David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
J. Raymond Carroll wrote:
This wallet is an active topic on the McAdams forum, where Donald Willis argues that the wallet belonged to cabdriver Scoggins.
'McAdams' forum? How convenient that is -- lmao! This thread is heading downhill, quickly!
IMO
David, Is it true that you are a longtime poster on the McAdams forum, using an alias? If so, could you kindly explain what meaning we should ascribe to your post on this thread? Do you mean to denigrate the research of Donald Willis just because he posts (inter alia) on the McAdams forum?
Mr. Carroll what is true: I am NOT a logtime poster on .johns forum, quite the contrary -- I believe 2 or 3 post of mine got through to his forum over the past 10 years I suspect someone was asleep at the wheel. Gordydee (-gd), Aeffects&-Aeffects01, and David Healy are signatures used by me, all for at least 5 years, one over 10 years -- I can also be found in Jim Fetzer's recent JFK book - The Great Zparuder Film HOAX, I'm also the photo moderator at Rich DellaRosa's JFK Research Forum, have been for years now... if there's a good reason for me to hide under a alias - please speak up...
I post on the 'OTHER' BBS JFK board, a board where relatively few posters thrash foolish Lone Neuter's with the few things they profess to believe; the SBT theory; WCR and attendent documents -- And yes, after 40+ years I'm still a CTer...
Assuming posters on ANY internet board are of goodwill, is foolish -- "debating through their asses," notwithstanding -- especially on JFK related boards...
I'll question any research that spawns from the .john forum, regardless of who posts it.
Say hello to Gary - Martin and the other worshippers of the Zapruder film for me, Mr. Carroll....
David Healy
-
J. Raymond Carroll wrote:
[...]
This wallet is an active topic on the McAdams forum, where Donald Willis argues that the wallet belonged to cabdriver Scoggins.
'McAdams' forum? How convenient that is -- lmao! This thread is heading downhill, quickly!
IMO
[...]
-
Wellstone's death comes almost two years to the day after a similar plane crash killed another Democratic Senate hopeful,Missouri Govenor, Mel Carnahan. He had defeated John Ashcroft in the contest for Govenor.
might add; Carnahan defeated Ashcroft when he, Carnahan, was DEAD!
-
Yeah, Bravo, Robert, you really showed me...
Seriously, I believe you are the one who needs to put up. If I'm reading you right, you're saying a number of things that not only run counter to the evidence, but run counter to common sense.
Plainly, you are not reading me "right." Immediately below, you have listed six points that you insist I have contended, and not one of them bears the slightest resemblance to anything I've said. For a chap who began his contributions to this thread by admitting he hadn't really studied the evidence regarding this aspect of the case, perhaps you should not only do that, but re-read what I have asserted so that you can refrain from twisting my clearly stated words into something that is unrecognizable even to me. Point by point:
1. That Oswald was not Hidell, and never used the name.
I've not said that. I am not convinced that evidence for this is good, since it revolves solely upon the word of Marina Oswald, whom even you must admit - since she has - perjured herself. Recall that when asked about this name after his arrest in New Orleans, Oswald didn't admit to being "Hidell," and referred to him in the third person. If he thought it appropriate to distance himself from "Hidell" at that juncture, when it was virtually irrelevant, why would he bear patently bogus photo ID in that name when it was about to become singularly relevant, a fact that only he could know?
as a point of reference:
Among other identification cards in Oswald's wallet at the time of his arrest were a Selective Service notice of classification, a Selective Service registration certificate,23 and a certificate of service in the U.S. Marine Corps,24 all three cards being in his own name. Also in his wallet at that time were a Selective Service notice of classification and a Marine certificate of service in the name of Alek James Hidell.25 On the Hidell Selective Service card there appeared a signature, "Alek J. Hidell," and the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald.26 Experts on questioned documents from the Treasury Department and the FBI testified that the Hidell cards were counterfeit photographic reproductions made by photographing the Oswald cards, retouching the resulting negatives, and producing prints from the retouched negatives. The Hidell signature on the notice of classification was in the handwriting of Oswald. (See app. X, p. 572.) for more.... see below link
ARRB-Final Report Sept '98
http://www.fullgrowth.com/The_Assassinatio...hapter_4_02.htm
2. That there was no evidence that Oswald had a connection to Hidell prior to the discovery at Klein's.
I've not said that. As noted above, "Hidell" was apparent to authorities in New Orleans four months earlier.
