David G. Healy

'Brendan Slattery' wrote:

[..]

Also, when he isn't being humiliated by real experts [...]

__________

expert in WHAT and WHO are these "real experts"? Put your best PR face foward and fill us in, please.

The posting I quoted said nothing about REINSTATING.

Where do we find that notice?

I think you'll find it in Gary Mack's email box. Other than that, Andy, like me, probably didn't feel that it warranted "NOTICE". Maybe he thinks you have bigger problems to focus on like how a pyracantha bush can show one shape from one angle, but a different one from another.

Bill Miller

"Andy like me..."? oop's there's that qualifier, "probably"! Btw, anything with a Gary Mack signature on it gets attention, whether it merits it or not -- I'm sure he wishes this mess would of just slid past without notice....

So when are we going to get back to Roland Zavada's new and improved Z-film report....? You know, something that has teeth to it? Something worthy of my time here ... no more .gif animations, no more still photo diversions/debates -- get the varsity in here....I need a Lone Nutter compositing expert, one with *actual* motion film compositing skills, if you can't find one (I've been waiting for 4+ years now), INVENT one!

Recap: a respected curator like Mack is banished, but Jack White gets to hang around and advance every uninformed, crackpot theory known to man. That seems fair.

thank God a voice of reason from the hinterlands has spoken, DC-tonian Brendan has claified everything, where would we be without PR firms... roflmao -- Read the posts Brendan old boy, Gary M. is on first base. Of course life is fair!

'Bill Miller' wrote:

so where does Nellie tell us she sat John back up AFTER she pulled him down into her lap?

Nellie: "...... the President whom I felt very sure was dead, and just when I thought I could sit and wait no longer, John just sort of heaved himself up."

dgh: my knowledge of the photographical record is irrelevant, testimony is what I'm looking for, Warren Commission testimony in particular, you should have no problem **citing** Nellies testimony

Not only did Nellie say her husband heaved himself up after the kill shot to JFK, but unless you clowns are going to now say that the Miller photo is altered to show Connally sitting up in the car ... its a dead issue. Nowhere in Nellie's brief testimony did anyone ever ask her to give a play by play recall for the trip to Parkland and under the circumstances - who in their right mind would think she could give such a detailed statement. Even Jackie didn't remember climbing onto the back of the limo, but plenty of witnesses saw it and films and photographs showed it.

oh Bill, Jackie didn't sit down either, so you silly guy, below you say:

"Jack, so it never dawned on you that the gray haired individual you call JFK sitting upright in the limo as it enters the underpass in the Zfilm was John Connally"...

Let's see; Kennedy's dead on the seat. Connally's in Nellies lap based on Nellies testimony, regarding this threads photo and based on your above comment to Jack, we're to believe Connally [as opposed to Kennedy] is the one sitting up prior to entering under the Elm Street railroad overcrossing? ah Bill, whose the clown here?

Isn't it a bit of a strectch getting from "heaved up" to "sitting up"? Occupants sitting up in a vehicle escaping a murderous ambush? Hell, what was LBJ doing in his vehicle, many yards behind the ambush zone...

Common sense tells me no one will be sitting up, especially those that are wounded, mortally or otherwise?

"kill shot"? Rather clinical for a photo researcher isn't it?

Bill Miller

Nellie testified that she pulled him down into her lap and covered

him with her body. She does not mention Connally GETTING UP

AND SITTING ERECT afterward. Quite the opposite, she said she

THOUGHT HE WAS DEAD lying across her lap.

Jack, Nellie said that when she saw her husband get shot that she only thought he was dead at that instant. Nellie said that she pulled her husband towards her lap and leaned over him ... all this before she said the thrird shot was fired. Then Nellie went on to say things like .... "Then, I heard a third shot and felt matter cover us ....... John said nothing. I said only to him from the time I saw one little movement, that maybe he is still alive, and, I kept whispering to him, "Be still, it is going to be all right, be still, it is going to be all right.""

"John was still in my lap, but I knew he was alive and people were swarming all around the car."

Jack posted Nellies testimony, no where does it state 'John Connally sitting up', quite the contrary! A conflict perhaps?

J. William King wrote:

Pardon me, but who the heck cares if Hill's foot was inside, outside, or if it was retouched? What does this have to do with the assassination?

Is it Hill's foot? Yes. He said so in his testimony.

