital, sir, it was all over my coat.

Robert A. Frazier testimony, Feb 21st and 22nd 1969, Criminal District Court Parish of Orleans State of Louisiana State Of Louisiana Vs. Clay L. Shaw 198-059 1426 Section "C"

"We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area."

ABC Television station WFAA reporter Bill Lord

In an interview with Chaney stated that he was "riding on the right rear fender" of JFK's limo during the shooting, and that "the President was struck in the face" by the second shot. Lord ended the interview by telling the audience that "[Chaney] was so close his uniform was splattered with blood".

Officer William Joseph "B J" Martin Warren Commission Testimony

Mr. BALL: Did you notice any stains on your helmet?

Mr. MARTIN: Yes, sir; during the process of working traffic there, I noticed that there were blood stains on the windshield, on my motor, and then I pulled off my helmet and I noticed there were blood stains on the left side of my helmet.

Clint Hill 3/9/1964 Warren Commission Testimony of Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (H 2 132-44)

"There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car."

Why I am qualified to respond:

I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida; including US Federal District Court. I formerly headed the Forensic Investigative Unit for St. Charles Parish of the Louisiana Sheriff's Department and prior to that was second in command at the Lafayette Parish Metro Forensic Unit which served eight parishes. When I retired, I allowed my professional memberships expire. However, I was a member of the International Association for Identification and acquired the Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst certification. I have served on the International Association for Identification subcommittee for bloodstain pattern evidence, and have presented at international and state conferences for that organization. I was also a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction. I am recognized as a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis course instructor by the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the International Association for Identification; and taught that field of investigation to law enforcement agencies and at police academies for over 20 years. I have published 15 articles in peer reviewed journals, and given lectures at national and international levels.

Last time I ask for this to be corrected, I answered alot of questions with as much detail as possible, and as graciously as I could. Finally the post failed because the Costella supporters gave up. Since their opposing views are often rebutted with " show me your expert or shut up" attitude I'm not jumping throught the same hoops this time. Just make the corrections or pull the page.

dgh: We're still here Dear..... and your qualified expert in optics and film is.....? what took you so long, I expected you a few days ago!

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: We're still here Dear..... and your qualified expert in optics and film is.....? what took you so long, I expected you a few days ago!

David, are you forgetting about who's side your on ... you've already stated that you have not seen any proof of alteration, thus can we not assume that you read the contents of the book that shares your article - and because of your remarks ... you must not have agreed with the Ph.D. Costella's writings. By the way, that's the Ph.D. that wrote about this large time frame that could have been used to alter Moorman's Polaroid because the dumb-ass didn't bother to learn the subject matter first. Maybe you can start a thread on how a Ph.D. could write a piece on Moorman's photo being forged and not he known that it was filmed for TV not 30 minutes after the assassination? In other words ... what good is a Ph.D. if you do not have the facts straight.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: We're still here Dear..... and your qualified expert in optics and film is.....? what took you so long, I expected you a few days ago!

David, are you forgetting about who's side your on ... you've already stated that you have not seen any proof of alteration, thus can we not assume that you read the contents of the book that shares your article - and because of your remarks ... you must not have agreed with the Ph.D. Costella's writings. By the way, that's the Ph.D. that wrote about this large time frame that could have been used to alter Moorman's Polaroid because the dumb-ass didn't bother to learn the subject matter first. Maybe you can start a thread on how a Ph.D. could write a piece on Moorman's photo being forged and not he known that it was filmed for TV not 30 minutes after the assassination? In other words ... what good is a Ph.D. if you do not have the facts straight.

Bill Miller

sit down... unless you have a Ph.D in Physics or your introducing someone who does and can support a 'blood spatter' expert analysis based on a 8mm film thats been contested as fraud. Not to mention no one, on either side with expertise in the matter has never seen the alleged in-camera Zapruder assassination film laced up in a projector and projected ANYWHERE.... Plus a moving crime scene where the blood spatter evidence was removed with 20 minutes of the fatal shot, a botched autopsy, faked and missing autopsy photos not to mention missing and altered X-Rays.... None of this crap would last 5 seconds in a court of law. Let Sherry clean up her own mess. You've got plenty of your own.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ron,

Thanks so much for pointing this out. The correct text should read:

The majority of the droplets would have a diameter of 1mm or less. The detail of such a small object would be lost to the viewer at a distance. For an example, the text of a book becomes lost at a distance and it is impossible to read at 10 feet. Imagine reading that book with the letters widely disbursed at over 30 feet. This is another reason the droplets are hard to distinguish.