3. That no one discussed Oswald's connection to Hidell before the discovery at Klein's.
I've asserted precisely the opposite. The name "Hidell" was discussed at the Tippit crime scene, where a wallet was found bearing ID in the name Oswald and "Hidell." I just cannot find the faintest whiff in the contemporaneous statements of the arresting officers - or anything in the media record - to demonstrate that "Hidell" had anything to do with the wallet found upon Oswald. I've invited you to find anything that proves otherwise, but you'd prefer to issue a blanket dismissal that this was impossible. Well....? What have you found to rebut my contention regarding the arrest wallet?
4. That the Hidell card was added into the evidence AFTER the discovery at Klein's.
That's the unavoidable inference one must draw, given the complete paucity of evidence that anybody involved with Oswald on 11/22 knew anything about "Hidell" on that date. [Distinct from those at the Tippit murder scene.] Again, I've invited you to prove otherwise. Pore over the police reports in the archives, review the media interviews given by the key players, and tell me if you can find a single mention of "Hidell" prior to the tracing of the rifle to Klein's.
5. That everyone who ever said they saw the Hidell card before the discovery at Klein's is a xxxx and/or perjurer.
Not, Pat, actually that's your contention about Barrett, the man who did provide us with reason to believe the Tippit wallet contained ID for both Oswald and "Hidell." I would also argue that Fritz knew about the "Hidell" ID on that date. It's just that neither he nor any of the officers involved with Oswald's arrest thought to mention that name at any time on that day, or even in their reports filed substantially after the fact. If you would care to postulate a reason for this massive vacuum where the name "Hidell" should be, I've invited you to provide it. Feel free.
Also, since there seems to be a problem in translating from my English to your English, let me be excruciatingly clear. I have at no time said that DPD personnel manufactured the ID, or claimed to have seen ID that they never did see. My contention is that they were forced to later claim that "Hidell" ID found at the Tippit murder scene was actually found upon Oswald at the time of his arrest. Had Fritz not segregated the Tippit crime scene wallet, it might have been an entirely different story. But he did quarantine that wallet, as FBI evidence receipts clearly show.
6. That everyone who failed to admit that a second wallet was found was a xxxx and/or perjurer.
I've never said that, and have no basis for making such an assertion. Hence, I cannot fathom a reason why you have invented this point. Given that only a few personnel at the Tippit crime scene knew about that wallet on 11/22, and further given that Fritz took that wallet out of the evidence pool and kept it in his desk drawer for a further five days, the number of people who knew of its existence was rather limited.
Am I reading this correctly? Or are you at least willing to admit that Oswald WAS Hidell?
There is no doubt that Oswald "used" the name "Hidell." There is no conclusive evidence that he used it as an alias.
But, since you began this post by insisting that we argue with common sense, rather than against it, let me note that it was entirely counter to common sense for Oswald to order a weapon under that name through the mails, suggesting he'd prefer no trail between himself and that weapon, and then carry self-defeatingly, obviously bogus ID in that alias on the very day that he planned to use that weapon to kill the President. If you can think of a common sense reason for him to do so, I'd like to hear it.
The Hidell identity goes back to New Orleans. Hidell was stamped on the mailers Oswald was handing out. Marina admitted she forged the Hidell name for her husband. If you're saying that Oswald was not Hidell,, then this adds a few more to your ever-growing colony of liars and conspirators, now doesn't it?
Well, it adds one more name, and hers belongs on any list of JFK-related liars. This is the same woman who immediately told the media that "Lee not own a gun." Subsequently, according to her testimony, he not only owned one, but used it against General Walker, wanted to use it against Nixon [and would have done so were it not for her locking him into the bathroom from outside???], and used it to dry-fire around their home and in parks. While anyone with a whit of compassion might understand why she changed her tune under duress, that she did so on this and a number of other salient points doesn't exactly enhance her status as a beacon of truth. If she is your only witness on the "Hidell" issue, I don't envy your position, or place much credence in your argument. You are free to disagree.
Robert Jones said he told Shanklin that Oswald was Hidell on the day of the assassination, before the rifle sales slip was ever found.
Then surely there is a Shanklin-penned memo to this effect. Perhaps you've found it and can share it with us. By the way, the fact that two files are cross-referenced would indicate that there's a common connection between the two, certainly. And there should have been, since the name "Hidell" was found on Oswald's person when arrested in New Orleans [though no such bogus ID in that name was found at that time.]