Was the photo retouched? Yes. The newspaper photo and article came out right after the assassination, and it was thought *at the time* that it was Kennedy's foot, so it was "punched up" a bit.

So what?????

150 posts over something this trivial is why the LN community sees CT's as a bunch of nuts. Lets get onto something important for a change.

*Rant mode over*

JW

Well, Mr. King -- If, the DP photographic record is impeached, WHY? And who cares how the Lone Neuter community reacts? If the photgraphic record is FALSE, simple, own up to it. What's the big deal? Well, for one, the cold war is over, American people can handle things done for their benefit... If the record and WC investigation are falsified, falsified to protect the American people and AVERT a nuclear disaster, I'm ALL for that falsification. So the question becomes, why continue the charade --

Personally, I can handle LHO's involvement in the assassination (intentional or UNintentional), and multiple shooters in DP, I'd expect that. If, the Z-film is altered, there is only one question: WHY? Till that question is answered (and I believe it can be answered through forensic testing of the Zapruder film) a shadow of doubt

remains...

'Robin Unger' wrote:

This frame which roughly equates to "Altgens 7" appears to show JFK slumped to his left, Connally is now sitting upright looking behind Jackie towards kennedy's head position.

Sorry, quite frankly the ONLY person I see [in the photos you posted] "sitting up" is Greer, the Limo driver!

what ever Connally is doing in these photos reflects nothing more than he's trying to find a position where he can 'BREATHE', thats IF he's conscious, sitting up with a possible collapse lung ain't it....

a better copy of this one may be helpful

Perhaps a better understanding of the angle of incidence equals angle of reflection might be helpful. No let me take that back...ANY understanding of angle of incidence equals angle of reflectinon.....

You like to make silly drawings, Make a profile view of the limo at the back door jamb. Show us all the camera angle that will allow the seat back to be reflected in the lower chrome.

Wishing it so will not make it so.

show us photog.... dazzle us!

'Bill Miller' wrote:

so where does Nellie tell us she sat John back up AFTER she pulled him down into her lap?

David, your knowledge of the photographical record is really poor. Around Z175, one can see Connally lean back into Nellie's lap because she reached out and pulled him towards her. Nellie had testified to this.

dgh: my knowledge of the photographical record is irrelevant, testimony is what I'm looking for, Warren Commission testimony in particular, you should have no problem **citing** Nellies testimony

Immediately after the head shot - Connally raised up and rolled his body forward. He sat up as the car went into the underpass.

dgh: Nellies testimony? **cite** please! Connally has 5 wounds and a possible collapsed lung, correct?

In the photo showing Clint Hill on the back of the limo getting his right leg into position, the Connally's are rising up in the car. By the time Miller took his photo, Governor Connally is sitting up again.

dgh: Nellies testimony or JConnally's? - **cite** please!

a photo against a word asurrance regarding an observation, think again counselor...

David, are you aware that you just took the opposite position you have on the autopsy photos when put up against the word of the witnesses who saw the rear head wound to JFK. You may wish to just respond when you actually have something to say rather than responding just to be saying something.

Bill Miller

opposite position, what are you smoking over thar, counselor? What I wish is none of your business. And for someone with nothing to say, you certainly pay heed to every post Jack or I make... So best tend to Gary, I'm sure his ego is bruised...

'Bill Miller'

Jack, so it never dawned on you that the gray haired individual you call JFK sitting upright in the limo as it enters the underpass in the Zfilm was John Connally.

so where does Nellie tell us she sat John back up AFTER she pulled him down into her lap?

Does the Miller photo help you see your error? And if that is JFK sitting up in the limo, then what is Jackie doing ... looking for her cigarettes???

who said it was JFK sitting up?

Bill Miller

the chrome strip is narrower then what it looks like on the photo under dispute.

the area of chrome in question has been reduced in reflectiveness by SS hands and subsequent cleaning, ie it is MORE likely to behave as does the non chrome areas with regards to reflectiveness. IOW at this point because of angles of sight, the darker area on the chrome at this point is possibly a reflection of the seat top.

What utter bs.

If you had half a clue you might be dangerous, as it is you have NO clue.

The simple physics is this: Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Understand this simple statement and you will understand WHY you don't have a clue.

This is the cold hard fact, regardless of your ignorant ramblings.

