David G. Healy

Thank you very much -- I'll file your concern for how I understand Dallas history, someplace! "...I understand why books with pet theories aren't sold..." What's that Single Bullet Theory called, again? Blood and guts on display, that's a problem in TEXAS? Surely you jest, Nic.

and the pussycat meowed: Millions of professional photog's? Pano's (for the lurkers; pano=panorama photograph) there may be millions who know what the term means, I doubt many know how to shoot one....! But, with software of the day.... Buy, just what do I have to buy? Stay on point champ - I guess you didn't ask him either..... That the same nodal point Ray Fielding describes in his excellent book on Special Effects Cinematography, Craig? You read that book, too?

'Len Colby' wrote 1- Do you really think you're on the same level as Feilding and Zavada? Don't fool yourself, If any one half as authoritative as them supported your position it would have a little but of credibility. Since you don't even claim to have any FILM post production experience you just don't cut it. dgh01: LOL ... from this url http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ax/thegang.html [...] Roland Zavada seems to be an “affiliate member” of The Gang: [...] but since pulling out of the Duluth Conference—admitting he was completely out of his depth—he has not been as eager to contribute to the cause. Indeed, Zavada’s contribution to the website under discussion is a curious PDF document, responding not to The Great Zapruder Film Hoax itself, but rather to an unnamed member of The Gang, in relation to quotes from David Lifton’s chapter that were sent to Zavada with the request that he comment on them. It would be difficult to know how he could dissociate himself any farther from The Gang without embarrassing them further over the loss of what was, less then twelve months ago, supposed to be their “star witness” at the Duluth Symposium. Zavada appears to be a decent man, who let The Gang’s compliments go to his head somewhat, only to realise that he had been dumped into the middle of a quagmire; and I really do not wish to pursue a man who was clearly lured into this mess in what should have been the relaxing twilight of his career. [...] and cut what? A glorified cheerleader telling me "I can't cut it", in the business I've been in for 35+ years? For 3 years you dufuses have ALL sound the same, you can't mount a argument and you can't find a optical film printing expert to tell me I'm wrong... what are we to think, Len ole buddy? Oh-me-o-my -- It doesn't take much for lurkers to conclude, 'you're grasping at straws pal'. Next, you'll be telling me, cinema-technical achivement awards [The Oscars] for optical film printing equipment [circa. 1955-65] never happened! SMPE/SMPTE it's all right there Len.... 2 - David you’re like a quadruple amputee on this issue not only don’t you have a leg to stand on you don’t have any hands to grasp at straws. You promised to make your “formal claim soon” on January 19* (74 days ago). 33 days later on Feb. 21 Zavada said he would “…take the time to put together a dissertation… Further this project will not be done “tomorrow” – it will take some time. dgh01: ah Len, pssst, I didn't write the original Zavada report. "Quad amputee?", considering we're at war--- ugh, no class champ, NONE at all... Personally I would expect something that a person said ‘would not be done “tomorrow” ’ and ‘would take some time’ to take at least twice as long as something promised soon. So let’s do it like this. First we’ll wait for you to present your “formal claim”, well count how many days it took you double that and that many days after Feb. 21 (2006) you can semi-legitimately ask Zavada where his ‘dissertation’ is. Even if you submit your “formal claim” tomorrow that gives Rollie till July 19. Until then just shut up about it instead of continuing to make an ass of yourself. dgh01: nice dance, I ain't buying, pal.... LOL! And with all your braying for Zavada to submit a new thesis on why the Zapruder film can’t be a fake you haven’t even dealt with his last one from 2 ½ years ago in which he stated at the conclusion of a 6 page paper, “There is no detectable evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the Zapruder in-cameraoriginal" and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto.” The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. !The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. !It has NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc. dgh01: now, do you want to explain to me, and all these lurkers out here just what the hell you quoted and why its germaine? You're a ole film "hobbyist" give it a shot! and WTF did you mean by “formal claim”? I’ve never heard that phrase used outside a legal context. dgh:01 WTF? I'm on the record Len ole buddy -- you, amongst others are posting nonsense under the guise of: " gee, I have no experience, BUT......", BS where I come from, you're a horrible cleanup batter Len.... 3 - The way you keep bleating out SMPE/SMPTE periodicals" one could not be faulted for wondering if you suffer from Turret’s syndrome or maybe a better comparison would be to Pavlov and his dogs each time you see someone question the possibility of Z- film alteration you reflexively bark out “SMPE/SMPTE”. I like what Joe Durnavich said a few months ago I'm not a drinking man, but I think you could make one of those drinking games for Healy. You know, take one drink every time he mentions "optical printer", take two drinks every time he mentions the SMPTE, and so on.” dgh01: Joe Durnavich, that the guy that tried to pull the Pov-Ray trick? Trying to prove the Elm Street sign was something or other - pure foolishness, especially when he found out I wrote more than a few Povray .inc/.ini files way back when it was called DKBTrace circa. 1989 -- Costella cleaned his and all the other 'GANG members clock, see: http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ax/thegang.html who does Durnavich and Wimp work for again -- all ghosts these guys! Including you! -- You comfortable with that? You're infor one-hell-of-a hangover champ... Damn, you must be getting nervous about those SMPE/SMPTE monthly's. Actually, the first time I talked to Roland was when he came to Lake Tahoe for a SMPTE meeting. Did I tell you I've attended their yearly convention in LA for years now --Oh, come on.... your sounding like a left out wannabe agent So when are you ever going to get around to actually citing a specific issue? Or better yet quote a passage from an article (or even Fielding’s book) to support your little theory. dgh01: You blind or just playing at being dumb -- hell, Len get out Fielding's book, there's over 200 cites regarding SMPE/SMPTE optical film printing. SMPE/SMPTE issues including year, month and page number. -- have Miller get his his bouncing ball going for you. You want everyone to do your work for ya? Geez! 4 – Back to the original topic of this thread, just what is Costella’s mysterious new job? Or is that information on "a need to know basis" (LOL) it isn't like John Nash’s "job" with the federal government is it? He dropped the disclaimer, did he get canned? dgh01: good gosh man, did this thought ever occur to you: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM? Don't want to get too eserteric on you.... or does the thought make you nervous I mean after all, he's a real live Physicist ON-THE-RECORD. DH Len