Deke Deloach says he talked to Shanklin that night, and that Shanklin told him that Oswald used the name Hidell. If you're saying that there was no evidence linking Oswald to Hidell before the Klein's sales slip was found, then these men are all liars, too.
Not necessarily. Recall that it was FBI agent Barrett who was present at the Tippit crime scene, and saw ID that - while patently bogus - indicated Oswald and "Hidell" were the same guy. If Barrett advised Shanklin of this, then the FBI SAC in Dallas had very good reason to believe it to be so, and to advise his superiors of that fact. This in no way refutes my contention, but bolsters it.
If, however, you're saying that Oswald was Hidell, and that for some reason it was considered expedient to fabricate evidence indicating as much, I must ask WHY??? If the conspirators were trying to link the rifle to Oswald, why not leave the wallet in the sniper's nest?
Entirely unnecessary. Leaving the rifle behind was sufficient. It would be traced back to Klein's, and from there to Oswald's PO box [delivery receipt - missing - contrary to USPS protocols] under the name "Hidell." In the event of Oswald's absence rather than his arrest [which is what I argue was planned], the Tippit crime scene wallet would indicate that an armed and dangerous man who worked at the TSBD and ordered the rifle that killed the President had also killed a cop in making his escape.
Elsewhere, you asked why the rounds removed from Tippit don't match the Oswald handgun. This only became problematic with Oswald's arrest. Had he simply disappeared, as I think was the plan, there would have been no exemplar handgun against which to test the bullets.
The only thing that might make sense is that they were afraid the DPD would find Oswald before they did, and wanted to increase the odds that the DPD killed Oswald. So wham! kill a cop...throw down Oswald's ID.
Still, if the IDs were planted at the Tippit scene, why did the DPD not mention thisl ...when this would have convicted Oswald immediately in the public's eye?
As you know, Pat, I've already argued that such a wallet found at the Tippit murder scene would have made the case against Oswald a virtual slam-dunk, in his absence. When Fritz was confronted with a suspect still bearing a wallet, however, the existence of the Tippit-scene wallet smelled less like a true artifact of that crime than it did a setup to implicate the assassin. Certainly, Fritz seemed to have balked for some reason, because he hid that "helpful" wallet in his desk drawer for a further five days. I've told you why I think he did so. If you have another rationale for his behaviour, I'm all ears.
I fail to believe that the DPD's finding the Hidell ID at the Tipit site was so ewwwy scary that Fritz would deny the existence of this wallet, switch the Hidell ID into the other wallet, and convince several officers to lie about it. Oswald's having two wallets was not much weirder than much of the story the WC eventually settled on, e.g. Oswald smuggling a rifle into a building in a brown paper bag with sharp crease lines and no sign that a rifle was ever inside.
Yes, but now you're suggesting that Fritz would have some way of predicting what a then-non-existent WC might conjure in its findings.
Or perhaps there was no Hidell ID at all on Friday; perhaps it was fabricated by the DPD afterwards. And then talked a whole bunch of people into lying about it. Is that what you're saying?
Pat, you're a clever man, as the majority of your posts illustrate. I'm having a serious problem understanding why you are labouring so hard to make this issue so much more difficult than it needs be, by inventing for me things I've never suggested.
I jjust think it makes a lot more sense that the Hidell card was found on Oswald, per Bentley, per Hill, etc..
And because I far prefer a mundane explanation over a fantastic one, I'd love to join you in that belief. Please demonstrate that any of the arresting officers ever said, wrote or commented in any way whatsoever about "Hidell" on the day that ID was allegedly discovered upon the fleeing suspect. If you cannot - and you clearly can't - then please formulate a common-sense rationale for this rather massive omission, when all involved found it sufficiently probative to mention the "O.H. Lee" alias used to rent his boarding house room.
In fact, I'd find it surprising if Oswald, who'd at least had a taste of the intelligence game, DIDN'T have a fake ID on him, since he was trying to flee. Or do you think he was just out for a stroll? That he took the Hidell ID with him is to me an indication that he was unaware his rifle had been used in the killing. In this way, to me, the Hidell ID is evidence for Oswald's innocence in the killing of Kennedy. That the Tippit site was on a direct path to Ruby's place (and is precisely in the area a briskly-walking man would be if he left Oswald's rooming house at the time described by Mrs. Roberts) is just too much a coincidence, and is indicative that Oswald was indeed at the site, and was indeed part of a conspiracy. (Who knows? Maybe he realized he'd been set up and was going there to KILL Ruby!)
