David G. Healy

Rumor has it, Ken Rahn has taken to writing a book. After all, he did decline to defend his NAA theory during Gary Ag's get-to-gether... Damage control by the ton is flooding the 2 USNET, JFK boards. Ken Rahn is quiet as a mouse...

Jack -- If its Lowry -- see below. Martin S. and Gary Ag.... outted him. He popped onto the alt.conspiracy.jfk board right after summer vacaton started, prostelyzing for Mel Ayton... I guess Lowry (aka: JLeyden) didn't know Gary Ag has debated Ayton, and kicked his ass... On the main USNET JFK board, Lone Nutters have taken a serious beating of late, McAdams dusts a few, old time Nutters off, roll 'em out for another round... Not working this time... As old Harold said: all you need is the WCR evidence/testimony

'Brendan Slattery' wrote: Get your weenie Lone Neuter names correct, its NOT Lower-y it's JLeyden (more fondly called: Jelly).... Geez, nothing like being behind the times -- Jelly's been exposed for a few weeks now. Actually he's been talking mostly to himself on the alt.conspiracy.jfk board for few weeks, he puts up about 200 posts/responses a day. Typical Mel Ayton/Kenny Rahn acolyte... You know what we mean, just another McAdams ass kisser with a horrible self-image -- He'll be gone in a few weeks, school starts up and the football team will need his services once again. All orginzations need a waterboy -- what are you up to this fall?

very nice work, Ashton Look forward to updates

Bump for davie....are you a man of your word? Ever going to deal with this or are you gutless? Ah... what word might that be? Don't see where there's any Lone Neuter's I'm looking to impress with my truth? Certainly not slumming for new clients. Who do I have to impress with ANY word, hell this is the internet... If you can't convince me, the guy that can't prove the Z-film is altered, you got dog-pokey, champ.... nothing but white noise so deal with it.... Now, where's a functioning NASA link! NASA's inventory control number would be nice, special, SPECIAL NASA Apollo photo... if you cropped the image an overlay of the crop OVER the original -- we'll go from there, You don't have the time, be a man; have Miller do it!

Let the forum archive with your responses be all the evidence that I need .... everything said about you is a matter of forum record. "Let justice be done though the Heavens fall" Bill Miller shilling for Sherry, is not the way to go, champ. You think she's not old enough to answer herself?

**F L U S H** this is way beyond you, Bill! I'm speaking to someone that SHOULD know what admissable evidence is so, sit down please.....

'Sherry Gutierrez' wrote:

Dave I won't even bother responding to you attempt at grade school humor I've been too old for that for well over 30 years now, how old are you? Around 60 isn't it? Seeeeesh! Just when are we to expect your "formal claim"? Been 8 months now. remember the one you promised us all was going to be ready soon. Zavada privately promised his report 6 months ago (not 8) and said it was "going to take some time". Still here, still waiting champ -- now about your responsibility, how's Rollie doing on his report, or are you gonna hide behind my grade school humor?

David, you are not attempting to tell us that Sherry should be faulted for offering an opinion by using the exact same film that Costella used to make his claims - ARE YOU??? dgh: of course, you think a first generation copy of the film was made privy to us? You lone nutters are terrified of that kind of occurence. Sherry has inside moves she can make, perhaps SHE can comment, or are you HER spokesperson (you do wear many hats) too? PS Can anyone tell me the names of some of these scientist that Costella wrote about below??? “More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film." email and ask Costella -- better yet, YOUfind a scientist or "blood spatter" analyst that'll confirm or deny it, for the record of course... hell, find a particle effects compositing specialist and ask if blood spray recreation was possible in the early 60's [whoops, or were frames removed]. Bring him/her in here, we'll chat it up....maybe Sherry will run your errrands for you! David, I cannot find where in my reply that I was telling Len what to say? In fact, I was sarcastically supporting the ridiculous things you had said. wasn't you I was addressing champ -- you're answering for him so, again, does Len need your permission to speak? Or, is this an overt control problem rearing its ugly head, AGAIN? Bill Miller Bill - Trying to have an intelligent discussion with Healy is normally a waste of time. Len Glad you snapped to there Len.... And you EXPECT one with Bowel Movement Bill? BTW, as the the representative [to this forum] for Roland Zavada, and his new and improved report do you have any news? Been 8 months now... He's not still pissed at Harry Livingstone is he? Lurkers on this forum shouldn't have to pay for that...

