Jump to content
The Education Forum

Healy's magnificent 32-page Zapruder expose!


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have just spent thirty minutes reading David's great explanation

of the faking of the Z-film.

It is posted courtesy of Rich DellaRosa and David at

http://www.jfkresearch.com/Technical_Aspects.pdf

...in Adobe Acrobat. Rich gives his permission to post this link.

This should force Miller, Lamson, Colby, et al into early

retirement.

The ball is in Zavada's court to refute it.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL Jack you spent 30 minutes reading that and didn't realize that it his chapter from "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"? You know the book you both contributed to 3 years ago. Didn't you read it when it first came out? It didn't strike you as familiar?

I skimmed but it didn't notice any new despite his claim that it was revised. He didn't even change the first line "During the past six months or so I have designed graphics…"

Perhaps David can highlight what if anything is new here. I didn't find the chapter particularly compelling last time around. It still doesn't answer any of the questions he didn't answer in any of the innumerous threads about Z – film alteration. No where in it does he cite any films from that period with alterations comparable to what was alleged in Hoax

Zavada replied to Hoax soon after it came out.

We're still waiting for Healy's "formal claim" which he declared publicly would be ready "soon" 8 months ago a month before Zavada privately said he would write a new treatise but it would "take some time". Speaking of which Healy has yet to provide any evidence that Zavada said it would be ready soon or admit he was wrong.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len Colby dronned:

LOL Jack you spent 30 minutes reading that and didn’t realize that it his chapter from “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax”? You know the book you both contributed to 3 years ago. Didn’t you read it when it first came out? It didn’t strike you as familiar?

dgh: my goodness Len, don't you recognize New York hype when you see it?

I skimmed but it didn’t notice any new despite his claim that it was revised. He didn’t even change the first line “During the past six months or so I have designed graphics…”

dgh: What's IT didn't notice anything? So, yeah, revised as in: cleaned up a bit, no additions - no deletions

Perhaps David can highlight what if anything is new here.

dgh: perhaps Len can tell us, if he can, something, some point he can prove in the revised that's inaccurate?

I didn’t find the chapter particularly compelling last time around.

dgh: you mean you can comment from a position of authority regarding film/video compositing

It still doesn’t answer any of the questions he did answer in any of the innumerous threads about Z – film alteration.

dgh: ah... what are you drinking down there, Len? I'm open to specific film compositing questions you and others have Len?

No where in it does he cite any films from that period with alterations comparable to what was alleged in Hoax

dgh: listen up einstein.... every, EVERY film from 1920 on utilized optical film compositing. Comparable, comparable to what? What degree of Z-film alteration do you think was possible in 1963, besides the usual Lone neuter rant; "it was impossible..... yakety-yak"? Anyone over there have balls these day's?

Zavada replied to Hoax soon after it came out.

dgh: you dufeses replied to HOAX BEFORE it came out, how'd you master that there Len, your handlers clear you for that yet?

We’re still waiting for Healy’s “formal claim” which he declared publicly would be ready “soon” 8 months ago a month before Zavada privately said he would write a new treatise but it would “take some time”. Speaking of which Healy has yet to provide any evidence that Zavada said it would be ready soon or admit he was wrong.

dgh: Formal claim? month before? You fool, Roland and I were conversing before you heard of Roland Zavada's name... put the vino down Len. Oh-wee, whose feeding you this nonesense? What do you call this tripe: the brazillian shuffle? LOL. The original Zavada report will stand, finished, old news, there won't be a update from Roland, for multiple reasons. Primarily cause he can't, not well enough -- although I suspect Harry Livingstone and Doug Horne (upcoming book) had a little to do with it....

ah, earth to Lenny -- evidence of what? wrong about what? Do I have to remind YOU; the deal I respond to is Roland Zavada's update report/presentation AFTER he uploads it here. NO DEBATE here or other boards or venues [from the peanut gallery meaning you clowns] which Roland put forth and I agreed. Shall I start posting private emails between he and I? Not to mention some emails which your side was not aware I was cc'd BY Roland Zavada and OTHER Lone Nutter's during the life of certain emails?

So hang around Lenster, get out a few college film production texts, hire yourself a film compositing guru and a master film prnter with KODAK 35/8mm film stock experience. There's a few Z-film frames you're going to have to evaluate, what those frames looked like in 35mm format, and what those same frames would look like after going from 35mm to 8mm (including grain structure).

So in closing Len, I'm a compositor/editor, I ignore reality, I make scenes happen -- what you or anyone else thinks about those scenes is none of my business, excepting the producer of course -- You don't believe it, fine. Prove, PROVE the thesis wrong, simple as that, Len. No whinning, no fuss, no 50,000 combined posts from wannabe CTer's, stop the whinning, prove me wrong....

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

I have just spent thirty minutes reading David's great explanation

of the faking of the Z-film.

It is posted courtesy of Rich DellaRosa and David at

http://www.jfkresearch.com/Technical_Aspects.pdf

...in Adobe Acrobat. Rich gives his permission to post this link.

