Bill Miller Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Zavada, he's not a young man anymore? Sounded pretty spry and chipper when I last spoke to him.... Appears he enjoyed sparring with Livingstone, went so far as to come all the way to the west coast to enjoy the debate -- Have you spoke to him? Is this an official announcement from the DP film/photo purist camp that Rollie is taking a pass on this? You wearing that mantle now, Is Colby out of the loop? No, David, it was posted that Zavada had taken ill which caused him to delay working on this subject. Ah, what corner is that that I'm backed up into? Remember dimbulb; I'm the one that can't prove Z-film alteration, on the record and published as same. This was obvious from reading all your say-nothing responses. Any idiot would know that if you had proof of anything, then you would have made it known. Now if you want to arrange a session where 5 or 6 film effects compositors can get together and view the *latest* NARA version of the in-camera Zapruder film, that might get us a step closer... The latest copy of the Zfilm is meaningless ... you set up having your compositors go view the original Zfilm, but take someone with you who would know what to look for. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote: Now if you want to arrange a session where 5 or 6 film effects compositors can get together and view the *latest* NARA version of the in-camera Zapruder film, that might get us a step closer... The latest copy of the Zfilm is meaningless ... you set up having your compositors go view the original Zfilm, but take someone with you who would know what to look for. Bill Miller Meaningless? my-oh-my Gary Mack will like knowing THAT, so will the American taxpayer, you know the ones that paid the 16Million buckeroos for what you call a *meaningless* film..... How you making out with Mr. Rigby, when he's through with you, you can tell me who numbered all those Zapruder frames that appeared in LIFE, Nov '63 publications... BTW, no research is done on internet boards USNET or otherwise, your *newbyness* is showing. Just trolls out here, you fit right-in..... Who would know what to look for, AGAIN? Edited August 29, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 (edited) The latest copy of the Zfilm is meaningless ... you set up having your compositors go view the original Zfilm, but take someone with you who would know what to look for.Bill Miller Meaningless? my-oh-my Gary Mack will like knowing THAT, so will the American taxpayer, you know the ones that paid the 16Million buckeroos for what you call a *meaningless* film..... As usual you are not listening to what has been said, David. YOU are the one who says that the camera original needs to be studied .... not copies made from said film. If you read very carefully what I said ... I basically supported what you have said many times by my suggesting that you not concern yourself with the "LATEST VERSION" (as you put it), but rather concern yourself with the alleged original Zapruder film. If need be ... I can find examples of you posting such an opinion in the event that you have forgotten your prior position. How you making out with Mr. Rigby, when he's through with you, you can tell me who numbered all those Zapruder frames that appeared in LIFE, Nov '63 publications... I would tell you to read the thread to get your answer, but seeing how you had so much trouble following something as simple as you studying the camera original instead of copies of the same film .... maybe you cannot follow my and Paul's discussion on your own. BTW, no research is done on internet boards USNET or otherwise, your *newbyness* is showing. Just trolls out here, you fit right-in.....Who would know what to look for, AGAIN? I would start by using someone who knows why the first generation prints that Life Magazine made are sharper than the multi-generation MPI version. Bill Miller Edited August 29, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 No one else makes more personal attacks?? You might want to re-think that statement. I know of one member who attacks virtually every person he disagrees with. One hint...he has been warned he will be removed if he continues those attacks. I guess you have a point OK Jack comes in 2nd or 3rd. In any case he attacks others enough he has little basis for complaint. Then, those who oppose Jack's point of view, or his observations, generally drive their points home via derision and ridicule. Is it any wonder he lashes out at them? I think Jack's critics often ridicule him because he makes nonsensical points and then refuses to answer legitimate questions raised; he then often brings up the same points again as if no questions had been raised. Such behavior is considered trolling on other forums. He has also been caught pulling stunts like cropping the flames out of a picture of the Pentagon and claiming it was taken after the fire was extinguished. Jack often lashes out when no obvious provocation has been directed at him, what for example triggered him accusing 4 members of the forum of being accessories to the assassination, he