'Bill Miller' wrote: David, you are not attempting to tell us that Sherry should be faulted for offering an opinion by using the exact same film that Costella used to make his claims - ARE YOU??? dgh: of course, you think a first generation copy of the film was made privy to us? You lone nutters are terrified of that kind of occurence. Sherry has inside moves she can make, perhaps SHE can comment, or are you HER spokesperson (you do wear many hats) too? PS Can anyone tell me the names of some of these scientist that Costella wrote about below??? “More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film." email and ask Costella -- better yet, YOUfind a scientist or "blood spatter" analyst that'll confirm or deny it, for the record of course... hell, find a particle effects compositing specialist and ask if blood spray recreation was possible in the early 60's [whoops, or were frames removed]. Bring him/her in here, we'll chat it up....maybe Sherry will run your errrands for you! David, I cannot find where in my reply that I was telling Len what to say? In fact, I was sarcastically supporting the ridiculous things you had said. wasn't you I was addressing champ -- you're answering for him so, again, does Len need your permission to speak? Or, is this an overt control problem rearing its ugly head, AGAIN? Bill Miller

Yeh, Len .... you hear Healy - it's not necessary. It's only necessary when someone wants to be taken seriously and cares to know whether the work they claim to of done can be validated by their peers. Healy know this and because he understands what it means ... it is why he is forced to take the ridiculous position that he has chosen. Yes again, Len ... buy 'Hoax' and read it so you (like David Healy) will be able to say to this forum that you have seen no proof of alteration. Bill Miller my, does Len need your persission to speak? Or is this just your overt control problem rearing its ugly head, AGAIN?

no Sherry, just a simple, straight forward media compositor, been doing that kind of magic for years. Next your going to tell us HOAX is required reading for your circle of associated... So looky here, this is Baghdad Bob Healy, Lady [compliments of Wee Willie *Bowel Movement Bill* - Miller] LMAO! So tell us, how'd you do that blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, on what appears a altered, umpteenth generation-40 year old, 8mm film again? Talk about magic -- THAT my dear might make CSI-Las Vegas, NYC, Miami look twice. Right up there with 15 minute DNA analyses -- talk about SMOKE!

'Len Colby' wrote: David can you name "an expert in optics and light" who backs Costella's position? Despite Fetzer's and now your insistence that he qualifies nothing in his resume suggests he has any expertise in either field, no degrees, no papers, no courses taught etc. dgh: not necessary, Len. Find one expert or Physicist that blows his contentions out of the water, we'll go from there... Here for example is a list of his papers (none published in peer reviewed science journals, 3 were published in a journal concerned with teaching physics in the classroom another in a unreviewed online publication), which of these relate to optics or light. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...sics/index.html It also occurred to me that I’ve never seen Costella himself claim such expertise. Can you provide evidence he ever made such a claim? Maybe to a posting on a forum or a webpage he wrote or you could post an e-mail he sent you or Fetzer. dgh: buy HOAX, Len.... Then get in contact with the guys in the Gang, they're more than knowledgable of John Costella's qualifications... If you need their email addresses I'll provide them -- you might start with Dave Wimp.... Hope you enjoy the read..... Oh, there's a 4 hour 2003 U.ofMinn DVD presentation by Costella if you'd like to buy it, drop me a note... Before you make a fool out of yourself you might want to see it What happened to Rollie Zavada and the new and improved Zavada Report? You know, the one Josiah said he provide "wide purchase" for, is he on the mend yet? Len