My warm regards to you,

Sherry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: We're still here Dear..... and your qualified expert in optics and film is.....? what took you so long, I expected you a few days ago!

David, are you forgetting about who's side your on ... you've already stated that you have not seen any proof of alteration, thus can we not assume that you read the contents of the book that shares your article - and because of your remarks ... you must not have agreed with the Ph.D. Costella's writings. By the way, that's the Ph.D. that wrote about this large time frame that could have been used to alter Moorman's Polaroid because the dumb-ass didn't bother to learn the subject matter first. Maybe you can start a thread on how a Ph.D. could write a piece on Moorman's photo being forged and not he known that it was filmed for TV not 30 minutes after the assassination? In other words ... what good is a Ph.D. if you do not have the facts straight.

Bill Miller

Bill, do you have that footage of the Moorman photo that was shown on T.V?

The first time I see it, is approx 3:15 Dallas time on NBC. (Poor Quality)

Was it shown earlier?

chris

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: if you hold a Ph.D. in Physics dissect his presentation and give us the blood splatter expert analysis scientific eqivalent...

SPG: Holding a Ph.D. in one area does not qualify a person to speak as an expert in another. Or perhaps the next surgery you have should be done by an attorney, and judicial courts can allow a professor of physical education to serve as judge, or perhaps you'd like a dentist to serve as the pilot on the next 747 you travel on. Dr. Herbert MacDonnell IS the the bloodspatter expert equilivant of a Ph. D. in bloodspatter analysis and he peer reviewed my analysis in the early 1990s before I spoke at COPA. Oh, I forgot - foreign term ... Peer review is the process of submitting scholarly work to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field. Publications that are not peer reviewed are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. That's why my work was peer reviewed before publication. And his in this area was peer reviewed by... who?

dgh: if high school students can see the error of Costella's ways,

SPG: why can't you? This is just a small sampling of sites describing middle and high school students being taught bloodspatter analysis. Check this out:

INDIANAPOLIS (AP)—Junior high and high school science classes used to mean dissecting frogs and learning the periodic table. But some teachers—inspired by the popularity of crime scene television shows—want to get younger students interested in science by using DNA and blood spatter instead. http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_06...ents_blood.html

FLANAGAN - Biology teacher Jodi Delheimer will teach the biology topics, such as analyzing DNA samples, while Francis will focus on the physics of forensics, such as calculating bullet trajectory or blood spatter patterns. http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2006/07...news/116591.txt

Rox-CSI is an interdisciplinary project involving high school and junior high school level students. Students participated through their math and science classes. Students in the high school trigonometry class investigated blood spatter evidence. The students modeled blood spatters using simulated blood on a variety of surfaces commonly found at crime scenes. They were able to develop a quantitative understanding of the relationship between the impact angle of a blood droplet striking a surface and the shape of the resulting stain. The students analyzed a group of blood stains in order to determine the approximate position of the victim when the blood exited the body and to determine a sequence of events for the crime. The students collected length and width data for the blood spatters and used this data to determine the impact angles. They then used their results and further trigonometric calculations to determine additional distance and height data used to solve the crime. http://revitalise.ncsa.uiuc.edu/WebModule/...php?id=18#Grade

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511280313/1019

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13497716/

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=169&sid=323901

http://wardsci.com/article.asp?ai=107&sid=NL200503

http://nvps.net/npsnhs/Curriculum%20Maps/T...0Resources.htm#

http://www.corpus-delicti.com/wsj_021902.html

dgh: someone with the approriate credentials drops by and takes Costella's presentation apart, we'll see...

SPG: I am that person, I did take it apart, but you still don't see.

dgh: We're still here Dear..... and your qualified expert in optics and film is.....?

SPG: I am not addresssing optics and film ...

And Costella's qualified expertise in bloodspatter analysis is ..... ? Right, just what I thought; maybe he should have stuck to what he knows.

(David, they are leaving you to defend the indefensible and thereby hanging you out to dry. Check it out for yourself.)