accused Evan of being a xxxx for correctly citing his position that the Moon landings had been faked. Now..for my thoughts on the subjects you brought up.The moon-shots would have to be impossible if there is no means of surviving a pass through the Van Allen radiation belt. As far as I know...this is not possible? I'd like to know if my supposition is incorrect. Yes you are incorrect. I suggest you research the issue a little more [start here http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html ] a certain Dr. James Van Allen (RIP) said the belts would NOT be a problem. The effects of radiation exposure are a determined by the strength of the radiation and time of exposure. The Apollo spacecraft passed through the belts quickly and were heavily shielded. Also NASA timed the missions so that they would pass through thinner parts of the belts. Consider the Russian cosmonauts who have spent months in the inner Van Allen Belts (where admittedly radiation levels are much lower but you have to consider several months of exposure vs. a couple of hours). Cite me one scientist with applicable credentials who says the radiation levels in the belts is too high for astronauts to have survived. 9/11? Consider the FACT that several of the supposed hijackers were PROVEN to have been alive and well after the towers crumbled...and I can't help but wonder..WTF? Doesn't this fact disturb you? I imagine your name is Charles Robbins, how many people do think have the same name as yours around the world? Let’s pretend that one of the people who died on 9/11 was named Charles Robbins, could one say it’s an obvious hoax because you are alive and well? Like wise the hijackers “PROVEN to have been alive and well after” 9/11 were either unconfirmed or cases of different people with the same name [ http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html ] consider for instance that a dozen Mohammed Attas are registered to vote in Britain [ http://tinyurl.com/fvhxc ]. This always struck me as a silly theory do you really think if the CIA or whoever orchestrated such a thing they wouldn’t have made sure to bump their patsies off beforehand? Don't ask me to cite sources...investigate the claims yourself to get a true grasp of the inconsistencies extant in the official conclusions regarding the 9/11 event. I have investigated the claims of the "truth" movement and found them to be of little consequence as finding some guy in Saudi Arabia who happens to have the same name as one of the hijackers. In any case I didn’t mention 9/11, but Apollo and “chemtrails” do you believe Jack’s theories about the latter. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 At the moment, he, Zavada hasn't produced. ... When Roland Zavada informed me of of Fielding's recruitment [and his professional expertise in his update], he also informed me he'd have the update completed soon. David I think your memory is playing tricks on you, either that or you're making stuff up again. I also received most if not all the e-mails Rollie sent you about this back in February. I went through them and in none of them did he say he would complete his paper "soon", quite to the contrary he indicated at least twice it would take a while: 1) In his February 20 e-mail to us entitled 'A invitation for discussion re: The Zapruder Film' he wrote "This will still require significant writing on my part which will take some time." I think this is the message you were referring to because he "informed (you) of Fielding's recruitment" in it. 2) In his Feb. 21 email to us he said "I'm willing to take the time to put together a dissertation of why the Zapruder film was not and could not have been altered...this project will not be done "tomorrow" – it will take some time." Please cite when he said he would complete it soon or admit that you were wrong. I think you confused your promised time frame with Rollie's I'll be making my formal claim, soon -- we'll see what kind of offense you can mount -- not that I suspect you can mount anything -- oh, your gonna need Roland Zavada -- I'll venture say you lone neuters MAY find a optical film printing expert within 30 day's, right.... ? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=51766 Soon? 30 days? Uuuh David that was 7 months ago, 1 month before Rollie said privately his work would "take some time" ever hear that adage about people who live in glass houses? Also what's with your Pavlovic tendency to bring up Zavada's paper on just about every thread I post on even when it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic? You seem absolutely obsessed. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Any explanation? Jack Thanks, John. We know Burton is an Aussie and avid defender of official stories...you don't suppose....naw, too obvious. Jack I think that demands an apology from you Jack. I don't take baseless and false accusations lightly. Am I the only one who sees this as a joke. Jack was not accusing Mr Burton os anythig except being both "an Aussie and avid defender of official stories". There is no accusation there. Grow some skin and aquire a sense of humor. Dawn Thanks, Dawn. Nice to see someone with a sense of humor. James Richards is also an Aussie, as is John Costella. But both are known as OPPOSING OFFICIAL STORIES, so it would not be funny to accuse them of hacking the forum. But Burton is an avid supporter of official stories...BUT AS I STATED, HE OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT DO IT, AS IT WOULD BE TOO OBVIOUS! He is unapologetic about defending govt hoaxes and making personal attacks on those who question them; why should I apologize for an obvious joke? Jack Fine - as long as I know the rules. Just want to make sure I don't step over the line. You rarely - if ever - apologise to those who show up your mistakes, do you? Despite being proven incorrect with your Apollo nonsense, you blatently continue to propagate your errors and, in some cases, downright lies. (You've called me a xxxx in the past -when it was baseless - so I figure with the latest supposition the gloves are off) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 'Evan Burton' wrote: [...] You rarely - if ever - apologise to those who show up your mistakes, do you? Despite being proven incorrect with your Apollo nonsense, you blatently continue to propagate your errors and, in some cases, downright lies. (You've called me a xxxx in the past -when it was baseless - so I figure with the latest supposition the gloves are off) you're new to this Evan, Jack has been corrected on more than one occasion by others and he's corrected me and others on more than one occasion -- with reasonablness, politeness and respect, it goes a long way... I'll also note: .... the claim of 'altered' JFK assassination releated photos was tagged as *nonesense* for a long, long time. Some are not so sure, now.... for good reason! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) I'll also note: .... the claim of 'altered' JFK assassination releated photos was tagged as *nonesense* for a long, long time. Some are not so sure, now.... for good reason! Yes, the alteration claims were tagged nonsense alright ........... within seconds of seeing them and the ridiculous mistakes that were made that helped create those claims. As far as 'some not being sure about alteration' ... those would be the people who don't know why a first generation Life copy of the Zapruder frames would be sharper than a multi-generation MPI version of the Zapruder film. To thoser people - they will always not be sure about anything pertaining to the photographical record. Bill Miller Edited August 30, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) 'Evan Burton' wrote: [...]You rarely - if ever - apologise to those who show up your mistakes, do you? Despite being proven incorrect with your Apollo nonsense, you blatently continue to propagate your errors and, in some cases, downright lies. (You've called me a xxxx in the past -when it was baseless - so I figure with the latest supposition the gloves are off) you're new to this Evan Evan maybe "new" to this part of the forum but he is an old hand regarding Jack's claims about the Apollo missions, "chemtrails" and 9/11Jack has been corrected on more than one occasion by others and he's corrected me and others on more than one occasion -- with reasonablness, politeness and respect, it goes a long way... Can you cite an occasion when Jack has admitted error in his photo-analysis? I don't remember a single case, what I remember him frequently doing is simply ignoring instances when his errors have been pointed (or questions raised) out or attacking the messenger. Whether the person questioning his conclusions is polite or not seems to make no difference. I'll also note: .... the claim of 'altered' JFK assassination releated photos was tagged as *nonesense* for a long, long time. Some are not so sure, now.... for good reason! There is no idea so absurd that some people won't believe it, there are people who believe Elvis is still alive and people who believe the British royal family, the Bushes and the Rothchilds (among others) are shape shifting "lizard people" a member of the forum is a Holocaust "revisionist" Obviously the people who believe these things think their fellow believers have "good reason" for believing them to be true. Back to the questionof you apperant misquoting of Zavada, when exactly can we expect you to a) tell us when he said his paper would be completed soon or admit you were wrong. Edited August 30, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Poor Elvis. Little did he know that, in death, he would be relegated to the role of a conspiracy debunker. Some people believe that every question that is raised about September 11th can be explained with an internet link. Now that's weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) 'Len Colby' wrote: Jack has been corrected on more than one occasion by others and he's corrected me and others on more than one occasion -- with reasonablness, politeness and respect, it goes a long way... Can you cite an occasion when Jack has admitted error in his photo-analysis? I don't remember a single case, what I remember him frequently doing is simply ignoring