The darkness on the lower chrome strip HAS to be caused by an object over the edge of this chrome strip. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this to be a reflection of the seat. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

The upper chrome strip near the seat is a straw man...meaningless in this situation.

You can continue to bumble along wallowing in ignorance or you can learn, the choice is yours.

All the tools you need are in this post. Period, end of story. FULL STOP.

Now our good friends overseas may understand WHY some of us in the States that support (or at least have an open mind regarding same) JFK assassination related photo/film alteration, pay little heed to the likes of Lamson and company. He's just to damn polite and courteous, ROFLMAO --

But we understand, Craig's pissed cause Gary Mack suffered a setback on this forum. So don't take it personal, JohnD.... Craig thinks photo reality is what sold the Warren Commission Report to the American Public.

And of course, up to 90% of America agree; a *conspiracy* murdered JFK! (with or withOUT photos)

CLICK!

cheese.... lmfao

the chrome strip is narrower then what it looks like on the photo under dispute.

the area of chrome in question has been reduced in reflectiveness by SS hands and subsequent cleaning, ie it is MORE likely to behave as does the non chrome areas with regards to reflectiveness. IOW at this point because of angles of sight, the darker area on the chrome at this point is possibly a reflection of the seat top.

What utter bs.

If you had half a clue you might be dangerous, as it is you have NO clue.

The simple physics is this: Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Understand this simple statement and you will understand WHY you don't have a clue.

This is the cold hard fact, regardless of your ignorant ramblings.

The darkness on the lower chrome strip HAS to be caused by an object over the edge of this chrome strip. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this to be a reflection of the seat. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

The upper chrome strip near the seat is a straw man...meaningless in this situation.

You can continue to bumble along wallowing in ignorance or you can learn, the choice is yours.

All the tools you need are in this post. Period, end of story. FULL STOP.

Now our good friends overseas may understand WHY some of us in the States that support (or at least have an open mind regarding same) JFK assassination related photo/film alteration, pay little heed to the likes of Lamson and company. He's just to damn polite and courteous, ROFLMAO --

But we understand, Craig's pissed cause Gary Mack suffered a setback on this forum. So don't take it personal, JohnD.... Craig thinks photo reality is what sold the Warren Commission Report to the American Public.

And of course, up to 90% of America agree; a *conspiracy* murdered JFK! (with or withOUT photos)

'Bill Miller' wrote:

Let me set the record straight if I can. I was once one of those individuals who was critical of Gary Mack not posting on forums, but it didn't take much of an effort on my part to discover why that was. The 6th Floor Museum "DOES NOT" want to take a position one way or the other on the JFK assassination as far as whether there was a conspiracy or not to kill the President. The Museum wishes to remain neutral on this matter and function as a keeper of the historical record .... and I certainly can understand why this is. Gary is a representative of the Museum and that means that he has to be careful about getting involved with JFK assasination forums and the debates that go on there. I personally know of one other person who was doing tours in the plaza through the museum and because this person had refused to remain neutral while representing the Museum - the Museum was forced to let him go! So the decision to participate on forums is not necessarily Gary Mack's. Does Gary Mack have opinions concerning the assassination of President Kennedy - sure he does. Can he back them up - probably better than the majority of his critics can do. Do I always agree with Gary's interpretation of the evidence - no! Try asking yourselves this quesation: Who among us who could have the chance to be sitting atop of such a historical wealth of data and information concerning the JFK assassination would risk throwing that position away by breaking the rules put forth to them by their employer ??? I sure as hell wouldn't!

I for one am one of those people who solicits information from Gary Mack on a regular basis. The reason why I go to Gary as a source of information is because of his position with the Museum and the resources they have at theor dispposal. Gary doesn't just offer an answer to a question, but he cites the sources for researchers to go view the evidence for themselves, thus if anyone is thinking that Gary Mack is somehow trying to confuse researchers and to get them to think as he does on a particular matter, then as far as I am concern they couldn't be more wrong. If anyone has complained about Gary contacting them, then Gary was mistaken in thinking that a particular forum member would be interested in knowing the facts of the case and where to find them. (If anyone doesn't wish to get contacted by Gary Mack - then block his email or simply use the delete function which takes only a second to accomplish.) Is that grounds for suspension ... I do not think so. As someone who died defending peoples rights - I wonder what John Kennedy would say about all this? Should Gary Mack post a photo of himself, sure ... if he is going to post on that forum, but if he is merely reading the forum - who cares if he post a photo of himself or not.

dgh: Invoking JFK's name? I suspect JFK would of followed the rules, why do you think he'd do otherwise? Amazing you didn't show me that latitude, you moaned to JSimkin first chance you got -- bit of a hypocrite, aren't you?