Edited by Sherry Gutierrez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, do you have that footage of the Moorman photo that was shown on T.V?

The first time I see it, is approx 3:15 Dallas time on NBC. (Poor Quality)

Was it shown earlier?

chris

I believe that you are correct give or take a few moments, but that was CST in Dallas ... the assassination having just occurred less than three hours earlier. The important point is that while Moorman's photo was shown on NBC less than three hours later ... it was a pre-recorded interview that took place about 30 minutes or so after the shooting. That original photo filmed for TV while still in Moorman's possession shows Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal, while Jack continues to claim that Zapruder and SAitzman were inserted into all the assassination pictures and films.

And yes, the quality is not good for spotting badge man, but Costella was talkiing about the photo being altered during this large window of time he invented, which derrived from Jack's poorly researched claim that no one was ever on the pedestal during the shooting. The whole thing has been made into a joke IMO!

Bill Miller

sit down... unless you have a Ph.D in Physics or your introducing someone who does and can support a 'blood spatter' expert analysis based on a 8mm film thats been contested as fraud.

Sherry is a blood spatter expert, unlike you or Costella. I might also add that anyone can claim something to be a fraud, so your point is meaningless ... after all, you had already heard the allegations of fraud and still told this forum that you have not seen any evidence of alteration to date.

Not to mention no one, on either side with expertise in the matter has never seen the alleged in-camera Zapruder assassination film laced up in a projector and projected ANYWHERE.... Plus a moving crime scene where the blood spatter evidence was removed with 20 minutes of the fatal shot, a botched autopsy, faked and missing autopsy photos not to mention missing and altered X-Rays.... None of this crap would last 5 seconds in a court of law. Let Sherry clean up her own mess. You've got plenty of your own.....

More monkey spanking, David??? If you would actually read Sherry's findings ... you would see that she is telling you what the Zfilm shows and how it shows a frontal kill shot to the President.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, do you have that footage of the Moorman photo that was shown on T.V?

The first time I see it, is approx 3:15 Dallas time on NBC. (Poor Quality)

Was it shown earlier?

chris

I believe that you are correct give or take a few moments, but that was CST in Dallas ... the assassination having just occurred less than three hours earlier. The important point is that while Moorman's photo was shown on NBC less than three hours later ... it was a pre-recorded interview that took place about 30 minutes or so after the shooting. That original photo filmed for TV while still in Moorman's possession shows Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal, while Jack continues to claim that Zapruder and SAitzman were inserted into all the assassination pictures and films.

And yes, the quality is not good for spotting badge man, but Costella was talkiing about the photo being altered during this large window of time he invented, which derrived from Jack's poorly researched claim that no one was ever on the pedestal during the shooting. The whole thing has been made into a joke IMO!

Bill Miller

sit down... unless you have a Ph.D in Physics or your introducing someone who does and can support a 'blood spatter' expert analysis based on a 8mm film thats been contested as fraud.

Sherry is a blood spatter expert, unlike you or Costella. I might also add that anyone can claim something to be a fraud, so your point is meaningless ... after all, you had already heard the allegations of fraud and still told this forum that you have not seen any evidence of alteration to date.

Not to mention no one, on either side with expertise in the matter has never seen the alleged in-camera Zapruder assassination film laced up in a projector and projected ANYWHERE.... Plus a moving crime scene where the blood spatter evidence was removed with 20 minutes of the fatal shot, a botched autopsy, faked and missing autopsy photos not to mention missing and altered X-Rays.... None of this crap would last 5 seconds in a court of law. Let Sherry clean up her own mess. You've got plenty of your own.....

More monkey spanking, David??? If you would actually read Sherry's findings ... you would see that she is telling you what the Zfilm shows and how it shows a frontal kill shot to the President.

Bill Miller

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

oh-wee, those darn photo operation guys at the NPIC [one, the chief color photo officer] said: it looks like 6-8 hits on Kennedy from possibly 3 different directions. Now that comes from a guy that says the Secret Service drop a Z-film off within 24 hours of the assassination [probably within 12 hours].

Not my doing, you can find the interviews and testimony in Doug Horne's [ARRB investigator] Appendix C, in Hoax. Great source for information, btw.....