instances when his errors have been pointed (or questions raised) out or attacking the messenger. Whether the person questioning his conclusions is polite or not seems to make no difference. dgh: well, Len your a newbie to this, I don't expect you to know 1/10th of what you claim to know when it comes to DP/JFK films. Nor have you or most everyone else on this board been on research forums where Jack posted a significant part of his JFK photo material (some opposed). What's plain and simple to me is this, until someone posts their qualifications regarding professional film/photo analysis to this board -- expect more of the same... I'll also note: .... the claim of 'altered' JFK assassination releated photos was tagged as *nonesense* for a long, long time. Some are not so sure, now.... for good reason! There is no idea so absurd that some people won't believe it, there are people who believe Elvis is still alive and people who believe the British royal family, the Bushes and the Rothchilds (among others) are shape shifting "lizard people" a member of the forum is a Holocaust "revisionist" Obviously the people who believe these things think their fellow believers have "good reason" for believing them to be true. now what does Elvis has left the room, the Brits, the Shrubs, the Rothchilds, "lizard people", AND the Holocaust have to do with JFK/DP film-photos? The relevance of this escapes me... Is this the best the preservers of DP photo history can mount, when it comes to a arguement -- pretty weak stuff, champ... foolish actually? I suspect that nonesense to come from Miller or Hogan -- not you! btw, I was in-touch with Roland Zavada this morning.... [...] Edited August 30, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 dgh: well, Len your a newbie to this, I don't expect you to know 1/10th of what you claim to know when it comes to DP/JFK films. Nor have you or most everyone else on this board been on research forums where Jack posted a significant part of his JFK photo material (some opposed). What's plain and simple to me is this, until someone posts their qualifications regarding professional film/photo analysis to this board -- expect more of the same... Well, David .... unless you can hold the camera originals in your hand and thats not going to ever happen, and seeing how no one is going to play your game - maybe you should consider spanking your monkey somewhere else. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 dgh: well, Len your a newbie to this, I don't expect you to know 1/10th of what you claim to know when it comes to DP/JFK films. Nor have you or most everyone else on this board been on research forums where Jack posted a significant part of his JFK photo material (some opposed). Please show where I have claimed to be especially knowledgeable about the subject. I've never seen Jack admit error here. I belong to another JFK forum (along with Tink, Fetzer, Craig and Martin Shakleford) but Jack doesn't post there. If you know of any cases where he admitted error here or elsewhere perhaps you can enlighten us. What's plain and simple to me is this, until someone posts their qualifications regarding professional film/photo analysis to this board -- expect more of the same What qualifications along those lines do Jack or you have? now what does Elvis has left the room, the Brits, the Shrubs, the Rothchilds, "lizard people", AND the Holocaust have to do with JFK/DP film-photos? The relevance of this escapes me... Then you are not nearly as clever as you imagine. You really couldn't figure it out? You claimed that an increasing number of people doubt the authenticity DP images and suggested that this vindicated your position. I pointed out that people believe all manners of nonsense so just because people believe something doesn't mean it's true or even resonable. Is this the best the preservers of DP photo history can mount, when it comes to a arguement -- pretty weak stuff, champ... foolish actually? I suspect that nonesense to come from Miller or Hogan -- not you! You used to dismiss me as a "tard" now it seems I've grown in your estimation I don't whether I should he honored or ashamed btw, I was in-touch with Roland Zavada this morning.... So ah, you want me to give ya a medal, or sumthin? Does he know you misquoted him. Isn't it time you did what you claim Jack does and admit your error when proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 dgh: well, Len your a newbie to this, I don't expect you to know 1/10th of what you claim to know when it comes to DP/JFK films. Nor have you or most everyone else on this board been on research forums where Jack posted a significant part of his JFK photo material (some opposed). Please show where I have claimed to be especially knowledgeable about the subject. I've never seen Jack admit error here. I belong to another JFK forum (along with Tink, Fetzer, Craig and Martin Shakleford) but Jack doesn't post there. If you know of any cases where he admitted error here or elsewhere perhaps you can enlighten us. What's plain and simple to me is this, until someone posts their qualifications regarding