While admittedly I entered this debate unprepared and have argued out of my ass, not unlike Mr. Gratz at times, it is you who has based your whole theory on the statements of one or two witnesses, of questionable value, and has stacked their weak words against a mountain of evidence indicating Oswald was Hidell and the sworn testimony of many others indicating they did not know Oswald's name at the theater, and that they discovered the Hidell card shortly thereafter. Your insistence that the early reports should have mentioned the Hidell card is just that: your insistence. It could very well be that they were asked not to mention Hidell until the name could be thoroughly investigated; we have no way of knowing. For you to throw out the words of all these men, and decide they are all liars, based upon the words of Barrett, as remembered by Hosty, is to me an indication of your letting your bias get in the way of your intellect. I think you have more in common with Mr. Gratz then you would care to admit. As we all do, at times.
You are clearly intent upon demonstrating that by ... what did you call it? ... "arguing out of your ass." You assert that one or two witnesses are of "questionable value" and they spoke only "weak words" relative to the "mountain of evidence indicating Oswald was Hidell" and the "sworn testimony of many others indicating they did not know Oswald's name at the theater, and that they discovered the Hidell card shortly thereafter."
Perhaps instead of presuming that whatever you say, all without the slightest attempt to footnote, must be the truth and thereafter characterizing contrary evidence as you'd like it to be considered, you'd be kind enough to do the following, which I've only asked you to supply a half dozen times now:
Please itemize the "mountain of evidence that Oswald was Hidell." Not merely that "Hidell" was a name found upon Oswald's FPCC card, or that it was a name Oswald was asked about by NO PD and FBI upon his arrest; but that Oswald was Hidell. You take this as a given. Show us why.
Please provide the "sworn testimony of many others indicating they did not know Oswald's name at the theater." You assert that such testimony exists from "many others." Please provide it, and we'll know what constitutes "many" in your definition.
Please provide your proof that the arresting officers "discovered the Hidell card shortly thereafter." I've already itemized my reasons for questioning their testimony [what little there is], and questioned the complete absence of the name "Hidell" from the contemporaneous record. Perhaps you'd care to explain that vacuum for us.
-
John,
You've got some interesting work going on here. Do you have a website you can post these images so those of us that would like to see them in full size, might?
also, I can't remember where or when I heard this; DP winds out of the south/southwest at 8-10 mph gusts to 18 mph. Jack White probably knows...
David Healy
-
I've read your posts here for the past half year, Pat, and admire your keen common sense and facility with language. Even when I disagree with you, I invariably understand why you've reached a conclusion, or why you are prepared to play Devil's Advocate on an aspect of the case. In this instance, you seem [to my mind] uncharacteristically shrill and insistent. Perhaps your conclusion about Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder could benefit from a reassessment in view of the 'second wallet' evidence, rather than a blanket denunciation that what you've come to accept is the only possibility.[/color]
Robert, as I said, I was 95% convinced Oswald killed Tippit, not 100%. My snottiness on this thread has been for two reasons. One is to encourage people like yourself to try and convince me of Oswald's innocence, so that I can learn from them. Two is to encourage people still learning about this aspect of the case to not drink the kool-aid. There is a tendency for assassination researchers everywhere to doubt the official story at all times, and to automatically trust any witness whose testimony calls the official story into doubt. The truth, however, is that human memory is fallible and an over-reliance upon the recollections of one witness is a sure road to confusion. I'm in a similar argument with Tom Purvis on JFK's wounds--he holds Boswell's statements over those of Humes and Finck when it's clear Boswell was the most confused of the three, with the weakest memory.
You're right about Postal. I forgot it was in her FBI statement, not something she said years later. The problem is that in order to believe her you have to disbelieve a number of others, men who otherwise would appear to have no connection to the assassination. It seems far more likely to me that she simply was an exciteable person whose memory exaggerated certain aspects of what she witness.
I just re-read Westbrook's interview with Sneed and he acknowledges they went to the Texas Theater assuming the man who shot Tippit also killed the President. He says he went directly to the Tippit shooting from the TSBD. (In retrospect, I suppose it makes sense for an FBI agent to go over there as well, just in case.)
dgh01: makes sense if he had nothing else to do, perhaps. I suspect at the moment, every FBI agent west of Washington, D.C. had things to do. Primarily, listening for commandments issued from JEdna's office...