Sorry, regardless of how proficient Sherry is, I don't need a blood spatter analysis based on [who knows what generation] 8mm Z-film [whose authenticity is questioned], a moving [limo] crime scene that was tampered with while parked at the emergency room enterance at Parkland hospital. Then we come to the Elm St., part of the crime scene...Hey, even CSI-Las Vegas can't pull that fat out of the fire

Now if she has a study/analysis of same utilizing NARA's in-camera Z-film original... TALK to me about "monkey spanking", Willie! LMAO

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The skill of a magician is in getting an audience to focus its attention where he wants it at a specific instant. And the success of magic lies in the ability to create illusions that have the appearance of reality.

David, you are a magician – getting everyone to focus on the messenger instead of the message. Because if they did focus on the message, the magic of Costella would be exposed as an illusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sit down... unless you have a Ph.D in Physics or your introducing someone who does and can support a 'blood spatter' expert analysis based on a 8mm film thats been contested as fraud.

See post 8 by Sherry Gutierrez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: perhaps you can find a expert in optics and light that will support your contentions, after all if high school students can see the error of Costella's ways, certainly the USofA should be flooded with experts that will heed your call for confirmation?

David can you name "an expert in optics and light" who backs Costella's position? Despite Fetzer's and now your insistence that he qualifies nothing in his resume suggests he has any expertise in either field, no degrees, no papers, no courses taught etc.

Here for example is a list of his papers (none published in peer reviewed science journals, 3 were published in a journal concerned with teaching physics in the classroom another in a unreviewed online publication), which of these relate to optics or light.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...sics/index.html

It also occurred to me that I’ve never seen Costella himself claim such expertise. Can you provide evidence he ever made such a claim? Maybe to a posting on a forum or a webpage he wrote or you could post an e-mail he sent you or Fetzer.

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David can you name "an expert in optics and light" who backs Costella's position? Despite Fetzer's and now your insistence that he qualifies nothing in his resume suggests he has any expertise in either field, no degrees, no papers, no courses taught etc.

It also occurred to me that I’ve never seen Costella himself claim such expertise. Can you provide evidence he ever made such a claim? Maybe to a posting on a forum or a webpage he wrote or you could post an e-mail he sent you or Fetzer.

Len, 'Baghdad Bob Healy' won't be able to produce what you have asked of him because he can't. If anyone thinks that Healy is serious about all this, then let he or she ask themselves how can someone promote Costella's claims while saying at the same time that he has never seen any proof of alteration? These are two conclusions that are at the opposite ends of the spectrum that a rational human being would be smart enough to not touch with a ten foot pole. Sherry hit the nail on the head when she pointed out that a Ph.D in a particular area does not make you an expert in some other field ... if it did maked someone an experft in all fields, then these Ph.D's would not have blown the image below by telling us that they took a particular photo from the same location as Moorman when Mary took her #5 Polaroid.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Len Colby' wrote:

dgh: perhaps you can find a expert in optics and light that will support your contentions, after all if high school students can see the error of Costella's ways, certainly the USofA should be flooded with experts that will heed your call for confirmation?

David can you name "an expert in optics and light" who backs Costella's position? Despite Fetzer's and now your insistence that he qualifies nothing in his resume suggests he has any expertise in either field, no degrees, no papers, no courses taught etc.

dgh: not necessary, Len. Find one expert or Physicist that blows his contentions out of the water, we'll go from there...

Here for example is a list of his papers (none published in peer reviewed science journals, 3 were published in a journal concerned with teaching physics in the classroom another in a unreviewed online publication), which of these relate to optics or light.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...sics/index.html

It also occurred to me that I’ve never seen Costella himself claim such expertise. Can you provide evidence he ever made such a claim? Maybe to a posting on a forum or a webpage he wrote or you could post an e-mail he sent you or Fetzer.

dgh: buy HOAX, Len.... Then get in contact with the guys in the Gang, they're more than knowledgable of John Costella's qualifications... If you need their email addresses I'll provide them -- you might start with Dave Wimp.... Hope you enjoy the read.....

Oh, there's a 4 hour 2003 U.ofMinn DVD presentation by Costella if you'd like to buy it, drop me a note...

Before you make a fool out of yourself you might want to see it

What happened to Rollie Zavada and the new and improved Zavada Report? You know, the one Josiah said he provide "wide purchase" for, is he on the mend yet?

Len

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...