This should force Miller, Lamson, Colby, et al into early

retirement.

The ball is in Zavada's court to refute it.

Jack

Jack, are you not aware that the same Healy has told this forum that he has seen no proof of alteration to the assassination and post assassination images. That this statement came AFTER the article was written in the Hoax book. David deals with the POSSIBILITY of altering the Zapruder film and this point he has made clear several times to this forum, yet you somehow spent 30 minutes reading a three year old article and came away with an impression that doesn't even match what its author has stated to this forum. Maybe you may wish to spend 30 minutes reading Healy's responses concerning his opinion concerning the proof or lack thereof relating to Zfilm alteration.

BTW, was it your purpose in starting this thread with the ridiculous remarks you made about 'retirement' for some of us so to incite and provoke a negative response? If so, then you failed.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL Jack you spent 30 minutes reading that and didn't realize that it his chapter from "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"? You know the book you both contributed to 3 years ago. Didn't you read it when it first came out? It didn't strike you as familiar?

I skimmed but it didn't notice any new despite his claim that it was revised. He didn't even change the first line "During the past six months or so I have designed graphics…"

Perhaps David can highlight what if anything is new here. I didn't find the chapter particularly compelling last time around. It still doesn't answer any of the questions he didn't answer in any of the innumerous threads about Z – film alteration. No where in it does he cite any films from that period with alterations comparable to what was alleged in Hoax

Zavada replied to Hoax soon after it came out.

We're still waiting for Healy's "formal claim" which he declared publicly would be ready "soon" 8 months ago a month before Zavada privately said he would write a new treatise but it would "take some time". Speaking of which Healy has yet to provide any evidence that Zavada said it would be ready soon or admit he was wrong.

Of course I was aware that this was David's presentation at Duluth. He ran it

by me by email before he presented it. I heard it at the Duluth symposium.

I read it again after it was published in TGZFH. But this is the first time it has

been made available online. I thought others might like to know that. It had

been about five years since I read it and it still hold up in all details. It is

this treatise that Mr. Zavada said he would refute. David is still waiting for

Zavada's article.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Miller'wrote:

Jack, are you not aware that the same Healy has told this forum that he has seen no proof of alteration to the assassination and post assassination images. That this statement came AFTER the article was written in the Hoax book. David deals with the POSSIBILITY of altering the Zapruder film and this point he has made clear several times to this forum, yet you somehow spent 30 minutes reading a three year old article and came away with an impression that doesn't even match what its author has stated to this forum. Maybe you may wish to spend 30 minutes reading Healy's responses concerning his opinion concerning the proof or lack thereof relating to Zfilm alteration.

BTW, was it your purpose in starting this thread with the ridiculous remarks you made about 'retirement' for some of us so to incite and provoke a negative response? If so, then you failed.

Bill Miller

I suspect Jack is MORE than well aware as to my thoughts, position regarding possibilities of Zapruder film alteration. He presented just prior to my presentation at Fetzer's 2003 Z-film symposium, he was in-the-room when I presented, and he's privy to the to the entire symposium DVD set.

Your gang was 'retired' before you started regarding the subject at hand. The best hope you [and they] had going, was RZavada's [with Ray Fielding's help] update. A update I invited (to this forum) and one he discussed with others on other occasions. Failing that, its back to more of the same nonsense... attack Jack White, the Z-film alteration position and other messengers.

The only hope you have in defending the non alteration contention is; wake Groden up, get him to review some of his *acquired* 35mm Z-film [non-rotoscoped] strips and post a few "why it's impossible" photo examples and findings here, for all to see... Short of that, you're making more noise....

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

I suspect Jack is MORE than well aware as to my thoughts, position regarding possibilities of Zapruder film alteration. He presented just prior to my presentation at Fetzer's 2003 Z-film symposium, he was in-the-room when I presented, and he's privy to the to the entire symposium DVD set.

Aside from the speakers ... just how many people actually sat through that 2003 symposium that you bring up from time to time? I hear there was about three people who showed up and it was because Fetzer offered extra credit for them sitting through that crap. As far as what Jack is aware of ... obviously Jack isn't as on top of things as you'd like to believe. You see, Jack says he only deals in facts and all you have done is say that it was possible to alter a piece of film by way of optical printing techniques. Jack, as you know, has said that he has shown the Zfilm was altered whereas you have stated that you have not seen any proof of such alterations.

Your gang was 'retired' before you started regarding the subject at hand. The best hope you [and they] had going, was RZavada's [with Ray Fielding's help] update. A update I invited (to this forum) and one he discussed with others on other occasions. Failing that, its back to more of the same nonsense... attack Jack White, the Z-film alteration position and other messengers.

David, any so-called attacks on Jack are usually accompanied by your own remarks. You participated in all that nonsense and even after seeing all Jack had to offer - you came away saying that you had not seen any proof of film alteration. In that one instant you said it all! The best you can do for Jack is say that it was possible to alter a piece of film and to this day I am unaware where you were able to show how such an alteration could have been done and be undetectable when all the sciences are applied to the study of the evidence.