For what it's worth, the presidents murder or Tippet's were not federal crimes -- other than curiosity, he had no reason at all for being at that theater...
He says that they received rumors that the shooter was in a library along the way. He says that the body was gone when they got there, but that he interviewed a woman who'd seen the killing (Good old Helen Markham, I suppose). He says that as he started walking up an alley, he and two other officers spotted the jacket. And THEN they went to the theater and confronted Oswald. He notes that he was the ranking officer at the scene. He says he went back to his car and drove to City Hall.
Since he was Internal Affairs, and not Homicide, this scenario makes a lot more sense than I first would admit. His presence at the Tippit site was not necessary for them to conduct their investigation. Evidently, he did not go back to the Tippit scene, after having been there only 15-25 minutes.
While I have on other threads expressed the opinion that the DPD may have framed Oswald with the backyard photos, this thread is of a different sort. Your theory holds that the DPD failed to investigate the murder of one of their own--that they knew someone had tried to frame Oswald and that they looked the other way. I just don't buy this. I believe if they'd found a second wallet the Birch-oriented DPD would have claimed the commie Oswald was going around killing cops and leaving his ID at the scene as a taunt. That he was a psycho cop-killer. And the American people would have believed them. The cover-up of the second wallet makes no sense. I don't believe it happened.
-
Christopher is correct.
And God did indeed help the United States win its freedom from Britain.
See, e.g. the book "Angel in the Whirlwind". The title comes from the following:
After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: "We know the Race is not to the swift nor the Battle to the Strong. Do you not think an Angel rides in the Whirlwind and directs this Storm?"
President Bush quoted this statement in his first inaugural address, by the way.
Well, with GOD on 'both sides' of this current war, guess they canel each other out, huh? What's that leave us? Gotta be that damn oil, AGAIN! Just paid $3 bucks a gallon, coming from a Las Vegan - thats a ripoff, a reichwing ripoff!
-
David, you are correct that I would love to go to Cuba when it opens up.
A mayor of Key West once water-skied from Key West to Havana.
There you go, Timster -- FINALLY you post something, ANYTHING regarding CASTRO did IT! ROFLMFAO! All we need is the Castro 'trick' ski and we're in business -- that ought to be worth, what - 3 column inches?
-
Pehaps if I could find thatquote among his 499 sayings, I could also find the smoking gun.
Perhaps when Castro croaks Miguelito will confess.
When Castro croaks I suspect you'll be writing a byline for the Marquette University Free Press - Travel Section. Give my regards to Kathleen Harris. Please inform her, don't look for help from the WH in her upcoming Senate bid, she's not connected to Wall Street, therefore doesn't exist -- except, cleaning golf shoes of course!
-
David wrote:
You know, Confusious once said: "if one is going to step on ones dick - one might want to take off ones 'golf shoes'." They do have golf courses in the keyes don't they?
The Lun Yu contains the 499 wise sayings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius, who was born about 550 BC. The above quote is not in the Lun Yu.
I have no idea who this Confusious character is whom you claim to quote. Nor do I care to imagine the contortions a man would have to go through to step on his male organ.
As to the "Nation" being criminal, perhaps you are right. I think Victor Navasky did it! JFK was far too conservative for Navaky and crew.
Astute researcher as you are and you can't find it? roflmfao! Your quite a guy, QUITE a guy Mr. Gratz. Maybe a family member can help you out or, Kathleen Harris, perhaps?
So, whatever happened to all the evidence regarding FIDEL did it? You letting that go? Or does your brush with political fame keep you busy these day's?
-
[...]
As I have commented in another thread, Vincent Salandria has even accused those who disagree with him of engaging in criminal conduct, and no one but I seem to find such an argument "beyond the pale". But it surely is.
"...engaging in criminal activity...", now why did Vince say that? Perhaps its true? Why are YOU so sure, it's "beyond the pale"...
You know, Confusious once said: "if one is going to step on ones dick - one might want to take off ones 'golf shoes'." They do have golf courses in the keyes don't they?
-
Responding to Mark's Post #30, I agree almost entirely with what he said.
