David G. Healy

LOL, I've been aware of Charlie for a long while. I do however notice, you can't tackle a few thread related simple questions, can't support your SBT/lone nutter way's...? shame on you! Charlie, your theory seems to be as made up as the SBT was. How would altering the Zfilm keep one from seeing the gunman when the camera was trained on the immediate area of the limo??? I might also add that professional experts have viewed the film and their experience and expertise state that the actions seen on the film is real and what they would expect to see, thus what expertise can you offer to refute their conclusions??? Bill Miller no comment on the questions posted above? Are they beyond you? Stretch a bit, show us some JFK research abilities, specifics please.... Davie...I don't care a bit about the SBT nor the WC report nor do I give a rat butts about who did or did not fire the shots that killed JFK. Why should I be answering your silly questions again? Mr Lamson My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response. Why are you so eager to ask ? Charlie Black Lets see now, you can post to this forum yet you cannot post a picture... In any case a picture and a bio are a requirement for posting on this forum. I suggest you read the rules and then post both your picture and your bio. I would sure hate to take this to Simkin or Walker. WHy am I eger to ask? Why not? You are breaking forum rules. uh-uh-UH notty boy....not a forum rule when we were asked to join.....the above questions got you tongue-tied? Trying to change the subject matter? Really? Lets ask Mr. Simkin shall we? dgh: we understand your penchant for avoiding questions regarding JFK's assassination, beyond your scope.... you're hereby relegated to lurker status, where you belong.....

Mr Lamson My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response. Why are you so eager to ask ? Charlie Black Lets see now, you can post to this forum yet you cannot post a picture... In any case a picture and a bio are a requirement for posting on this forum. I suggest you read the rules and then post both your picture and your bio. I would sure hate to take this to Simkin or Walker. WHy am I eger to ask? Why not? You are breaking forum rules. uh-uh-UH notty boy....not a forum rule when we were asked to join.....the above questions got you tongue-tied? Trying to change the subject matter?

Mr Lamson My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response. Why are you so eager to ask ? Charlie Black of course the Craigster knows; you, I and a few others around here were NOT required to post a image... as John Simkin has alluded in the past -- It is required of newer members though. Guess Craig forgot about that

LOL, I've been aware of Charlie for a long while. I do however notice, you can't tackle a few thread related simple questions, can't support your SBT/lone nutter way's...? shame on you! Charlie, your theory seems to be as made up as the SBT was. How would altering the Zfilm keep one from seeing the gunman when the camera was trained on the immediate area of the limo??? I might also add that professional experts have viewed the film and their experience and expertise state that the actions seen on the film is real and what they would expect to see, thus what expertise can you offer to refute their conclusions??? Bill Miller no comment on the questions posted above? Are they beyond you? Stretch a bit, show us some JFK research abilities, specifics please....

Be prepared for the tired old Lone Nutter arguments, Charlie

A JFK researcher from a USNET group has put together a group of questions ANY WCR/evidence familiar Lone Nutter SHOULD be able to answer. It's amazing, card carrying Lone Nutter's have refused to come to terms with these SIMPLE questions. note: I asked permission to repost [in its entirety] the below to other forum dealing with JFK assassination related matters, which was granted - I "x'ed" out names and screen names. DHealy *********************** <quote on> LNT'ers rarely know the evidence as well as CT'ers, since LNT'ers don't even believe that the eyewitnesses knew what they were talking about... so they often don't even bother to study the evidence in this cas. XXXXXXX has implied that he knows the evidence... let's see if he does... (Of course, XXXXXXXX, like many of these trolls, has disappeared... let's see if "XXXXXXXXXXX" can take a stab at any of this... XXX XXXXXX, who *originally* got these questions, has been running ever since.) Just for the fun of it, these questions should be easy to answer for someone who both knows the evidence, and can support the WCR, refuting us poor CT'ers: Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR? Why were the NAA results buried by the WC? Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today? Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory? Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted? What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy? How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans? Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the govenment had control of them... Why did the CIA have a program of harrassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts? Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide it? Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it. Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO? Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to government investigators? Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical testimony... why?? Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"? Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film? How is it possible to not have a "first frame flash" at Z-133, as the engineers who designed the camera assert must happen? Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film? Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo? Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo? These questions should keep an *honest* person busy for quite some time... a dishonest xxxxx, on the other hand... <quote off>