Peter, I like what I've seen of you, and your posts. I take, believe it or not, no pleasure in following the logic of the case, and rounding on someone whose work I initially thought irreproachable. But as you well understand, the CIA played - is playing - a deep and dark game; and we must meet that challenge. Let me offer you a concrete example of why I turned against Weisberg: "In one of those tricks of fate which later assume importance, this motorcade had no photographic car in the lead, no camera trained on the President from the front or otherwise close and with him in constant focus" (Whitewash: The Report of the Warren Commission (NY: Dell, December 1966), p.30) I must put it to you that the above is preposterous: It was no accident; and that Weisberg was too shrewd to have believed any such thing. I wont labour the point, but I ask you, as you so politely asked me, to reconsider. Best wishes, Paul How sure am I that Weisberg was not a secret CIA dupe or mole??? About 99.9999999999999999999999999%! What Jack White just said here is the truth and everyone was shocked when the Z-film began to be considered as tampered evidence. Now many accept that - I do! JFK research is a fun-house mirror-maze and can make one question reality but your suggestion that Weisberg was 'on the other side' and you have the 'clues' based on a few lines and his War background is about as believable as one suggesting that the whole assassintation was Jackie's idea to get a 'divorce' and that she even shot him herself - she was after all closest and we can scour her statements and actions for clues.... I am currently working on a book in part on the OSS and CIC crowd and while, yes, many of the post-War crowd of CIA et al. spooks and criminals came from their ranks, many others were good people of good morality who rolled-up their sleeves to help defeat fascism. I communicate with some still around and many are as upset that some of their bosses and ranks became what the former enemy was, as you and I. I believe Harold would have fit in that category. You can have you unique fantasy of him, but I think you will find precious few to join you on this. Peace. I am not taking sides here but, that said, I think we can all agree that the Company inserted a good number of "researchers" into this case from day one. I never had the pleasure of meeing Weisberg and only know him by his work. (Which remains supurbe). I think that detecting who is a spook and who is not is quite difficult as the work of the spooks contains much truth. Of course the paranoia in this community is also to be considered. Personality differences and infighting cause many to be called "disinformationists" when it's merely a difference in opinion that's afoot. I apply a personal "rule", but for the purposes of this discussion that would put Weisberg in the spook mode, which I do not believe to be the case. Peter, Jack or anyone: Do you know what caused Weisberg to turn on Garrison? Dawn ********************************* Here's what Weisberg told me [on more than one occasion], first being, nearly 30 years ago: "You don't have to go outside the WCR and the attendent volumes to prove conspiracy. However, when it comes to who was involved, THAT is another matter..." Perhaps, he felt Garrison's character role in 'JFK'-the movie went a bit too far OUTSIDE THAT box. I recall Harold got a chance to view the script and created quite a stink...

