David G. Healy

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. 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. 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!

David, you must be really stupid to repeat the same half-assed argument over and over again. Once again, no one said the film could not be altered at any level if given a reasonable window of time ..... what you keep leaving out of the equation is that it could not be done so not to be detected by todays standards of investigating the possibility. No one has showed any evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered ... I believe that you and I have agreed on that to date. Bill Miller Unlike you, I make a living image composing, compositing and editing! Individual Z-frames frames altered within hours of the assassination, 1st alteration pass on the film 60 days -- plenty of time! STUPID? In your fondest dream... lmao!

Bill Miller'wrote: 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....

Dave, I'd post your enquery to the alt.war.vietnam (Google) board, many, MANY Vietnam era vets hang out there. To the best of my knowledge there were many downed B-52's during the Vietnam conflict, particularly when flying raids over North Vietnam, Hanoi specifically . David Healy USArmy MAAG-Vietnam 1963-64

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....

Admittedly, I've been busy doing things you can only dream of: making a living; making love; not falling asleep in a recliner; being regular; etc. Just think how much more peaceful it'll be when God yanks your cord. Earth to John: This is at least the third time this wacco has called for someone's DEATH. Free sppech is one thing but hate seech should not be tolerated on a forum dedicated to education. BS has zero to offer the research community. His continued presence here probally drives away a lot of interested newcomers. I would bet if we took a poll to ban him he'd get one vote to remain: his own Dawn Dawn – I agree with you that BS is obnoxious but as Bill pointed out in this case Jack provoked this. I remember when Jack accused BS, Craig, Bill and me of being accessories to the murder of JFK and you were silent, but when we replied with indignation you asked why we were ganging up him. When Evan got pissed off because Jack accused him of hacking the forum you told him it was a joke and that he should grow up. BS's comment however in bad taste could be considered a joke too. I sense a double standard, when Jack is obnoxious you're silent but when his 'victims' reply you jump to his defense and criticize them. I once said Jack was the worst provocateur on the forum, I was wrong that 'honor' probably belongs to BS but Jack probably comes in 2nd or 3rd.Len Perhaps we've been at this a while longer than you... Double Standard is the Lone Nutter bane -- you can deal with it, you're a big guy!

'John Dolva' wrote: As far as I understand, it is possible to rewind some of these movie cameras and double expose. dgh: Wiegman's camera is a 16mm Filmo 70 made by Bell & Howell (I have 3 of these cameras), its been said he used a fixed 10mm lens that day, the camera records NO sound. In order to "re-wind" exposed film, a handcrank needs to be utilized. I'm not so sure Weigman had one of those on his person, nor did he have the time, his habit was to have at least 5 unexposed reels (16mm on his person) film ready-to-go... The second frame there doesn't seem to have the same 'double'. The problem I have with through a vehicle window reflection (It's a good idea though) is the field of view (width,height). Hopefully an expert on these things could offer some insight to help?

Question for Jack, Lee, Robin, James and DGH Is the appearance of 132 and 133 consistent with Zapruder actually stopping and re-starting the camera? I have read that if he had really paused and re started the camera their would have been a fouled frame or two........ opinions? has anyone tested this angle? Hello Shanet, Roland Zavada was well aware of and pretty clear on this issue, for whatever reason at onset of filming with the B&H414, "light leakage" is apparent in the first-second frame. I believe he cooresponded with (then commented on in his report) a few engineering members from Bell & Howell that worked on the design of this particular camera. Evidently they could NOT correct the problem. I beleive Harry Livingstone's near recent book on the Zapruder Film went into considerable detail concering the subject and Zapruder frames 132-133. DHealy

I think I will keep this post and response for future references. Jack cries and moans when his claims are responded to in a negative way, not to mention the select few who think he should just be ignored rather than to explain away Jack's ridiculous claims, and then when just what has been asked for is being given - Jack provokes those who he calls provacteurs. So my question is this .... Why is it if Jack enjoys the peace and quiet so much, then why start such an asinine thread designed to do what he constantly complains about ??? If Jack is so worried about people believing me or Lamson, then I suggest he gets his tail down to the plaza for more people come through there each day than who visits this forum and this is what Groden says about Jack's claims ... Robert Groden: I have been a close friend of Jack's for thirty years ...................... In the matter of the Zapruder films authenticity and many of the other issues such as foreshortening, and other technical issues, you have been 100% right and Jack has been 100% wrong ........ The record must remain straight ......... This Zapruder film alteration foolishness has done so much harm, that it can not be measured. It is now spilling over into other areas of the photographic evidence in the Kennedy case. I am extremely frustrated by it all ............ Jack knows how disappointed I am about the damage that has been done by the irresponsible crap that has misled so many people in this case. have the whinner himself drop by and post this drivel HIMSELF. Why is he hiding behind YOU?