I think the key is in this sentence that Groden offered .... "The copies that I have printed did not come from Jack, and the image is even clearer than his." So it appears that Groden has said that the original image and/or first generation copies thereof from which the prints were made was even clearer than Jack's image. As far as facial detail - Zapruder, Sitzman and the guys on the steps were in sunlight which addes some glare to their faces, but Badge Man was in partial shade which preserved more detail of his head and face. And once again .... I have not seen the men on the steps and/or Zapruder and Sitzman from the print Badge Man came from and it is because I have not seen the entire print - I cannot compare Badge Man from one print to Zapruder or anyone else from a diferent lesser quality print. Bill Miller Well Bill we have White's recently posted copy made directly from the Thompson #1 print generation image) and it it very much different that the crap made from the slide. In any case it PROVES what I have been saying all along...that all we are seeing are the effects of copying artifacts. In Grodens case he has at least a third genetration copy to start his process , gen 1 original print, gen 2 copy negative, gen 3 print. Add at least two more generations ( another copy neg and then another print) and we are so far removed from the original its not funny. Heres the long and short of it Bill..."badgeman" is noting more that the grain buildup from making copy negatives. You guys can crap all over this until it turns to ice in hell...because NONE of you can prove the camera/lens/film could resolve the level of detail seen in the badgeman forgery. The bottom line is that it is simply impossible. I have to admit it sure is funny as all get out watching you guys making a badge and a shoulder patch from a piece of dust and a piece of lint...... No retouching in the Moorman old man, just you doing what you always do, claim something is retouched when the reality is that you are simply ignorant. Badgeman IS a forgery...its a BAD copy of the original. To be more precise, its a bad copy of the original that is being PASSED OFF as being what is seen in the original. Problem is that what is being shown in "badgeman" simply cannot be in the Moorman original. You simply forged "him" BTW, nice dust and lint spots making up the badge and shoulder patch...LOL! dust, lint...? want credibility get out Photoshop and show us, you know the rules, photog .... otherwise, you're just more NOISE!

From where I come from .... when someone works for their Daddy, we call it a "lifetime allowance". Bill Miller someone buy this guy another drink, now I work for my Daddy, roflmfao -- what-a-stump!

Bill Miller' [...] I spoke to Jean about what was seen on the Zapruder film and never did she say that something occurred with the limo that was not seen on the Zazpruder film. Bill Miller ************ interesting, where did this interview take place, was it recorded, who was present and when..., please?

Hey John Dolva, Did Rosenman publish his formula for lens distortion correction (barrel distortion/pincushioning) ?

PAT, I THINK IT ODD THAT THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLISHED REPORT ON THE JUDGE'S DECISION ON THE JOANNIDES CASE. I WOULD THINK THE WASHINGTON POST WOULD AT LEAST REPORT ON THE FACT AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. BK That was one of the reasons I posted the link. Tim mentioned that he didn't think many people knew about the Joannides ruling, and I realized he was right. In Morley's What Jane Roman Said article, one of the articles recommended for your compilation, he writes about the difficulties he's faced at his own paper. They just don't care all that much. In recent months, I've contacted a number of papers and news agencies, pretty much begging for the opportunity to sit down and explain to them the findings and discoveries included in my now-600 page presentation. Not one has even responded with a simple "no thank you". The mainstream media has pretty much decided that CTs are all wackos, unworthy of even the least bit of attention. Which is why Gary Mack, who is apparently still a CT, has to act like a LN on TV. To clarify, by Gary acting like a LN I mean that he has to act in a calm and rational manner. From what I can gather you are not allowed to appear on television today and express outrage over the dishonesty of the Warren Commission or the HSCA et al, unless the program plans to discredit you. This is what happened to Jim Marrs on Bullsh*t; they let him talk about his theories, failed to analyze any of them beyond citing that "experts" disagreed with him, and then threw in that Marrs believes in UFOs and was an assh*le. I'm hoping that in their next season they'll have an episode about how Bullsh*t is bullsh*t. re: Gary Mack -- now THAT would be worthy of a new Nigel Turner segment concerning events in Dealey Plaza, post assassination... earth shattering news; Gary is indeed one of the good guys. If that's the case will they be stocking Fetzer's HOAX soon? LOL btw, Jim Marrs has been ridiculed for years concerning non-mainstream topic reporting/subject matter. Nothing new there

'Len Colby' wrote: David the question was not retorical. I am not claiming that Fetzer's statements about the DP witnesses were false I don't know enough about the details of the case to know either way. A few questions (for anyone who cares to answer) Were all the "10 closest witnesses" identified before the WC herings? dgh: the DP moto-officer, riding at the inside right rear wheel limo position, down Elm St., was the closest witness (outside the limo) to JFK at the time he was shot and killed -- he was NOT called before the WC, why? Since the car was travelling at 9 - 13 MPH which comes to 13 -19 fps and the shots were fired over a 6 second period the limo would have about 100 ft furthur down the road at the time of the 3rd shot than at the time of the 1st is there a group of people that can be called the "10 closest"? dgh: based on your calculation above, corresponding with what we see in the current Zapruder film, your conclusion please? Do we have records of any of these people who were interviewed by police who made statements contradicting the LHO as lone assassin senario who were not called by the WC? Also who of the witnesses close to the limo claimed they had their testimoney changed? dgh: Jack White and others can answer that, so can Gary Mack! Sorry if I'm asking a bunch of dumb "newbie" questions, the only aspect of the assassination I have looked into closely are the allegation the Z-film etc. were faked. dgh: no dumb 'newbie' questions when it comes to the murder of a sitting US President Len