The only hope you have in defending the non alteration contention is; wake Groden up, get him to review some of his *acquired* 35mm Z-film [non-rotoscoped] strips and post a few "why it's impossible" photo examples and findings here, for all to see... Short of that, you're making more noise....

Some of Groden's remarks dealing with what you just said have been posted and you dismissed them and as usual it was done without you specifically stating why Groden was in error in your mind. Until you can show that you are educated enough to address Groden's remarks, then you have to remain as little more than a mouthpiece that seems to contradict the things that Jack has called "fact".

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect Jack is MORE than well aware as to my thoughts, position regarding possibilities of Zapruder film alteration. He presented just prior to my presentation at Fetzer's 2003 Z-film symposium, he was in-the-room when I presented, and he's privy to the to the entire symposium DVD set.

Aside from the speakers ... just how many people actually sat through that 2003 symposium that you bring up from time to time? I hear there was about three people who showed up and it was because Fetzer offered extra credit for them sitting through that crap. As far as what Jack is aware of ... obviously Jack isn't as on top of things as you'd like to believe. You see, Jack says he only deals in facts and all you have done is say that it was possible to alter a piece of film by way of optical printing techniques. Jack, as you know, has said that he has shown the Zfilm was altered whereas you have stated that you have not seen any proof of such alterations.

Your gang was 'retired' before you started regarding the subject at hand. The best hope you [and they] had going, was RZavada's [with Ray Fielding's help] update. A update I invited (to this forum) and one he discussed with others on other occasions. Failing that, its back to more of the same nonsense... attack Jack White, the Z-film alteration position and other messengers.

David, any so-called attacks on Jack are usually accompanied by your own remarks. You participated in all that nonsense and even after seeing all Jack had to offer - you came away saying that you had not seen any proof of film alteration. In that one instant you said it all! The best you can do for Jack is say that it was possible to alter a piece of film and to this day I am unaware where you were able to show how such an alteration could have been done and be undetectable when all the sciences are applied to the study of the evidence.

The only hope you have in defending the non alteration contention is; wake Groden up, get him to review some of his *acquired* 35mm Z-film [non-rotoscoped] strips and post a few "why it's impossible" photo examples and findings here, for all to see... Short of that, you're making more noise....

Some of Groden's remarks dealing with what you just said have been posted and you dismissed them and as usual it was done without you specifically stating why Groden was in error in your mind. Until you can show that you are educated enough to address Groden's remarks, then you have to remain as little more than a mouthpiece that seems to contradict the things that Jack has called "fact".

Bill Miller

I dismiss EVERTHING you say, simply because your a BS artist, plain as that. You've no demostrable background in image composition and composing, much let alone photography. You claim title speaking for others, which no one that I know, on this forum, can verify. Sounds like a wannabe errand boy to me and others....

If Groden is cowardly enough to hide behind you, which would be a sad state of affair, he's got damn good reason for NOT showing up here and answering a few Z-film related questions. Hell HE'S the expert -- what the hell do I or any of the folks on this side of the argument need to talk to you for? Waste of bandwidth, get a clue manno!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dismiss EVERTHING you say, simply because your a BS artist, plain as that. You've no demostrable background in image composition and composing, much let alone photography. You claim title speaking for others, which no one that I know, on this forum, can verify. Sounds like a wannabe errand boy to me and others....

Let's go at it this way .... I assume that you consider yourself knowledgeable at image compositing and composing, thus this is what YOU had to say about whether the Zfilm was altered ....

'I have seen no proof of alteration.'

Now who is the BS artist, David?

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dismiss EVERTHING you say, simply because your a BS artist, plain as that. You've no demostrable background in image composition and composing, much let alone photography. You claim title speaking for others, which no one that I know, on this forum, can verify. Sounds like a wannabe errand boy to me and others....

Let's go at it this way .... I assume that you consider yourself knowledgeable at image compositing and composing, thus this is what YOU had to say about whether the Zfilm was altered ....

'I have seen no proof of alteration.'

Now who is the BS artist, David?

Bill Miller

Miller,

Your so full of doggie do-do, this side of the universe stinks.... roflmfao!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miller,

Your so full of doggie do-do, this side of the universe stinks.... roflmfao!

David ... just so we don't leave the forum members thinking that you are some sort of jerk-off who is merely trolling the forum and isn't interested in the actual evidence of the case - let's see if we cannot get you to be a bit more specific about the statement you made above .........

I said two things that you gave that say nothing - address nothing - I have no real interest in the JFK case reply to. They are as follows...

1)I assume that you consider yourself knowledgeable at image compositing and composing

2)I have seen no proof of alteration.

Both statements that I made can be supported by the things you have said, so please tell this forum which statement is 'full of doggie do-do' as you put it, David ????

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
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...