Posts: 1,597
Threads: 81
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2012
Albert Doyle Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:David Healy IS a skilled expert Albert... you're backing the wrong horse here buddy.
Let's get real, okay?
David,
Healy is the guy who was over on the Education Forum apologizing to the infamous blowhard and liar Greg Parker and endorsing Parker's bullshit. Healy wrote that he apologized and retracted everything he said and acknowledged Parker's material.
You were saying?
How long have YOU know David?
Have you ever discussed the photo/video aspects of the case with him?
WTF do you know about photo/video mechanics that you can challendge Healy anyway... Been taking "Lamson" classes? ::face.palm::
I happen to know the reasons behind that apology which will remain between me and David.... suffice to say - you really don't know what you're talking about and it would probably be a good idea not to stick your neck out so far into matters in which you remain clueless.
As anyone who has spent 5 minutes at that cesspool of a forum the infamous "blowhard" runs knows - there are 4 or 5 who circle jerk to every one of his threads/posts (which in most threads are 95% of the posts)
and the rest of the time he is over at the EF spreading the love.
One has to wonder why this group is so concerned with refuting Armstrong's H&L proof so vehemently and so poorly at every turn.
Oh that's right - he's trying to sell a book series which falls apart completely if he can't completely refute H&L's evidence.
------------------------
But this thread is about Prayerman and what amounts to the acceptance of very speculative work on an image which is 3/5th of a millimeter in area off the original frame.
Unless a better version of that frame from Weigman can be found we are left with a very poor, very very small image from which claiming to identify buttons is complete fantasy.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 81
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2012
Quote:Thanks David, that illustrates exactly the point I tried to make earlier, all it lacks is a white outline. Albert has taken to ignoring me, which is I suppose, a blessing.
My pleasure Michael...
It's amazing how those who have never even used Photoshop can explain to others how photo enhancement works, or not.
Or claim that someone who has spent his entire life in the business is somehow rendered incorrect simply due to someone else's lack of understanding related to an apology.
Sounds like you've been around the block a few times related to Photography as well... that once an image is altered and rephotographed - the alterations become very difficult to pick up.
But we know a few tricks to overcome that as well... 
Any ideas how Lovelady gets from one side to the other at the top of the staircase? The angles I posted are virutally the same yet in one image he is WEST and the other EAST....
I understand if he wanted to see the limo after it passed he would need to move east a bit...
Do you think that's Lovelady in both Hughes and Altgens? (letter "F")
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
David Josephs Wrote:I happen to know the reasons behind that apology which will remain between me and David.... suffice to say - you really don't know what you're talking about and it would probably be a good idea not to stick your neck out so far into matters in which you remain clueless.
You'll forgive me if I'm having trouble with the total endorsement of the assassination disinformationist Greg Parker without explanation.
Posts: 290
Threads: 10
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
David Josephs Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:David Healy IS a skilled expert Albert... you're backing the wrong horse here buddy.
Let's get real, okay?
David,
Healy is the guy who was over on the Education Forum apologizing to the infamous blowhard and liar Greg Parker and endorsing Parker's bullshit. Healy wrote that he apologized and retracted everything he said and acknowledged Parker's material.
You were saying?
How long have YOU know David?
Have you ever discussed the photo/video aspects of the case with him?
WTF do you know about photo/video mechanics that you can challendge Healy anyway... Been taking "Lamson" classes? ::face.palm::
I happen to know the reasons behind that apology which will remain between me and David.... suffice to say - you really don't know what you're talking about and it would probably be a good idea not to stick your neck out so far into matters in which you remain clueless.
As anyone who has spent 5 minutes at that cesspool of a forum the infamous "blowhard" runs knows - there are 4 or 5 who circle jerk to every one of his threads/posts (which in most threads are 95% of the posts)
and the rest of the time he is over at the EF spreading the love.
One has to wonder why this group is so concerned with refuting Armstrong's H&L proof so vehemently and so poorly at every turn.
Oh that's right - he's trying to sell a book series which falls apart completely if he can't completely refute H&L's evidence.