3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes? If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...". THAT surprised even ME... So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed... psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it! Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished... You have a VERY faulty memory bow wow.... No Elm street lighting problems? Surely you jest! Why finding "problems" with the lighting on Elm has become an epidemic due to the ignorant likes of White. Its been a real hoot puncturing this massive stupidity ! Costella HIMSELF verified the problems wiht his sign study...its impossible to take images from two different camera positions and alter them to make them appear to be from the same lens axis...yet his faulty study still stands both in print and on the web. Then he makes the really stupid claim that verticals in a photograph cannot change angle in a photograph and then he applies this the the LEANING Stemmons sign! Physicists needed? No way! None of this stuff is rocket science and poor old Costella, after being puffed up by Fetzer and the zombies at the cult forum, fancies himself an expert on photography. Sadly for the zombies he is no where near an expert, not even witn his self professed moniker as an ..."expert in the properties of light...hell he can't understand how a simple shadow works and last I checked a shadow is a "property of light" Now lets put YOU in the spotlight bow wow... in YOUR professional opinion is this shadow possible? You need a Physicists to figure this one out or will a simple emperical test do the trick? Mr. Light volunteers to do A SIMPLE EMPIRICAL TEST for us! I look forward to it! It will be very educational to see how the sun casts shadows from multiple directions. And I look forward to seeing where his shadow is in the UNCROPPED FRAME when the sun is directly behind him. Wow...what a treat...an EMPIRICAL TEST from Mr. Light himself. It should be very educational! Jack No Jack, I've already DONE (as have many others) the emperical tests and I KNOW the resutls. You on the other hand along with the the "Physicists" in question have made ignorant claims that this shadow pattern is impossible and that the shadow of Armstrong cannot be at the corner of the frame. And as usual you have done so WITH NO SUPPORTING documentation or evidence as usual. Thats the PROBLEM with ALL of both your and Costellas work...you JUST MAKE CRAP UP and claim it as fact. So it YOUR turn do the testing and prove yourself correct. You do know how to use a camera...right? SHow us your abilities as a photographer and highlight just how smart your "Physicists" really is. We will all be waiting with GREAT interest. Oh and just so EVERYONE at home can try the test as well let me give you directions: Go out on any sunny day late in the afternoon when the sun is very low in the sky. Set your camera lens to a moderate wide angle lens setting. Stand so that the sun is directly at your back and aim your camera so that your shadow is in the center of the frame. Try and keep your camera near level, not pointing down too much by down enough so that your shadow shows. ( this should not be a problem since the late day light will create a very long shadow of your body.) Take a picture. This is how White and Costella say all photos must look when the sun is behind the photographer. Now lets prove them both wrong. Keeping your camera at the same level as the first photo, simply turn your head and the camera to the right until yor body shadow is at the left edge of the picture...take another picture. Congratulations..you have just proven a "photo expert" and a "Physicist" wrong! Example by another photographer... http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html Other examples of shadows: http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html http://www.clavius.org/shad30.html http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html Try to keep up lemming. The moon image is simply being used to show the folly of HEalys suggestion that this wonder boy Costella photo arguments needs to be countered by another Physist for the counter argument to have any value, which is of course bunk. Its also a wonderful chance to actuallly see Healy shuck and jive and avoid actually taking a stand. Besides the discussion of the Bronson slide was and is useless. ya dolt.... lets see the source image with a URL that works -- Take a stand on what you beef stick? I've shot more film and video for NASA than I suspect you have shot 4x5's in your entire career -- you need a different hobby champ, evidently you think I should give two xxxxs about moon shadows. So tell us ALL; how does "moon shadows" move the JFK case to resolution... Another two-bit Lone Neuter diversion.... Jack ties you up in so many circles I'm surprised you can find NORTH

'Craig Lamson' wrote: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...1-40-5961HR.jpg[/url] Oh and BTW I run my pc monitors at gamma 1.9 *********** bad link...

You know what's funny, David ... your responses are my best evidence. Bill Miller I don't know Bill -- looks like Rigby's gonna keep you busy for 'quite' a while -- if anything is left when your done, step on over here. Till then, enjoy the spotlight. Gentlemen!

Uh, Paul....don't flatter yourself. As I found out on another thread, you're really not worth arguing with. When you got called for trying to have Zapruder's testimony both ways, you turned things really ugly. To date, not one Forum member has agreed with your assessment of Weisberg, including people that met him, were helped by him, and spent time with him. Keep on thinking you've got things all figured out. And Paul, the word is compliment. You obviously have not read AARB testimony regarding the Zapruder film.... we let those things pass when it comes to neophytes and the Z-film. Truck on Mr. Hogan.....