Dawn ... the topic is important because two wrongs do not make a right. Now you posted your question in another thread and this particular thread was created for those who are interested in the accuracy of David's claims, thus feel free to ignore this thread and concentrate on only those threads that interest YOU! Bill Miller The fuss lies over the accuracy of your claims, David. We are still waiting to hear how that Zfilm was altered in a matter of hours following the assassination considering all the known evidence. If the conspirators altered it, they left in the back- and- to- the- left fatal headshot that ended the president's life. Whether or not he is clutching his neck or had his hands very close to doing this: all irrelevent. "Microanalyzing", as VInce Salandria called it in Fonzi's book (The Last Investigation). The foolish discrepencies are Jack's alleged proof of alteration. Why JFK was killed does not show whether one man carried out the murder or not. How can anyone consider Healy serious when he cannot even keep it straight over who is a CTs or LNr? Continuing to misstate the facts is little more than a mixture of trolling and xxxxxxxx. Bill Miller LOL! You've never been a CT'er despite your avid protestations, so sell it to the unaware, we've been on to you for 5 years....you fool none of us. Contrary to your little charade here, I could care less what people believe, that includes YOU thats their responsibility. Now, for a disinfo agent such as your self, the game is a little different.... Edited for inappropriate language in quoted section.

'Bill Miller' One of the ten closest witnesses said this to the WC ...... dgh: I said the CLOSEST police officer... hard time understanding English? The testimony of Bobby W. Hargis was taken at 3:20 p.m., on April 8, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. [...]

why don't you the change the title of this thread to coincide with YOUR post declaration... ? For lurkers information, perhaps Mr. Colby can tell us why the police officer closest to JFK [at the time of his assassination less than 10 feet from him] was NOT called to testify in front of the WC? A Dallas POLICE officer!

'Dawn Meredith' wrote: Bill and David: Who cares? If the Zapruder film was altered or not, how does arguing about this advance this case? dgh: excellent point, Dawn. Makes one wonder why all the fuss over a these I put forth working from the starting point, IF the Zapruder is altered here's how it MAY of been done. If the conspirators altered it, they left in the back- and- to- the- left fatal headshot that ended the president's life. Whether or not he is clutching his neck or had his hands very close to doing this: all irrelevent. "Microanalyzing", as VInce Salandria called it in Fonzi's book (The Last Investigation). dgh: exactly.... ever review which threads on a consistent basis, get more than their fairshare of views on this forum? JFK related photo/film discussions, perhaps? there's a good reason for that! Nothing less than, in the hopes of diverting competent researchers from other areas to debate, foolish film/photo discrepencies, plain and simple. Oh, lest I forget; demonize Jack White and everything he's done, right or wrong. For reasons knwn to many... Why was JFK killed? Show how and why it was not LHO. That the media still covers it up. This is the fight that is important, not the side show over the Zapruder film. dgh: might address that to Miller and Company for comment.... I agree wholeheartidly. If THEY can't agree the Z-film may of been altered, why should we consider any area of investigation from the Lone Nutter's [regarding the assassination] serious? There's more than a few reasons for Lone Neuters to preserve the integrity of the current alleged in-camera Zapruder film Dawn ps I have repeatedly asked for both sides to give me 5 reasons for and against Z alteration. Guess no one's ever going to do so. I have no interest in reading the otherwise wonderful Jim Fetzer's book. I am enormously more interested in hearing what Fetzer has to say on the conspiraay in 9-11. Now that is important! dgh: being objective in presenting or presentation of certain subject matter seems to me, it is up to the reader-viewer to form his/her own conclusions regarding same. Pretty clear to many, there's more than 5 reasons FOR alteration. Take that with all other JFK assassination related information [uncovered over the past 40 years], there can be no other conclusion than: C O N S P I R A C Y, in the murder of JFK. I've not up-to-speed regarding the 9-11 debate. *************** read HOAX, dufus... get educated! Now THATS FUNNY! Educated from 'HOAX"? ROFLMAO! sitdown Craigster -- you're about as transparent as your brother Slippery Slattery, saran-wrap comes to mind!

read HOAX, dufus... get educated!