I know of several people who post on JFK forums who use photos of other people .... does that mean what they say is any less correct or if we don't know any better - does that mean we are satisfied that they have at least posted a photo on their bio even if it isn't really them? And getting back to Gary's contacting the administrators about the virus problem ... had you all of listened to him in the first place, then maybe you would have saved yourselves and the members a headache. Did Gary appear to come on too strong ... that is up to the interpretation of those he contacted. However, the virus could have been devastating to peoples sytems who have large data bases in their computer, so I personally can see why Gary would have been very forthright in his attempt to relay the seriousness of the matter to the proper authorities. The entire matter seems to have been much to do about nothing IMO.

dgh: does all this Gary asskissing and promoting mean you haven't a job at the 6th Floor YET? I hope you get one soon, you'll be under the same forum posting restrictions Gary M is, right ?

Bill Miller

'Bill Miller'

[...]

To this day I have never seen Jack explain how Mary was able to stand in the street and still have her camera raised above the highest point on the passing cycles. Instead, Jack just makes unfounded excuses about the drum scan being the only Moorman print showing the gap, while at the same time not showing us what Moorman prints do not show the gap. Below is a non-drum scan print - the drum scan - and Jack's alleged recreation photo. Jack continues to make false excuses for the gap rather than to admit that he was wrong.

Bill Miller

dgh: this is the problem you have, Bill. Nobody on the *alteration* side of the equation believes you or anybody else that has a vested interest in preserving the photo/film history of Nov 22ned 1963 DP events, related to the JFK Assassination. You need a spokesperson displaying unbiased credibility, you guys remind me of a "fart in a space suit -- you're all trying to get out of this discussion, you just can find the zipper to let in fresh air"

Simple as that... despite the 6th Floor Museums best efforts

******************

'Craig Lamson' wrote:

[...]

Proceess 50 of them at a time in deep trays on fiber paper, soak then in a glossing agent after washing and them drying them on a big gas fired Pako ferrotype drum dryer...no you don't do you. Thats because you are a poser.

dgh I suspect you can show us some of these incredible dodging and burning results? After all and all encompassing professional such as yourself surely has a demo reel we can judge, judge as to your expertise knowledge and ability -- anything short of that, to me means, its YOU Mr. Lamson who is the "POSER"... where's the beef, Craig? You do all this moaning about Jack, how is a *lurker* to know you're not just another huckster searching for entertainment...

Despite davies attempt to build up up, you are simply a wannabe. You have proven time and time again you don't have a bloody clue what is going on when it comes to photography. Simply a poser...50 years "experience"...what a hoot!

dgh: there it is, again. "what a hoot", sure you're not Steve "could never hit a moving target" Keating

Remember Jack you were a COPYWRITER... pretty good if too if the "facts" you like to write her eare any indication. But lets face it Jack when it comes to photography you are simply a hack.

dgh: I hate to ask this question, again, what American university houses your photographic work? I do believe jack White can point to his and HAS, hmm?

Passing by your alledged ad work, with the exception of MotorHome monthy of course, who has published your work? I suspect there will be no answer forthcoming... what a surprise

Wow! now you are claiming I retouched the drum scan? So tell me Jack, since you say you are an expert at detecting retouching, exactly WHAT telltale signs can you detect in the drum scan file that indicate retouching? And remember the are many copies all around for comparison. So don't try any funny business.

Jack is senile. Thompson explained the drum scan on this forum already. Jack took the position that the drum scan was altered because of his idiotic 'Moorman in the street' claim. You see, his recreation photo didn't show the gap between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window in the background. However, that was a load of crap Jack handed everyone because it was obvious that all the Moorman prints showed the gap that Jack's recreation photo failed to achieve. When asked by Mark Oakes what she thought of the Jack White claim about her being in the street to take her famous Polarid ... Moorman replied, 'I think the whole thing is silly ... I was in the grass above the curb.'

Let Jack post the gap as seen on the Badge Man print!