bet there's something cooking for Debra's November shindig in Dallas Please explain. Are you insinuating that Debra's "shindig" is run by provocateurs? Or that provocateurs plan on infiltrating it? If the latter, to whom do you refer? Is everyone who disagrees with Jack's alteration claims a "provocateur"? I'm trying to understand. you nervous or participating in Debra's shindig... and WHO said her shindig is/was run by provocateurs? You need to lighten up there, Pat. What are you trying to understand?

bet there's something cooking for Debra's November shindig in Dallas

wonder how KRahn likes Cellura as a website neighbor? Good Article!

Robert...I was quite surprised on going to the website you recommend that it turned out to be a leading ANTI-CONSPIRACY site. Indeed, it looks like all the recommended articles were written by the CIA. Jack bet ABC's overnight ratings went through the roof .... poor suckers need something to stay competitive.... hope Sen. George Mitchell (ret-D) of Disney sent a thank you to B.Clinton... ********************************** 'Brendan Slattery' dronned: [...] You wouldn't even know about my politics were it not for the incessant, left-wing, McGovernite, birkenstock radicalism coarsing through the bloodstream of this forum. [...] *********** you're "late 60's references" are sounding very familiar, BS['er]... your not going to break out in a *commie rant* anytime soon are you?

is it NOT? LMAO! Stay on point champ -- drones and the JFK assassination photo record?

WTF? What planet are you living on? Clinton and his cronies are nakedly intimidating an independent media outlet into censoring itself and it's conservatives' fault? How? You do realize that liberals are in charge of this miniseries, right? You do realize that Disney and ABC have been reliably pro-Democrat in the past, right? Would you be as magnanimous if Bush and Rove were pulling the same stunt? Hell no. BTW, the miniseries is equally tough on Clinton and Bush, but only the Clinton crowd is going apexxxx crazy. Nor do I see the Bush White House threatening to yank ABC's license, like Harry Reid did the other day on the Senate floor. Why is Bubba so worried? Because the terrorist menace grew and became increasingly obvious during his administration. Let us note a few highlights: * January 25, 1993: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Virginia, killing two CIA employees. * February 26, 1993: Islamic terrorists try to bring down the World Trade Center with car bombs. They failed to destroy the buildings, but killed 6 and injured over 1000 people. * March 12, 1993: Car bombings in Mumbai, India leave 257 dead and 1,400 others injured. * July 18, 1994: Bombing of Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, kills 86 and wounds 300. The bombing is generally attributed to Hezbollah acting on behalf of Iran. * July 19, 1994: Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901 is bombed, killing 21. Generally attributed to Hezbollah. * July 26, 1994: The Israeli Embassy is attacked in London, and a Jewish charity is also car-bombed, wounding 20. The attacks are attributed to Hezbollah. * December 11, 1994: A bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. It develops that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for the larger terrorist attack he is planning. * December 24, 1994: In a preview of September 11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who planned to crash the plane in Paris. * January 6, 1995: Operation Bojinka, an Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocean, is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after a fire occurred in the apartment. Noted terrorists including Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed are involved in the plot. * June 14—June 19, 1995: The Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis, in which 105 civilians and 25 Russian troops were killed following an attack by Chechan Islamists. * July—October, 1995: Bombings in France by Islamic terrorists led by Khaled Kelkal kill eight and injure more than 100. * November 13, 1995: Bombing of OPM-SANG building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills 7 * November 19, 1995: Bombing of Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan kills 19. * January 1996: In Kizlyar, 350 Chechen Islamists took 3,000 hostages in a hospital. The attempt to free them killed 65 civilians and soldiers. * February 25 - March 4, 1996: A series of four suicide bombings in Israel leave 60 dead and 284 wounded within 10 days. * June 11, 1996: A bomb explodes on a train traveling on the Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya Line of the Moscow Metro, killing four and unjuring at least 12. * June 25, 1996: The Khobar Towers bombing, carried out by Hezbollah with Iranian support. Nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed and 372 wounded. * February 24, 1997: An armed man opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from several countries. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine". * November 17, 1997: Massacre in Luxor, Egypt, in which Islamist gunmen attack tourists, killing 62 people. * January 1998: Wandhama Massacre - 24 Kashmiri Pandits are massacred by Pakistan-backed Islamists in the city of Wandhama in Indian-controlled Kashmir. * February 14, 1998: Bombings by Islamic Jihadi groups at an election rally in the Indian city of Coimbatore kill about 60 people. * August 7, 1998: Al Qaeda bombs U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000. * August 31 – September 22, 1998: Russian apartment bombings kill about 300 people, leading Russia into Second Chechen War. * December 1998: Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb American and Israeli tourists in Jordan, and arrest 28 suspects as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots. * December 14, 1998: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots. * December 24, 1998: Indian Airlines Flight 814 from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi, India is hijacked by Islamic terrorists. One passenger is killed and some hostages are released. After negotiations between the Taliban and the Indian government, the last of the remaining hostages on board Flight 814 are released in exchange for release of 4 terrorists. * January 2000: The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks. * August 8, 2000: A bomb exploded at an underpass in Pushkin Square in Moscow, killing 11 people and wounding more than 90. * August 17, 2000: Two bombs exploded in a shopping center in Riga, Latvia, injuring 35 people. * October 12, 2000: AL Qaeda bombs USS Cole with explosive-laden speedboat, killing 17 US sailors and wounding 40, off the port coast of Aden, Yemen. Be afraid, Bill. BS you need about ten minutes with Al Franken, fix you right up. For a Washington media insider to be THIS (above) dumb, well, what can you say other than, a perfect display of latter-day GOP attitude and disinfo:when all else fails, blame Clinton --