Still jerking around on the forums - hey David! You sound like the fool who wants someone to address the effects of gasoline on a motor that runs soley on a battery. Another example would be wanting to discuss why someone should take a certain route on a trip to save time while knowing that doing so would mean coming to a bridge that has been washed out, thus the effort was a waste of time. Who in their right mind would wish to argue optical printing effects with you when you cannot address the next step which is the tell-tale signs of alteration when trying to do it on the type of film Zapruder used. Are we to assume that you are the only person who cannot see the problem with what you are trying to purpose? I would be curious to know if you could find another person experienced in optical printing who knew about the problems with Kodachrome II film and still then would waste so much time following a path that cannot go anywhere. Bill actually, I'd be happy if the non-alteration camp could put forth any, ANY optical film printing expert, been three years and counting.... rofl.... so you want to play the big leagues, mano? -- till you demonstrate to me and others sufficient knowledge of film compositing and reversal films of 1963-64 vintage, you'll maintain a "constant nusiance status", a title you richly deserve.... Telltale 'film' signs -- listen, you're busom buddies with Groden, get'em over here, we'll talk film -- Have Bob explain to me and the rest of the world what Roland Zavada and Ray fielding will put forth.... roflmfao! Better yet, have him post a few 35mm frames from one of "Moe Weitzman's" 8mm bump to 35mm -- then we'll talk. Oh, have him bring a KODAK Wratten manual....Thanks for making my weekend... Just curious David, exactly when is YOUR camp planning on putting up an optical printing expert? We know its not YOU! Hell you cant even do a decent computer composite. Poser. roflmao! Even YOU can't save BM.... keep swing'in champ, maybe Groden will drop by and give you a hand -- changing the subject to computer graphics seems like the last breath -- LOL! btw, my camp is ME! What's the matter with you?