Bill Miller

I recall David Lifton writing something concerning a Moorman interview street/grass issue, you'll find the relevant here: The Great Zapruder Film HOAX: Pig on a Leash, by David Lifton, beginning at pg. 420 para6).

I suspect Lifton has caused the Lone Neuter camp and the pro Moorman 5 camp in particular a bit of angst, Why [my opinion]? If the Moorman 5 doesn't match up with Z-313 +/- a frame or two, the Zapruder film, more than likely is altered.

The street/grass issue is relevant in some minds because the Z-film shows Moorman on the south of Elm Street in-field grass, Jack's study claims she, Mary was on Elm street at the time she took the photo... IF she took the photo from the street (as some think) she SHOULD appear in the street on Zapruder frame 313 and earlier, she isn't.

One wonders why Lone Nutter's insist of reviving this issue by calling on Jack to post the "GAP" study. AGAIN! Probably a good idea to check around this forum and see if they're trying to avert attention from a thread they'd rather pass on, like changing locations of DP lamposts, and why the DP Stemmons St sign was removed, moved and replaced within a few days after the assassination...

Miller states an untruth, as usual. The attached photo, taken

from inside the drain, shows a buildup of asphalt of about three

or four inches, incicated by the arrow.

Jack

Jack, Gary Mack can correct me if I am wrong, but the street slopes down into the hole and what you are looking at in that photo appears to be a layer of concrete/asphalt, which has nothing to do with its actual thickness. A four inch slope with an inch of asphalt over it doesn't mean the asphalt is 4 - 5" thick.

Some time ago when the street was stripped down to its base for resurfacing - Mack went out to the road and noted that the asphalt was not as thick as you had claimed it to have been. I seem to recall that he said it was only about an inch in thickness. So having had Mack go out and look at it in person verses your looking at old B&W photos - I'll take Mack's observation as being the more reliable at this time.

Bill Miller

a photo against a word asurrance regarding an observation, think again counselor...

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

Purvy, what ar the city specs now for the distance a lamppost should be from a curb ... surely you have checked before reaching a conclusion, so tell us what you found out?

Also, if you think that you cannot pinpoint JFK in the Zapruder film at certain points, then have you considered doing it with the Nix, Bronson, or Muchmore films where permanent landmarks ARE present in the background?

then you'll havwe no problem explainging why the Stemmons sign came down right after the assassination, right -- and who is "Purvy"? someone else backing you into a corner?

Bill Miller

you obviously need to do a little research on Jacks DP photo work, why should anyone care about the rest of Dallas?

I do? Simply sounds convenient to me... LMAO!

I think if you have been paying close attention, then you would understand that if the street lamps all around Dallas were being replaced and moved back from the curbs, then there would not be anything suspicious about the lampspost in the plaza being different or moved back from the curb ... and this is why it is important to know certain things before jumping to a false conclusion, unless of course - false conclusions are what you are looking to promote.

Coming to false conclusions? You have this infantile habit of attributing conclusions to other people that have no such conclusions, nor can you point to same. Your zealousness is showing again, you might want to do a little growing up, this is after all, an international forum. You want to give all JFK researchers that disagree with YOUR findings a bad name?

Do I detect another 'everything is altered thanks to my shoddy work' book coming out again?

dgh: I retract the above, you DO want to give ALL JFK researchers who disagree with you and your .gif animations a bad name

As for you taking anything admissions or otherwise, I suggest you do your job and fill us all in on the...

What exactly is Len's job and what do you consider to be yours, David? Thanks in advance!

dgh: You handling PR for or rewriting the new and improved Zavada report? If not, well, you know - Colby knows what he agreed to do for Roland -- so fancy that, you're name doesn't appear on the any email communication with Roland Zavada, have I missed something, or do you just FEEL left out? Thanks in advance for you cooperation

Bill Miller

'Len Colby' wrote:

Jack you own, if I'm not mistaken, a very large collection of historic photos of Dallas. Can you show us any photos taken in that city around the time of the assassination where the lampposts are exactly as they are today? Hopefully the locations will be close to DP. If you fail to produce such photos I'll take it as an admission on your part you can't find any photos of lampposts in the city that are exactly as they were over 40 years ago.

you obviously need to do a little research on Jacks DP photo work, why should anyone care about the rest of Dallas? As for you taking anyting admissions or otherwise, I suggest you do your job and fill us all in on the NEWLY IMPROVED Zavada report and progress leading to Roland and Ray Fielding posting same...