I believe that you are correct give or take a few moments, but that was CST in Dallas ... the assassination having just occurred less than three hours earlier. The important point is that while Moorman's photo was shown on NBC less than three hours later ... it was a pre-recorded interview that took place about 30 minutes or so after the shooting. That original photo filmed for TV while still in Moorman's possession shows Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal, while Jack continues to claim that Zapruder and SAitzman were inserted into all the assassination pictures and films. And yes, the quality is not good for spotting badge man, but Costella was talkiing about the photo being altered during this large window of time he invented, which derrived from Jack's poorly researched claim that no one was ever on the pedestal during the shooting. The whole thing has been made into a joke IMO! Bill Miller Sherry is a blood spatter expert, unlike you or Costella. I might also add that anyone can claim something to be a fraud, so your point is meaningless ... after all, you had already heard the allegations of fraud and still told this forum that you have not seen any evidence of alteration to date. More monkey spanking, David??? If you would actually read Sherry's findings ... you would see that she is telling you what the Zfilm shows and how it shows a frontal kill shot to the President. Bill Miller * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * oh-wee, those darn photo operation guys at the NPIC [one, the chief color photo officer] said: it looks like 6-8 hits on Kennedy from possibly 3 different directions. Now that comes from a guy that says the Secret Service drop a Z-film off within 24 hours of the assassination [probably within 12 hours]. Not my doing, you can find the interviews and testimony in Doug Horne's [ARRB investigator] Appendix C, in Hoax. Great source for information, btw..... Sorry, regardless of how proficient Sherry is, I don't need a blood spatter analysis based on [who knows what generation] 8mm Z-film [whose authenticity is questioned], a moving [limo] crime scene that was tampered with while parked at the emergency room enterance at Parkland hospital. Then we come to the Elm St., part of the crime scene...Hey, even CSI-Las Vegas can't pull that fat out of the fire Now if she has a study/analysis of same utilizing NARA's in-camera Z-film original... TALK to me about "monkey spanking", Willie! LMAO

As I recall - Costella and friends thought that Jean Hill was also in the street and we know Jean straighten that blunder of White's out when she went on Black Op Radio and said that she had gotten back into the grass before the first shot was ever fired ... Besides, when you told this forum that you had not seen any evidence of alteration - you had already read Lifton's 'Pig on a Leash' in the Hoax book. Bill Miller Me-oh-my, a comment about not verifying film alteration because I don't have access to evidence that being the Zapruder in-camera original? What kind of a moron you take me for, Your not THAT stupid are you? I'm beginning to think you live and die to say; "you had not seen any evidence of alteration" .... Really a weak Lone Nutter case if that's all you got.... perhaps the Tinkster should re-run Dealey Plaza film/photo boot camp? LMAO... Sorry, I've listened to Black Op Radio four times, David Lifton, you know the guy who told you to get lost and John Costella, who won't waste his time with you, Rich DellaRosa who threw you off his forum, and Doug Horne who doesn't even know you exist... but you can help out here... Who controls the Moorman 5 photo and if I wanted to interview Mary Moorman who do I have to call and how much will it cost me? Get back to me, maybe we can do lunch, hell, maybe I can put in a good word for you Black Op.... nah! I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken? what can I tell you Craigster, other than the simple fact-- Earth, Moon, it's STILL the same light source, the SUN! Shadows fall in one direction... Now if you have another light source to add to the mix, feel free informing us... Come on bow wow..spell it out...do you believe the shadow is possible AND natural or not? And yes..one light..the sun. Is it possible or not. On the record davie, show some BALLS for a change....agree with the igorant phd from down under and bozo White or deal with the facts and tell us all just how wrong they have it.... Quite stalling and pony up...for once actually BE a man.... And btw, for the record...no problem with this shadow AT ALL, easily repeted right here on earth in direct sunlight and only direct sunlight....and the shadows ALL fall the same direction..... post the picture, Dim-Bulb! I'll take a look when I get back to town... some of us do remotes on the weekend, you know..... The apollo image in question is posted above nutless.... gimme a NASA image control number Dim-Bulb -- do ya know what that is? I want the source image... Why are you guys so easy? While your at it, gimme your monitor gamma setting, I don't want you to confuse apples with oranges...