Nothing... Let the Iranian jerk, try to impress the rest of the world from say, old Jerusalem? THAT, I'd buy a ticket for .... What sounds good to me is get both of them together in scrub country, west TEXAS. Who doesn't make it to the Rio Grande - gets 150 virgins... the NEXT American president can debate the jerks successor in Mecca, Medina or the Crystal Cathedral in Southern California, (Hillary's option)...

Hi Chuck, I disagree with your conclusion that there is not a rifle. In Z175 my interpretation is that I can see the shoulder bit of a rifle catch a bit of sunlight. In the frame, from the middle of the shadow, diagonally to left below. As well as there is a individual standing next to the shadow in the bushes. His head is not visible because of the leafs in front. Apart from the obvious questions asked as before, there may be additional stuff pointing that direction. For this I captured a frame showing the shirt of JFK. And ask you to check autopsy's for your own findings. My interpretation, as shown, that the lumps on Kennedy's shoulder are bullets. See image below. As bullets, I used WC-CE399 twice. You can blame me for that. But fits nice, I think. I consider the chance of two bullets fired, to end up neatly next to one another, expremely slim ("Slim is my middle name."). Yet that is what I believe to see. If I look at the foto regarding Kennedy's back, measuring the entrance hole, I can see two bullet-paths from the spine leading to that top shoulder, and even cross one another. ( I only describe, I was born in 1970 ) I think the direction clearly shows leading back to that corner. A couple of things I can clearly observe from the shirt image. The blood is dark red and lots on the shoulder. Meaning Kennedy was not fatally struck when the injury occured. Dead men do not bleed. Blood gathering in the wound, before heart stops beating. As Kennedy falls into Jackie's lap, and she lays her hand on his right shoulder, the wound must have burst on the shoulder-side. This soakes the shoulder path of the shirt horizontally (to the neck). Otherwise (Kennedy is still sitting up) , more of the blood would stream down. That part of the shirt is easier to colour since it consists of one layer of fabric. The shoulder has more layers. If the wounds happened after Z313 it would not bleed that much, in addition to the impossible angle of course. I can rule out blood from the head, because of the jacket covering, and the colour. Kennedy fell to the left after 313. He did not take his jacket off his shoulder from what I could see, before Z313. With regard to the bullet I used in the picture. I think it is not a coincidence they fit so nicely. Along the trajectory they do not meet dense objects, yet fired. A watertank-shot would result in less damage, anything else would result in more (cotton, sand etc.). Because of the short distance (cannot miss ..... ) I consider the use of bullets with less powder would be very much desired for that corner. Since they do not leave an exit hole, nice small entrance wound (for normal autopsy's) easier to remove (for X-ray), and the drop of the bullet is not much over 5-10 meter. In addition to that, the sound would be quite differend to a fully load bullet. I think they tried to shoot simultaneous (not Miss) on que. Everybody in the crowd pointing somewhere else. Security confused. Ferrie's plan initially. I am going far for this one. I think WC CE-399 and HSCA CE-399 had a collision inside Kennedy, where the upcoming bullet pushed (torqued) the led to one side, and chipping off a bit of the copper casing on the other side, what ended up in the tip of HSCA CE-399. Like I said far...... There are some huge problems with other theories on CE-399. The amound of deforming (or lack of). A bullet is always weigh-centred both horizontal and vertical for a stable trajectory. A bullet with that much more led to one side would wobble in flight. Not very useful. The loss of copper at the base, according to someone in the military, is usually only seen when hitting something like hard wood. But then the tip does not match, would be curled back. Turning it into a very magic bullet. Apart from the difference in shape and size between the WC's, and HSCA's CE-399. It is easy enough to remove these bullets like a splinter before x-rays. That the Parkland docters payed no attention to his right shoulder is very clear, because of no life threatning wound (comp. to the head). In a sence it is equally important, to figure out why they do not show on x-rays. If it is medical ( like a pace-maker would show up for example), why remove? If it is what I say, and the shirt confirms that to me, removal would be very important, to limit the amound of guns that day. Less to investigate. Less to ignore. But from forensic-point of view, a crucial thing. That the bullet was not fatal, doesn't make it less of a criminal act. To shoot the president. People are locked away for joking in that direction. And to me a clear proof of more bullets, rifles. Eventhough I think I refind both CE-399's, but not on Connelly. Turning the magic-bullet-theory into a multiplying magic-bullet-theorie. Fertile bullets Odd. Maarten informative post, thank you, Maarten.