Still jerking around on the forums - hey David! You sound like the fool who wants someone to address the effects of gasoline on a motor that runs soley on a battery. Another example would be wanting to discuss why someone should take a certain route on a trip to save time while knowing that doing so would mean coming to a bridge that has been washed out, thus the effort was a waste of time. Who in their right mind would wish to argue optical printing effects with you when you cannot address the next step which is the tell-tale signs of alteration when trying to do it on the type of film Zapruder used. Are we to assume that you are the only person who cannot see the problem with what you are trying to purpose? I would be curious to know if you could find another person experienced in optical printing who knew about the problems with Kodachrome II film and still then would waste so much time following a path that cannot go anywhere. Bill actually, I'd be happy if the non-alteration camp could put forth any, ANY optical film printing expert, been three years and counting.... rofl.... so you want to play the big leagues, mano? -- till you demonstrate to me and others sufficient knowledge of film compositing and reversal films of 1963-64 vintage, you'll maintain a "constant nusiance status", a title you richly deserve.... Telltale 'film' signs -- listen, you're busom buddies with Groden, get'em over here, we'll talk film -- Have Bob explain to me and the rest of the world what Roland Zavada and Ray fielding will put forth.... roflmfao! Better yet, have him post a few 35mm frames from one of "Moe Weitzman's" 8mm bump to 35mm -- then we'll talk. Oh, have him bring a KODAK Wratten manual....Thanks for making my weekend...

Well Len, why don't you write a book on the subject, perhaps he'll give you a call. Till then, get along with the Zavada-Fielding/Healy discussion regarding the Zapruder film .... So, how is Roland Zavada/Ray Fielding doing? You're the self appointed representative/presenter for the Zavada side of the equation, whats the latest? Why the delay? Thought this was a slam-dunk? Been what, 5-6 weeks now? Too damn many editors; "wide purchase...", can be a problem at times! Having optical film printing problem/issues? I know a few specific SMPE/SMPTE periodicals that might help! Just trying to move this along....

Hello Herb White, Been a longtime since the old JFKResearch days, how have you been -- nice seeing you here? There's a few old timers still around, Larry Handcock posts here on occasion, btw... Why is it everytime I think of you I think of Rick Barry when he was with the Warriors, way back when? He wasn't one of the friendliest guy's to interview, post-game... unless of course he scored 40 points or more.... David Healy

What would the FCC have to say regarding the airing of that series? Broadcast Media corporations SELL advertising space and/or time. I bet 50% of History Channel fare is *opinion*, based on historical event

Bill, I do believe your getting a little dense. The ONLYreason I'm still here is Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding, you're not even on the radar screen, Bill ... so wait, dance around or something -- just like I'm doing...

Oh Bill... why all the snipping? Nothing funny here, guy. Robert mentioned? roflmfao! My rebuttal: Moe DID IT his testimony is part of the official record. Did Robert mention his experience doing it? Nothing to discuss, especially if your're talking about what somebody mentioned.... rofl! Stick around, better yet; get Groden in here he can speak for himself... Jerking you around? Incapable? -- For someone that has no experience in this field, your getting rather bold there, champ -- hope your not being setup... Bottom line for what Bill? I doubt you'd know a good blowup if it hit you between the eyes... Envy is not a friend, Bill.....