As I recall - Costella and friends thought that Jean Hill was also in the street and we know Jean straighten that blunder of White's out when she went on Black Op Radio and said that she had gotten back into the grass before the first shot was ever fired ... Besides, when you told this forum that you had not seen any evidence of alteration - you had already read Lifton's 'Pig on a Leash' in the Hoax book. Bill Miller Me-oh-my, a comment about not verifying film alteration because I don't have access to evidence that being the Zapruder in-camera original? What kind of a moron you take me for, Your not THAT stupid are you? I'm beginning to think you live and die to say; "you had not seen any evidence of alteration" .... Really a weak Lone Nutter case if that's all you got.... perhaps the Tinkster should re-run Dealey Plaza film/photo boot camp? LMAO... Sorry, I've listened to Black Op Radio four times, David Lifton, you know the guy who told you to get lost and John Costella, who won't waste his time with you, Rich DellaRosa who threw you off his forum, and Doug Horne who doesn't even know you exist... but you can help out here... Who controls the Moorman 5 photo and if I wanted to interview Mary Moorman who do I have to call and how much will it cost me? Get back to me, maybe we can do lunch, hell, maybe I can put in a good word for you Black Op.... nah! I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken? what can I tell you Craigster, other than the simple fact-- Earth, Moon, it's STILL the same light source, the SUN! Shadows fall in one direction... Now if you have another light source to add to the mix, feel free informing us... Come on bow wow..spell it out...do you believe the shadow is possible AND natural or not? And yes..one light..the sun. Is it possible or not. On the record davie, show some BALLS for a change....agree with the igorant phd from down under and bozo White or deal with the facts and tell us all just how wrong they have it.... Quite stalling and pony up...for once actually BE a man.... And btw, for the record...no problem with this shadow AT ALL, easily repeted right here on earth in direct sunlight and only direct sunlight....and the shadows ALL fall the same direction..... post the picture, Dim-Bulb! I'll take a look when I get back to town... some of us do remotes on the weekend, you know.....

I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken? what can I tell you Craigster, other than the simple fact-- Earth, Moon, it's STILL the same light source, the SUN! Shadows fall in one direction... Now if you have another light source to add to the mix, feel free informing us...

David, are you forgetting about who's side your on ... you've already stated that you have not seen any proof of alteration, thus can we not assume that you read the contents of the book that shares your article - and because of your remarks ... you must not have agreed with the Ph.D. Costella's writings. By the way, that's the Ph.D. that wrote about this large time frame that could have been used to alter Moorman's Polaroid because the dumb-ass didn't bother to learn the subject matter first. Maybe you can start a thread on how a Ph.D. could write a piece on Moorman's photo being forged and not he known that it was filmed for TV not 30 minutes after the assassination? In other words ... what good is a Ph.D. if you do not have the facts straight. Bill Miller sit down... unless you have a Ph.D in Physics or your introducing someone who does and can support a 'blood spatter' expert analysis based on a 8mm film thats been contested as fraud. Not to mention no one, on either side with expertise in the matter has never seen the alleged in-camera Zapruder assassination film laced up in a projector and projected ANYWHERE.... Plus a moving crime scene where the blood spatter evidence was removed with 20 minutes of the fatal shot, a botched autopsy, faked and missing autopsy photos not to mention missing and altered X-Rays.... None of this crap would last 5 seconds in a court of law. Let Sherry clean up her own mess. You've got plenty of your own.....

'Sherry Gutierrez' wrote: dgh: Ah.... who started with pre-determined or pre-disposed ideas? Strike: ONE dgh: The community sought? baloney! We are now waiting for experts -- What you think happened to John Costella is of course your business, if you hold a Ph.D. in Physics dissect his presentation and give us the blood splatter expert analysis scientific eqivalent... If your side could produce a physicist I doubt you'd use him/her -- you have to much bandwidth to fill up dgh: perhaps you can find a expert in optics and light that will support your contentions, after all if high school students can see the error of Costella's ways, certainly the USofA should be flooded with experts that will heed your call for confirmation? dgh: someone with the approriate credentials drops by and takes Costella's presentation apart, we'll see... of course this hasn't happened yet...so why should he waste his time responding to you, Miller, the GANG and company -- that a bottomless pit -- you should know that by now..... and for the below absolutelty the same thing you posted what, a year ago? No confirming scientific expertise to support the contentions -- lots of bluster though.... dgh: We're still here Dear..... and your qualified expert in optics and film is.....? what took you so long, I expected you a few days ago!