David, I got the information from the 6th floor Museum as to Zapruder showing his film to his family on the night of the assassination. Zapruder's daughter has said rthat her father took his film on the night of the assassination and projected it for the family. She said that the mother didn't wish to see it, but her and her father did run the film through their projector. What format ??? Zapruder had a projector to play his 8MM film on as they did watch their home movies taken with Zapruder's camera. Some of this information may also be found in Trask's books. The information wbout Zapruder showing his film to his family is not new, unless you have never bothered to research such information, then it would be new to YOU. So is it yor position that Zapruder DID NOT have his camera original film in his safe the morning following the assassination and if so, then what proof can you provide for making such an accusation ??? Not so fast, David. Where in your article did you distinguish the difference in time allotment for both actual film compositing Vs. TV film ??? 100's of film frames from the camera original would had to of been worked on. This process as Groden pointed out is very time consuming Vs. just merely working on an already completed TV movie. Artificial light changes - color changes - loss of sharpness from using filters to recreate real sunlight - among other things would leave behind signs of what has occurred. I am asking that YOU address these concerns with what was available in 1963. Please try and give precise and responsible answers if at all possible. I will have some more questions for you if you can offer a sensible and reasonable response to this important detail. David, this is your moment to show how well you have researched what you are talking about ... I await your brilliant answers. Bill Miller moment? to impress who, you? for what... roflmao -- read my lips, Bill Miller... you, YOU are not on my radar scope... Groden is. So read HOAX, if you don't like the presentation write, then publish your own. Remember champ, I can't prove the Zapruder film is altered, can you prove otherwise? So in closing, find some Lone Nutter chump hereabouts that wants to play with you, there's other people here that DO actual JFK assassination related "r e s e a r c h", those are the folks I have interest in, not you.

ole Len has a short memory... I'll bet he KNOWS there a Brazilian consulate in LA John and David you guys don't see to understand the meaning of the word 'if' and the phrase 'look like'., try a good dictionary like www.m-w.com .I believe there is a Brazilian consulate in LA because an American friend of mine from there told me there was one and it only seems natural to assume there would be one in America's 2nd largest city. me? Not knowing what the word IF means..... you OBVIOUSLY haven't read HOAX --- roflmfao!

Bill Miller' dronned on: David, I took the liberty to move your reply from a forum behavior thread to this portion of the forum so everyone would be sure to see your responses. dgh: are you doing mederating chores around here these day's There are several concerns about the things you said above that deserve a more precise answer from you. For instance, Zapruder had remained with his film all the way through to the processing that took place later that afternoon and he had actually shown his film to his family on the night of the assassination. dgh:you can start with providing all of us here, a affidavit stating Zapruder showed the film to his family that SAME night, Nov 22nd. Please include what film format the family members viewed regarding same film? You know, I've never heard Zapruder showed family members the film the evening of Nov 22nd, something new around here everyday, eh? It wasn't until the next day before Zapruder met with Life Magazine to even consider what they may have to offer him. dgh: I don't care what deal Zapruder struck with LIFE for the film, whatever he got, he lied about it, PERIOD! So with that being said, please tell this forum how Zapruder's camera original film was "altered within hours of the assassination" when it had never left his sight ??? dgh: I'll save some space; read HOAX I will have some more questions for you if you can offer a sensible and reasonable response to this important detail. dgh: post to your hearts delight, I'm sure you'll find some fodder to talk about at this years Lancer conference... perhaps Groden can give you a few pointers, better yet RGroden here, then you'll have my attention, till then, back in the peanut gallery Bill Miller Composing - the setting up of a camera or film image for photographing. Compositing and editing - the altering of an image from its original state. dgh: go here < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linwood_G._Dunn > get a education about film composing/compositing and editing, then we'll talk. No more .gif animation nonesense, then we'll get to questions....

ole Len has a short memory... I'll bet he KNOWS there a Brazilian consulate in LA

Len Colby' dronned: [...] I was going to let that go as an offhand comment but since Mr. Healy asked for proof I will oblige him. There is an old adage among lawyers, ‘never ask a witness a question if you don’t know the answer’. [...] *************** offhand, OFFHAND comment? LMAO... There's also a age old adage regarding researchers and JFK assassination related evidence: never believe self-professed CT type lawyers when it comes to discussing same... You have a copy of the WCR and volumes down there Brazil way, Counselor?

Len Colby' wrote: [...] Fetzer is an at times dishonest sloppy researcher, I don’t find it surprising he would been impressed by this “movie”. [...] dishonest??? Post "proof" of the above assertion -- or retract it

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!

Jack White wrote: Slattery will not laugh at this, but will go on a rant. Maybe others will get a chuckle: How many members of the Bush administration does it take to change a light bulb? Ten. 1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed; [...] **************** LMAO -- good one, Jack