My point is that it was through capitalism that the United States had produced the industrial plants, etc. that could be quickly converted to wartime use and the production of planes, ships, etc. Great Britain did not have that capacity. But Mark is right that when the United States military purchased planes and ships from the builders thereof that was not capitalism in the sense the products were not being sold to private consumers. But my point was that it was capitalism that put the US into the position to produce the ships and planes.
And I also agree with Anders that the Soviet military and with Robert that the Soviet population paid a heavy price and assisted in the defeat of Germany on the Eastern Front. But I do not think anyone can deny that the Nazis might not have been defeated but for the involvement of the United States of America.
Re Robert's point about what took the United States so long to get involved in the war, well I am sure he knows the history of the isolationist movement in the United States. One of the leading isolationists was, of course, Joseph P. Kennedy. I am not sure, however, what the issue of the internal US debate about entry into the war has to do with the point I made that it was capitalism that put the US in the position to supply the military equipment necessary to defeat the Nazis.
It was also capitalism that created the atmosphere in which Henry Ford became quite a backer for, who else? Aldolph Hitler -- Why does Fascism always come in ther flavor of MONEY? I suspect Joe Kennedy knew more than any other American as to what winds were blowing in Europe -- less of course William Dodd our ambassador to Berlin in the '30s...
What the Russians lose? 20+ million during WW2? I can just hear Truman calling Einsenhower-- "Dwight, the Red's earned the right - let Stalin do as he wishes with Berlin, we'll clean up the mess afterwards. Now, about the bomb...."
-
In honor of the memory of Mr. Robert West, who was an outstanding gentleman and person, his memories and recollections of the WC re-enactment should be preserved.
Unfortunately, they constitute only what I can recall of our meetings and conversations as I took no notes and carried not tape recorders during my visits to his home on Turtle Creek Drive in Dallas.
When I first contacted Mr. West, I had no idea that he had kept copies of the various survey plats which he had generated. My contact was in regards to his survey notes which I knew would have been kept on his part.
Due to my position with an oil and gas company at the time, I was utililizing the survey services of another "West Survey" in Texas, and although there was apparantly no family connections, each of the two owners knew one another.
With this and the fact that I had taken survey many years prior, Mr. Robert West and I had some common ground.
In my initial contact and approach, I merely asked him general questions and then asked if he still had his survey notes. To this he replied in the affirmative and thereafter sent me a bundle of his notes.
In review of thes notes, I began to find survey notes which had reference to such items as "Time/Life"; SS; FBI; WC; etc.
At this point in time, my research efforts had centered around CE#399 and little thought and research had been given to other aspects of the assassination.
I was however fully familiar with the WC re-enactment, however had absolutely no knowledge or indications that three other surveys and re-enactments had been done.
With this information, I again contacted Mr. West who explained the various surveys. He thereafter asked if I would like to have copies of the survey plats which were generated for this work.
In this conversation, it also came to light that he had a full size copy of the WC survey plat which had been made directly from the original plat which the WC had utilized.
Mr. West thereafter provided all survey plats and survey notes which he could find, to me, with absolutely no charge.
Thereafter, additional review of the WC was conducted in order to attempt to see if mention of these other works were made.
What I found was that no mention was made other than on little sleight-of-hand entry of the SS survey plat.
With this, it was microscope time in examination of the WC Exhibits which represented these two surveys.
Being somewhat familiar with "sneaky", I quickly grasped that all was not on the up and up here, and when I found how the survey data block of Mr. We
st WC survey plat was entered into evidence, it was most assuredly a "RED FLAG" event.
This caused me to go back and compare the WC exhibit with the survey data block on that survey given to me by Mr. West.
Therein lies the story of how it was found.
After this, I made contact with Mr. West as regards this survey work.
In not knowing whether Mr. West was a part of this or not, questions were general and did not immediately address the problem.
In several conversations, I came to find that Mr. West was in no way involved in this little scam, and in fact Mr. West had little other than criticism for the WC re-enactment whom at the time he considered to be a bunch of unknowing lawyers and FBI Agents who understood nothing as regards survey work.
With this, it was now well worth my time to drive to Dallas and meet with Mr. West, which I did.
After conversations on multiples aspects, I presented the altered survey data to Mr. West, at his home, and he was quite astonished.
Not only at the fact that the data had been changed, but also the manner in which it had been admitted into evidence.
Thereafter, having full faith in the honor and integrity of Mr. West, I explained to him the ultimate and actual reason for the WC manipulation of the evidence.
Actually, I expected to see one of those "sure it is" type looks and attitude.