'Ashton Gray' wrote: [...] Re: The Myers Sixth Floor Show and Tell I remain stupefied beyond speech that a man would invest the months of work required to create a 3D model of such infinite probative and investigative and exploratory potential, then limit the use of it to the narrow confines of "proving" a fixed and preconceived notion of one man, one gun, one place. I personally consider it the grandest abuse of art in the length and breadth of history. I have no idea what he was paid, but I hope it was worth it. dgh: I'm sure ABC (or the leading project production company) paid at least union scale for his work, and of course, a *national* Emmy award IS worth it. DHealy [...] Ashton

welcome to the compositing world.... realtime or not. You're not going to make these guys day, Jack! Think they can handle a world where you can't trust ANY image you see in the media?

great job, Marcel.....

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't feel like spending the time to go over the old threads, didn't jack claim that no one was on the pedastal? I do believe in the vast photo archives one can find the Zapruder DP pedestal EMPTY at certain times on Nov 22nd right up to present day. So yeah, Jack's claim is RIGHT! Great starting point. Problem is, no one can ID those caught in pedestal film/photos on Nov 22nd? You saying YOU can? Your mind is like a steel trap there Len, great catch.....

AMEN, Frank.... ALL points David Healy

Same as Myers uses -- Lightwave! Or there's 3D Studio, not an easy upside learning curve, same for Maya... you can google them

'Bill Miller' dronned on: I do not see how you would know who has what experience when you seem to have all your time wrapped up in trolling. The individual you are attempting to praise for having this great knowledge of the photographical record is the same guy who calls one photo or film altered only to call another image "genuine" which shows not only the same moment in time, but also the same exact things as the alleged altered images. That would also be the same person who cannot understand why a train car can be seen in one photo and not in the other despite the two photographers angles to the colonnade being different. It would also be the same person who says that Moorman's photo has been altered by having Zapruder and Sitzman added to the pedestal while not knowing that same camera original showing Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal was filmed for TV not 30 minutes after the assassination while never being out of Moorman's possession. So what I am saying is that there apparently seems to be a few people who have as much knowledge of the photographical record (if not more) than Jack has. But on the other hand ... some people can pretend otherwise if it supports their objective --------- Baghdad Bob Healy Bill Miller ******************* I've yet to see another photo researcher ID'd here. Of course researchers make mistakes.... take Bob Groden "photo expert" during the OJ trial -- the Bruno Maglli shoes comes to mind.... Amazing, you can physically ID Zapruder/Sitzman on that pedestal? Not one person, that I know of, based on viewing EVERY known film/photo taken in the plaza that afternoon can physically ID whose standing on that pedestal. How do YOU do that?

Bill, I just want one thing to be clear. Nowhere in this thread did I say anything negative about the quality or value of your research. One the contrary, in my initial comment, I said you were a capable photo researcher. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to respond to me with testimonials. tell us PLEASE, what a "photo researcher" happens to be? The ONLY one I know of is Jack White. Not one person on this forum has the experience nor the knowledge of DP and JFK related film/photos... Perhaps your definition of 'photo reseacher' will enlighten many some here ********************** 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] It's OK, Mike ... I never thought otherwise. I only wished to show that there is another part of this forum membership who does not want me to back down on this assassination and post assassination Dealey Plaza alteration foolishiness. Bill Miller I spell 'another part of the forum' as; GARY MACK, that the way you spell it? Fight??? In 5 years, you've done nothing but rubber stamp the WCR evidence, that's FIGHT.....? LMAO!