------------------------
But this thread is about Prayerman and what amounts to the acceptance of very speculative work on an image which is 3/5th of a millimeter in area off the original frame.
Unless a better version of that frame from Weigman can be found we are left with a very poor, very very small image from which claiming to identify buttons is complete fantasy.
David and Michael Cross...
Thank you, for jumping in here. I've done much better in the past ignoring those that consider their ideas regarding film/photo alteration foolish. But these latest PM/PW threads border on lunacy, which you David have clearly demonstrated how far some will go regarding TSBD-doorway imagery. As with you guys and a few more posters in this thread, I do not suffer fools easily. Especially those hiding behind aliases as is Albert [sic].
Lone nuts have seen their support for the 1964 WCR erode, erode to alarming levels. The work you guys have demonstrated these days, and especially the work of Jim DiEugenio and his associates have inspired those now entering the JFK fray to dig deeper, much deeper in the cause for truth. The one thing that has not changed for the past 20 years: the equipment, technology, expertise, artisans and know-how and the TIME needed was indeed available in late 1963 thru 4/1964 to alter simply or reconstruct entire film frames of the 1964 in-camera original Zapruder film.
Having that knowledge, what makes it such a leap of faith to alter any JFK assassination related film/photo? That also includes the infamous BYP's?
David Healy
p.s. and yes, David Josephs and I communicated regarding my apology to Parker (and his forum) for an assumption and question I made/posted. Parker and one of his moderators accepted that apology, that same moderator apologized for to me for making an undue assuption on his part which I recognized.
What David and I discussed will remain between myself and David Josephs. Thanks!
Posts: 150
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
David Healy Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:David Healy IS a skilled expert Albert... you're backing the wrong horse here buddy.
Let's get real, okay?
David,
Healy is the guy who was over on the Education Forum apologizing to the infamous blowhard and liar Greg Parker and endorsing Parker's bullshit. Healy wrote that he apologized and retracted everything he said and acknowledged Parker's material.
You were saying?
How long have YOU know David?
Have you ever discussed the photo/video aspects of the case with him?
WTF do you know about photo/video mechanics that you can challendge Healy anyway... Been taking "Lamson" classes? ::face.palm::
I happen to know the reasons behind that apology which will remain between me and David.... suffice to say - you really don't know what you're talking about and it would probably be a good idea not to stick your neck out so far into matters in which you remain clueless.
As anyone who has spent 5 minutes at that cesspool of a forum the infamous "blowhard" runs knows - there are 4 or 5 who circle jerk to every one of his threads/posts (which in most threads are 95% of the posts)
and the rest of the time he is over at the EF spreading the love.
One has to wonder why this group is so concerned with refuting Armstrong's H&L proof so vehemently and so poorly at every turn.
Oh that's right - he's trying to sell a book series which falls apart completely if he can't completely refute H&L's evidence.
------------------------
But this thread is about Prayerman and what amounts to the acceptance of very speculative work on an image which is 3/5th of a millimeter in area off the original frame.
Unless a better version of that frame from Weigman can be found we are left with a very poor, very very small image from which claiming to identify buttons is complete fantasy.
David and Michael Cross...
Thank you, for jumping in here. I've done much better in the past ignoring those that consider their ideas regarding film/photo alteration foolish. But these latest PM/PW threads border on lunacy, which you David have clearly demonstrated how far some will go regarding TSBD-doorway imagery. As with you guys and a few more posters in this thread, I do not suffer fools easily. Especially those hiding behind aliases as is Albert [sic].
Lone nuts have seen their support for the 1964 WCR erode, erode to alarming levels. The work you guys have demonstrated these days, and especially the work of Jim DiEugenio and his associates have inspired those now entering the JFK fray to dig deeper, much deeper in the cause for truth. The one thing that has not changed for the past 20 years: the equipment, technology, expertise, artisans and know-how and the TIME needed was indeed available in late 1963 thru 4/1964 to alter simply or reconstruct entire film frames of the 1964 in-camera original Zapruder film.
Having that knowledge, what makes it such a leap of faith to alter any JFK assassination related film/photo? That also includes the infamous BYP's?