To my suprise, Mr. West literally broke out laughing and then stated to me that now it all made sense and that obviously the WC lawyers and FBI were nowhere near as inept as he had assumed.
With this, Mr. West thereafter informed me of many aspects of the WC re-enactment of which I was not aware, and which were completely reinforced by the information which I had given to Mr. West.
In fact, due to his wealth of knowledge as relates to the WC re-enactment of the assassination, and his relay of that information to me, there was little difficulty in knowning exactly where to look as well as what to look for in the WC obfuscation and lie.
On subsequent visits to the home of Mr. West we sat and he would tell things that went on during the WC re-enactment and we would both break out laughing at the stupidity of what these persons went through to present the lie that they have given to the american public.
And although I placed no stipulations on Mr. West, and could and would not have done so if I could, he apparantly never discussed or revealed anything related to my having been given the survey plats and data, or that information related to the alteration of this data by the WC, or of our enjoyable laughter at all that Specter & Company went through to obfuscate the simple facts.
When I found out that Mr. West had passed away, a sadness of knowing that one of the most honorable persons it will ever be my priviledge to meet was gone.
And, along with that passing went a tremendous amount of history as relates to the WC lie.
Thanks for the background, Tom...
David Healy
-
Most are of course aware of the somewhat confusion of Mr. Abraham Zapruder when reviewing frames of his film and testifying before the WC.
And, if one fully examines this testimony, they leave with the impression that Mr. Zapruder was under the mistaken opinion that the road sign between his position and JFK did not fully block from view JFK's reaction to the first shot.
On 3/16/64, the autopsy surgeons appeared before the WC to testify.
No doubt, the news media was gathered for this event.
Too bad some of them were not hanging around Dealy Plaza on this day, as Mr. Robert West was contacted by SS Agent John Joe Howlett and informed that more information was needed in regards to certain aspects of Dealy Plaza.
This information request centered ONLY on data as reference the Dealy Plaza signs.
Mr. West was directed to physically measure the signs, to include the exact diameter of the posts which held the signs. In addition, the height of the sign as well as placement location of the sign posts in relationship to the concrete curb of Elm St. was also requested.
Tom,
Can those later measurements (provided by Mr. West) be made available to forum researchers?
edit: next I looked, there they were...
Thanks,
David
-
Don't let the "wanna-be" writer fool you, Dr. Jim -- Pat has his stuff together...
David
-
tnx, Tom!
David Healy
It will take a lot of digging, may even have to unload the shed, but I will make an attempt to locate the road sign data.
This was another of the good "slight" of hand episodes.
On the day that the autopsy surgeons were questioned, the WC had Mr. West complete exact physical measurements; placement location; height; etc; for the road signs.
Since this was simultaneous with the Autopsy surgeons testimony, it can be considered as either coincidence, or else assuming that no one would pay further attention when all eyes were focused on Humes/Boswell/& Finck.
Nevertheless, the top elevation of the sign, along with the knowledge of Mr. Zapruders height, (which I obtained from his wife & son), as well as the street elevation data and the height of JFK above the street, are all critical mathmatical items which one must have to demonstrate that by all standards, Mr. Zapruder should have seen the top 10 inches of JFK's head at approximate mid-point of the sign.
Kind of sheds new light on the confusion that Mr. Z had when he got to see the film during his WC testimony.
On another "talk show", I demonstrated where the calculated vehicle speed from the head shot at Z-312/313 to approximately Z-358 or so came to slightly over 13 MPH.
Not likely!
Since we are relatively certain that Greer was hitting his brakes through a large portion of this area, the vehicle speed was actually slower than it was prior to the Z-312/313 headshot.
Which of course also correlates with the witness testimony in regards to the vehicle almost coming to a complete stop.
Tom
Z-358 -- one of the reasons why the Moorman 5 photo became so important in placing the third and final shot at Z-313 - look forward to whatever material you can provide, Tom -- Thanks again.
If the film is/was altered, quite a few now know, how it was accomplished -- the question is, obviously why alter the film -- well, remove the limo coming to a stop and solidfy the SBT...
-
tnx, Tom!
David Healy
-
Added are the last two pages of "slight"-of-hand.
Good "sleight"- of- hand is seldom recognized.
Slight (aka meager) "Slight-of-hand" is easily recognizable by those who know where to look.