You're the man -- Where's the beef, go-between?

I am making available to the Penn Jones Collection for COPYING all of my big collection of JFK newsletters,

including Grassy Knoll Gazette, PROBE, and many others. Online will be Page One of each...but the library will have available the entire issue in-house but not necessarily online. Ben perhaps can supply scans by email of specific requests...but he and and one staff member run the entire operation with the help of student volunteers. It is good facility for anyone wishing to donate JFK materials. They also are converting more than 100 of my videos to DVD. These will be listed online, but can be seen only by visiting the library, as many researchers have been doing.

Jack

Great job, Jack!

And welcome, Rex Bradford -- your reputation is well established, thanks, David Healy

Hi John!

Your grammar is perfect!

This photo was carried out for the blockbuster "JFK" (the movie.)

Oswald was digitally washed out for the scene related to the backyard photos.

Regards...

Marcel

Marcel,

Can you point me to where you obtained the above [digitally washed out] information,

thanks...

David Healy

Lamson is fullaxxxx. I never told him anything about

my retouching experience. I retouched hundreds of

photos over 50 years as an artist. He lies.

Jack

No Jack thats EXACLY what you told me in a long email some years ago. You even metioned wearing out 3 airbrushes "blowing out backgrounds" on product shots. You also told me how unskilled you were when it came to lighting and how your photo experience was limited to shooting small products on a table in your office with what was it...a Kodak view camera. You also told me your were considered the "top silde shooter in town" making slides on a copy stand for presentations. The rest of your limited photographic experience consists of some light darkroom work and snapshots of your locale. Not a very impressive cv if you ask me but its exactly as you told me. Now who is lying again White?

But hey, post some high res scans of your "hundreds of retouched photos" and let see how good you really are..or IF you can actually retouch...

BTW you can post large PNG files ( those are lossless, not like the crappy jpg's you are famous for) at

www.pbase.com

The truth is your friend Jack, try telling it sometime.

Jack,

I believe some of these guys are obsessed with you -- next the Craigster is going to tell us the best digital file for the internet are RAW files, the ONLY way to go, tsk-tsk.... All this from a guy that hasn't posted a JFK related image to ANY internet f?orum for years, what do you make of that?

Hell, how do we know he even owns a cameraback

David...Miller has never dodged, burned-in or retouched a photo.

I have...by the hundreds. Do not expect him to understand

the technology.

Jack

Jack,

I agree, he did however post 35 websites where one can get information regarding what I already know and know how to do... chemically and digitally...

Maybe the Craigster will give the uniformed a lesson regarding the fine points of dodging and burning, I suspect he won't need Miller's website referrals, it should however keep him busy while he waits for our next post - what say, Craig? Few examples from you wouldn't hurt, take the heat of of Bill dealing with the issue and show what kind of expertise you might have -- bet only a few around here know what you do, time to get on the record?

Lamson is fullaxxxx. I never told him anything about

my retouching experience. I retouched hundreds of

photos over 50 years as an artist. He lies.

Jack

Jack,

Some of these guys are bottom feeders, they haven't had a good day in a long, LONG time. Evidently lurking and post to this forum is the only pasttime they have.

You suppose the Craigster is going to have a 'dry goods' portfolio lodged at a University someday?

None of them, NONE of them will touch the quantity nor the quality of your work, they can't, they don't know HOW --

I thought the series was very well produced and had value as a repository for numerous hard-to-find photos and film clips. It raised many thoughtful questions, both pro and con conspiracy, and should be required viewing for any serious JFK researcher.

The segment that sticks out in my mind is when Gordon Arnold cried......

What sticks in my mind is the interview with Buell Wesley Frazier. If I recall his words correctly, he said he will always remember Lee Oswald as "a kind and loving man."

I'm sure LHO had his soft, sweet side. But he also was a wife beater, a xxxx, a restless crybaby who wanted more than anything to "be" somebody.

That doesn't mean he shot JFK but it sure sounds like he had his issues.

Didn't believe it at first but this Valenti guy IS really new to this, about 10 years behind the curve so lets cut him a little slack --- "wife beater..." little creative license champ? lmao!