professional film/photo analysis to this board -- expect more of the same What qualifications along those lines do Jack or you have? now what does Elvis has left the room, the Brits, the Shrubs, the Rothchilds, "lizard people", AND the Holocaust have to do with JFK/DP film-photos? The relevance of this escapes me... Then you are not nearly as clever as you imagine. You really couldn't figure it out? You claimed that an increasing number of people doubt the authenticity DP images and suggested that this vindicated your position. I pointed out that people believe all manners of nonsense so just because people believe something doesn't mean it's true or even resonable. Is this the best the preservers of DP photo history can mount, when it comes to a arguement -- pretty weak stuff, champ... foolish actually? I suspect that nonesense to come from Miller or Hogan -- not you! You used to dismiss me as a "tard" now it seems I've grown in your estimation I don't whether I should he honored or ashamed btw, I was in-touch with Roland Zavada this morning.... So ah, you want me to give ya a medal, or sumthin? Does he know you misquoted him. Isn't it time you did what you claim Jack does and admit your error when proven wrong. Colby, for some reason, and I suspect I know how you endeared yourself with the preservers of Dealey Plaza film/phot history -- Miller comes with too much baggage and you were given the nod to deal with Roland, I figure that gives a step up on the rest of the Lone Nut loons around here... that by no means means you pass anything of photographic interpretation value here [unless your passing gas]. If you think that was a compliment, you're spending way to much time running around that jungle down there. Come to think of it, you haven't issued or put forth any, ANY type of photo research for us to evaluate regarding the JFK assassination. You're just another cheerleader Josiah recognized -- makes on wonder what the hell your wasting all this valuable bandwidth for? Actually all Lone Nutters on this board appear to do nothing but *scramble*, play catch up to JackW. -- gotta be 5000 posts to this board refuting Jack White -- makes one wonder whose dangling on the end of a string..... LMAO -- I've been proven wrong? -- Colby you've proven absolutely Z E R O, NADA, Ziltch... You Miller, Lamson and a few others are a JOKE when it comes to the film/photos of Nov 22nd 1963. We also know, you and the rest of the gang would never appear on a public forum [for the cameras] to debate Dealey Plaza film/photo issues... Muwah, proven wrong, vindicated ? -- ask RZavada, hey, ask Ray Fielding if they've proven me wrong, post their comments right here! Space allocated for RZavada's and RFielding's comments BTW, how many books during the past 20 years were published stating the films/photos of Dealey Plaza and other assassination related images (including x-ray's) were altered, and/or labelled as outright fraud (another coming out soon)? How many books published countering those claims? You are a 'tard' when it comes to the photographic record, nothing to be ashamed of -- you're out of your league..... hell, that never stopped Miller either.... don't sweat it, just don't expect respect from those that do have subject expertise. Truck on champ, truck on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) I'll also note: .... the claim of 'altered' JFK assassination releated photos was tagged as *nonesense* for a long, long time. Some are not so sure, now.... for good reason! Yes, the alteration claims were tagged nonsense alright ........... within seconds of seeing them and the ridiculous mistakes that were made that helped create those claims. As far as 'some not being sure about alteration' ... those would be the people who don't know why a first generation Life copy of the Zapruder frames would be sharper than a multi-generation MPI version of the Zapruder film. To thoser people - they will always not be sure about anything pertaining to the photographical record. Bill Miller ahh.... the mantra seems I just saw a post on this board that numbered LIFE Z-film frames (even those that were published within the first week). Perhaps one of these wonder boys can tell this forum who assigned numbers to the Z-frames and why the frame designations were not asigned when the issue were published? Why no Z-film frame of Mary Moorman *on the grass* in the Nov 29th 1963 issue of LIFE, or the Memorial issue? Same for the October 2nd 1964 issue, NO Z-film frame published of Mary Moorman *on the grass*. Surely the Zapruder frames were numbered, why didn't LIFE published the Z-frame numbers when publishing the frames in the October 2nd 1964 issue selling the WCR and its conclusions.... No Mary Moorman *on the grass* in Z-film frames, LIFE issue November 25th 1966. The magazine title/cover story: Did Oswald act alone? A MATTER OF REASONABLE DOUBT. Now, we see in LIFE published frames being assigned Z-frame designation numbers. Did Moorman EVER appear in a Z-frame LIFE published the first 3 years after the assassination? Edited August 31, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now