Len Colby wrote while hiding these days, evidently the other side is nervous about being seen scanning a thread, LOL ... I doubt your videographer friend could ask any questions the inventor of Kodachrome II couldn't answer. dgh: you're really grasping a straws, eh? Your are the one purporting to be an expert on film post production yet you refuse to answer any questions about your experience. My experience unlike yours IS irrelevant because I don’t claim any expertise. I consider myself an “advanced amateur” photographer but I have done a few paid job over the years. Long ago I did darkroom work at a “semi-pro” lab in Boston and at a fashion catalogue in NYC. I do have some videography experience but that like yours is irrelevant. dgh01: semi-pro lab? hmm... just share with us the printers you used "years ago" Len, make us all happy, provide a little comic relief. What is a semi-pro lab, that include the one in closets (1) the only evidence Healy has ever cited to support the notion that such fakery was possible was Feilding's book and unspecified copies of the SMPTE journal; now Feilding has said, like Zavada and Oliver Stone, that such sophisticated compositing was not possible at the time and if attempted would be easily detectable. dgh01: all I need is Fielding, could careless what Stone has to say regarding the issue, but you might provide a cite for same right here, I'll call 'em and we'll talk about it.... as for the SMPTE journals -- look in the back of the Ray's book Len, there's over two hundred of them, all topic related ... So are you every going to offer any evidence that compositing as sophisticated as your buddies think was done to the Z-film possible? Saying “Read Feilding’s book” doesn’t really cut it now that Fielding himself says you’re wrong. dgh01: Ray post already? You giving me a heads up? LOL ... Jack suggested that you’d be able to ask questions he couldn’t answer. dgh01: ah, Jack is not writing this Len ole boy. No you stumped me, who said it? Why should I care? dgh01: damn Len, you were on the same email, oop's maybe I got that email by accident, came from a pillar of the non-alteration camp, if not THE pillar! ... That’s a good tactic, I make a point your friend doesn’t have a good comeback for and you change the subject! What donations (sic) have Fetzer, Costella, White and the lot of you made other than mudding the water with spurious claims? I never claimed to have made any such contributions, if I made one it was helping debunk the nonsense you guys call research. dgh01: You did? How? Working in a semi-pro lab -- come on man, you can do better than THAT Jack – Let us know when you’ll be replying to that backlog of unanswered messages, what happened did you “chicken out”? dgh01: maybe Jack has put you omn the shelf, labelled your nonsense irrelevant, perhaps? dgh: Remember, I'm the one that CAN't prove alteration Obligation as in "burden of proof" your are the closest thing the "alterationists" have to a film post production expert. You claim 2nd (or 3rd) generation copies coupies have been made and pass as originals. It's up to you to show that (among other things) is was feaseable with the filmstock used. dgh01: me, mmwahh? hell, I have Ray Fielding -- wake up ! Not only can't you prove alteration, you have failed to offer any evidence that it was possible. dgh01: roflmao, you're here, Miller's here, Thompson here, Mack is here, Zavada is here Fielding is here, I'd say there more than a HINT of possibility -- back to that semi-pro lab you're so proud of -- you an Bob Groden may have something in common...

Why is that when Groden talks about something - he can offer an explaination based on data and when you (David) respond to what has been said - you only use words like "noise" ... now who is it that doesn't know jack-xxxx about the photographical Kodachrome II issues when attempting to alter images! Why not just save the say-nothing responses with cult 'words and phrases' and try and get some information from a photographical expert of your choice that can possibly offer something of value to the conversation ... it will at least make it appear that you are serious even if you are not. Bill _____________ Hear it from me, Bill Groden talks about nothing, if he had anything to say, he'd be here. A smart one, there are many questions he's left unanswered. therefore, he's a ghost. Why are you covering for him? "jack xxxx"? You getting sensative, Bill? Those 'say nothing phrases' are loaded with info. Load yourself up with Groden's film data, fine by me. As for me, no interest? I suspect Dean Fielding knows. A clue perhaps? Let me quote from his book: Chapter 1 page 17-18 quote on Special-effects procedures are as infinitely varied in their application as the kinds of production problem which can arise, for each effects assignment is a NEWone (emphasis mine), and is different in its pecilarities from every other one done before. It is the variety of problems and solutions which renders the field so interesting; it is the same variety which also makes the work of the special-effects conematographer so complicated. There are few rules, if any, and mistakes are common. The tools of the art range from simple, inexpensive devices which can be held in the hand, to extrememly costly machines weighing a ton or more. The length of time spent on a effects shot can range from a few minutes to several weeks. In the end, only familiarity with the tools and techniques of the field will provide the right solution for a particular problem (emphasis mine) and only a certain amount of experience will provide consistently professional results. quote off Ray's words, not MINE, Bill. Raymond Fielding, The TECHNIQUE OF SPECIAL EFFECTS CINEMATOGRAPHY 1965-1968 and later. Library of Congress Catalog Card #64-8116 Think Groden will call Moe? When it comes to value in conversation Bill, why depend on a ghost, eh? David