David Healy
p.s. and yes, David Josephs and I communicated regarding my apology to Parker (and his forum) for an assumption and question I made/posted. Parker and one of his moderators accepted that apology, that same moderator apologized for to me for making an undue assuption on his part which I recognized.
What David and I discussed will remain between myself and David Josephs. Thanks!
Thank YOU David for all the incredible contributions you've made to the research community.
Posts: 150
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
David Josephs Wrote:Quote:Thanks David, that illustrates exactly the point I tried to make earlier, all it lacks is a white outline. Albert has taken to ignoring me, which is I suppose, a blessing.
My pleasure Michael...
It's amazing how those who have never even used Photoshop can explain to others how photo enhancement works, or not.
Or claim that someone who has spent his entire life in the business is somehow rendered incorrect simply due to someone else's lack of understanding related to an apology.
Sounds like you've been around the block a few times related to Photography as well... that once an image is altered and rephotographed - the alterations become very difficult to pick up.
But we know a few tricks to overcome that as well... Exactly. My darkroom (lightroom now) computer doesn't have internet access and I've been too lazy to do the work you did. Thanks for doing it for me.
David Josephs Wrote:Any ideas how Lovelady gets from one side to the other at the top of the staircase? The angles I posted are virutally the same yet in one image he is WEST and the other EAST....
I understand if he wanted to see the limo after it passed he would need to move east a bit...
Do you think that's Lovelady in both Hughes and Altgens? (letter "F")
DJ
I do think it's Lovelady, and I initially thought it was a perspective issue. A minor shift in position combined with the different perspectives of the photographs, but I'm far from certain. We need to go to Dealey and recreate the photos to know for certain.
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
It's a shame we couldn't do the analysis on this board that shows Prayer Man is a woman. If we could import the Darnell animation from Page 1 of Duncan's 'Prayer Man Is A Woman' thread it would do more good than friends congratulating each other.
Quote:David Healy
p.s. and yes, David Josephs and I communicated regarding my apology to Parker (and his forum) for an assumption and question I made/posted. Parker and one of his moderators accepted that apology, that same moderator apologized for to me for making an undue assuption on his part which I recognized.
But where was your disclaimer that you weren't giving blanket acceptance to Greg's vicious lies about Armstrong? Your post seemed to convey that you were.
Why in God's name would you be worried about what the flagrant denier Greg Parker thinks? Should we be apologizing to Von Pein now? Cinque too? Doesn't that risk legitimizing Greg Parker and giving him undue credibility?
Posts: 290
Threads: 10
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Albert Doyle Wrote:It's a shame we couldn't do the analysis on this board that shows Prayer Man is a woman. If we could import the Darnell animation from Page 1 of Duncan's 'Prayer Man Is A Woman' thread it would do more good than friends congratulating each other.
Quote:David Healy
p.s. and yes, David Josephs and I communicated regarding my apology to Parker (and his forum) for an assumption and question I made/posted. Parker and one of his moderators accepted that apology, that same moderator apologized for to me for making an undue assuption on his part which I recognized.
But where was your disclaimer that you weren't giving blanket acceptance to Greg's vicious lies about Armstrong? Your post seemed to convey that you were.
Why in God's name would you be worried about what the flagrant denier Greg Parker thinks? Should we be apologizing to Von Pein now? Cinque too? Doesn't that risk legitimizing Greg Parker and giving him undue credibility?
you may sitdown Albert [sic], you are dismissed.
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
You know Albert, its really unbecoming of you to talk about Healey and whatever happened at ROKC.
For the simple matter that you don't go to these other forums.
I mean can you imagine what would happen to you if you went over to ROKC?
I don't even want to think about it. Wisely, you do not.
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Carolyn Arnold saw 'Oswald' (most likely Harvey) in the 2nd floor lunch-room. The ROKC deniers are saying claims that the 2nd floor lunch-room was not used by workers trumps Carolyn Arnold's own lying eyes.
Oswald wasn't a 'worker' per say. He was a CIA operative working in a building overseen by Byrd and Truly. Two persons closely connected to the right-wing cabal that assassinated Kennedy.
|