_______________________ Len colby wrote: I e-mailed Zavada and he told me he is still working on it. He promised to complete it but wouldn't commit himself to a date. He has other fish to fry. Since Healy promised us some sort of 'Earth shattering' "formal claim", that would stump the non-alterationists, "soon", over 2 months ago he and White don't have much right to complain about Zavada. dgh: "earth shattering" now Len, are you running around putting words in my mouth, AGAIN? Your side of a debate getting that nervous? So David, when exactly can we expect to see your "formal claim"? Maybe you chickened out!!! dgh: ROFLMAO! I'm not complaining, I'd do the same thing - I can wait weeks! However, I promise to complete it, I've other fish to fry, too AND what's the rush? I've been provided new reading material, another book about the Z-film [hint], not that I need it. Oh, I'm also writing it, you know, a David against Goliath thingy -- my sense of drama. You guy's gott'a give someone thats been in the production biz many years, a bit of creative license. Yes? David

Let me give you a clue regarding RZavada's, therfore RGroden's 8mm film "issues". In short, they're irrelevant. All Groden has to do is ask Moe. White noise, those arguments. You'll figure it out, your a smart guy -- David

Nice work, John... I'm following DHealy

regarding the above, in a word Bill, bullxxxx! Len hasn't a clue, no more than you. While your pondering that, what the hell are Groden's film qualifications? Moe teach him everything he knows? The ARMY? Did he go to college? As for you, I doubt you've ever been inside a film lab -- so tell me, what would be detectable? I'm sure lurkers are curious! Or, you gonna let Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding do the heavy lifting? OBLIGATION? Obligation to WHO? You? ROFLMAO! Remember, I'm the one that CAN't prove alteration

'Len Colby' penned: LOL He promised that a few weeks ago and didn't say when he would complete it. Healy on the other hand promised a "formal claim" "soon" over two months ago. I doubt your videographer friend could ask any questions the inventor of Kodachrome II couldn't answer. dgh: come on you silly guy, what do you know of photography, much let alone videoography or film optical effects? 1) the only evidence Healy has ever cited to support the notion that such fakery was possible was Feilding's book and unspecified copies of the SMPTE journal; now Feilding has said, like Zavada and Oliver Stone, that such sophisticated compositing was not possible at the time and if attempted would be easily detectable. dgh:yep, you finally got something right -- and I sitting right here waiting... hey Ray, this guy speaking for you, ALREADY ... maybe you have a advance copy of Zavada dissertation? 2) None of you guys have yet to reply to Zavada's critique of TGZFH (see link in "the Rifle" thread) dgh: roflmfao! 3) You guys aren't even able to answer questions I ask, I can't imagine Healy could stump Zavada. dgh: whose trying to stump Roland? Anybody stumps Rollie, it'll be Rollie -- I have it on good authority whatever he does will be given "wide purchase...", you do remember who said that don't you? You are hardly one to criticiize someone else for chickening out there are at least 20 threads in which people have questioned your theories and asked you questions that you refuse to reply to. dgh:And your donation to JFK assassination research is what, precisely? Don't hurt yourself, now -- think REAL hard...hmm ----that's what I thought -- Len

Are you really trying to equate Life and other magazines touching up the backyard photos for publication with theories that they were doctored or don’t show the same carbine found at the TSBD? What does one have to do with the other? If the photos were faked this would had to have been done before the assassination, Life retouched them after. Zavada said he would produce a "disertation" a few weeks ago but didn't give a deadline for when he would complete it. You on the other had promised some ground breakinng revelation "soon" over 2 months ago. We're still waiting. What's the problem still getting ir proof read. LOL what a joke! You and the other alterationists have yet to adequately respond to his last paper* on the subject anyway. Since you have his email and are anxious to hear what he has to say why don't you ask him when his paper will be ready? Len *http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf Why Len, Here I thought all along you wanted to be part of this? Put yourself right in the middle, yes? tap---tap---tap... tap--tap--tap.... How many proof readers you need over there? surely Ray Fielding will bury me -- this isn't Film 101 guy! tap...tap...tap...

Odd???? Have you read ANY JFK related evidence? Geez, Len. You are aware, LIFE (amongst other publications) touched up "backyard photos", aren't you? Oh, As the designated contact person for RZavada/RFielding, how are they making out? Plenty of proof readers? David

Hey Tom, I think your giving us (me anyway) a good education as to the kind of information Time-Life had in the early day's of the WC investigation. Did Time-Life pay the costs [or portion of] for survey work completed? In your estimation, why did they (LIFE), participate in/commission DP survey work in the first place? They have the in-camera original Z-film and a dupe, whats the advantage? Was there disagreement between the parties (Life, SS, FBI) as to what the plat info told them? David

Top Post see you on the threads, stay tuned....

Bill, Mysteries upon mysteries, will they EVER cease? So do I feel better? Hell, I should be asking you that question. Learn MY mistakes...? what the hell does THAT mean? Your personals hold no interest for me, Bill -- your background in media production and post production does however. I see nothing, nada, nil to support any level of expertise regarding same. So my question is: why should anyone give credence to what you post re same? Course everyone is entitled to opinion! There's short supply re: generation, provenance and source information concerning JFK related Dallas/DPlaza imagery including: .gif, .bmp, and .jpeg animations on the internet. Won't you agree? Owning 2 or 30 sets of the WCR is irrelevant when it comes to understanding photo manipulation, AND we both know how LNutter's feel about eye witness testimony... Glad you've had some success beating back the health demon's -- I know, been there more than once myself! David

post something with substance Bill. Your sounding more and more like, Lamson! IF, as some conclude the Z-film is NOT the real deal, why and what makes them think that? That was my starting point ---before that could be answered, one has to determine if, in FACT, it was possible to alter the in-camera Z-film original, you know: equipment, manpower, technology, know-how and of course time - that all elusive, TIME! were those things available? Roland Zavada - Ray Fielding and I are addressing that question in position papers! Maybe mine will get "wide purchase" too! You haven't forgotten that detail, have you? All will hear, I suspect, soon. For your benefit, and others: I can't conclude the Z-film is altered. I can WITHOUT reservation state: the equipment, manpower, technology, know-how and of course time - that all elusive, TIME! was available in 1963-64 to alter the Z-film [for '?' reasons] prior to the WC formally screening the Z-film mid-to late February '64. If you say I'm wrong, simple, prove me wrong. Lurkers: don't expect much ofa response. There's not much the other side of this argument has regarding film compositing experience - despite Craig Lamson protestations. That sound like Lampoon's playground....? David

Thanks Mark. Again, we devolve into something ugly and unprofessional here instead of making progress. It's absurd. I wonder if enlargement techniques used in the traditional sense are any different from using scanners? But a scan of 'print' is already poor starting ground. Case in point is the attached. This was an original print. I was able to do much with it - and still believe there is a large resemblance between the man in Robin's enhancement [who appears to have quite a long rifle, IMO] and 'Pick-up Man.' And I still wonder if the man standing next to him might fill the bill for the young man seen by Mercer. But, I guess I'll be wondering for awhile longer. - lee To be quite blunt here Lee there is nothing that even remotely resembles "professional" here. What is going on is wacko land. This stuff is akin to the 7 year olds in the schoolyard seeing bunnies in the clouds....and just about as "professional" "Photo enhancement" of 4th ot 5th generation copies of poor originals then scanned on who knows what? Please. Or how about seeing men in the trees in a many generational image scanned FROM A BOOK that still includes the halftone screen. "Professional"? No ... delusional...yes. Professionalism? You'll have no problem posting, say a Moorman 5 study for your recently won convert will you, Lampoon ? -- why not post something with your expertise all over it? Oops, you have -- Nothing! For someone bent on calling this 'whacko land', you sure spend a lot of time in the "schoolyard", checking the pulse of the troops and looking under your pillow every morning? roflmao!

David, I really do not know what goes through your mind .... your reply had nothing to do with what I had said to Craig. I also have to tell you that your comment makes absolutely no sense. You first state that "If" alteration was performed .... only to then imply that the alteration job worked. In other words, if there was no alteration performed, then how could it have done the job? Bill ______________________ Come on now, Bill. If you were a newbie to this debate I'd grant your point -- what you fail to understand is this: I deal with probables, and what if. As I stated, IFthe film was altered, then it did its job -- simple! Your not going to suggest the Warren Commission didn't base their conc;usion on the Z-film are you? Did you hear any noise from the Warren Commission when the SBT was discussed? What other DP imagery did the Warren Commission discuss before their final report was rendered? What was their conclusion? eh? "LHO, the Lone *derranged, amongst other names* Gunman, did it!"