Tom
thanks very much, Tom! Anything further is greatly appreciated! Any comments/observations regarding DMyer's DP animation?
David Healy
Shortly, I will post the "Vehicle Speed" data which begins to get a little closer to home on your work.
I have not even seen the Dmyers's animation.
From what is known, it supports the SBT/Magic Bullet theory.
This alone makes it not worth my time, or money.
Not to mention that I hardly ever watch cartoons anymore.
And, since neither Time/Life nor the U.S. Secret Service appear to have had any difficulty in placement of the first shot fired, which most assuredly was not in the vicinity of Z-157, or Z-161, etc;, and one of these parties had the original film and the second party had a "first generation" copy, I see little to be gained in looking beyond the parameters of where they for whatever reason placed the first shot.
Just perhaps Mr. Meyers, as well as many others, should review the wealth of eyewitness testimony which clearly demonstrates that the Z-312/313 headshot was the second shot fired in the assassination.
This alone should have alerted Mr. Meyers that his cartoon has some severe problems.
Is he giving it away or selling it?
Tom
Well, at the moment Peter Jennings and ABC are the only ones that have bought the Myers cartoon as gospel, you could probably throw in there, Arlen Spector -- lest of course, the 6th Floor and their adherents... as with most pro WCR, supporters, LN and those posing as CT, there's no sense in letting eyewitness testimony (regardless of when it was taken) get in the way of a good cover story, regardless of how noble the cover story is/seems to be!
-
Added are the last two pages of "slight"-of-hand.
Good "sleight"- of- hand is seldom recognized.
Slight (aka meager) "Slight-of-hand" is easily recognizable by those who know where to look.
Tom
thanks very much, Tom! Anything further is greatly appreciated! Any comments/observations regarding DMyer's DP animation?
David Healy
-
Lamson dronnes on:
Healy whined:
"Error? We've noticed the physicists running to defended your position, what were their names again? Just for the record...? roflmao! Anybody find those .pov files yet?"
THIS is the best the "gang" can do...
Be happy, the Shuttle is UP!"
Yes an error...in fact a massive one. Somehow I'm not surpised you dont understand. One that wipes out the very foundation of his most important claims. And I dont need a physicist. Just a simple expert photographer.
In fact the major weakness of your "horde" is your physicist. Never mind that he is quite the kook (but in great company in your little group) the problem is that your physicist...er math teacher seems to have failed photography 101, if in fact he ver took it. Now you guys might have had a chance in getting it right if you would have had a competent photographer on board to keep your wacky PhD's in check. But alas all you had was White and lets just say that history has shown over and over and over again that Jack White is anything competent in regards to photography.
And finally to you David. You have the pov ray files, they were given to you in 2003. Do I need to quote the entire usenet thread?
dgh01: please do -- and please comment on the following: without the topos and the conversion files you, YOU and JOE used, the .pov files are useless -- but you know that don't you -- NO topo files, no - zip - nada confirmation.
WHy not do something useful for a change other than read a book about optical printers. Why not use the pov ray files to prove that the sign MUST not move. After all your PhD,-physicist,-math teacher says that the way it has to be. It should be a snap for you to prove him right.
dgh01: read the above, AGAIN -- get me the topos and conversion files YOU used and I'll confirm it. Simple request, one that YOUR side I suspect, has willfully neglected. WHY is that?
BTW, you might want to suggest to Costella that he start telling the truth when he writes his replies. From his last:
dgh01: call John what you like -- seems thats the best you can do -- show us what you got, confirm to me and the rest of the world, "...the Zapruder film is not altered, here's WHY..."?
"I have not received any requests from Lamson for clarification of this
point, "
This is quite an untruth. In fact its the second request he has replied to in the last few weeks, the other was on a different public forum. He told a blatant untruth in that reply as well. If needed I will be happy to supply the exact links to his untruth if needed. Seems in addition to being in error on the Zapruder fillm, you vaulted physicist cant seem to even tell the truth on very simple matters.
dgh01: still, no physicist to confirm to YOUR findings? All this noise over research? Which by-the-way, the entire symposium is available on DVD. Your .pov files AND conversion topo files available on DVD? They'll never see the light of day! Will they?
-
As to the various tales of Marilyn's time at the Cal-Neva, interested persons might like to peruse 'My Life with Mr S' by Sinatra's former valet, George Jacobs (an entertaining book in its own right) which gives a new perspective and which has a lot of Marilyn content; also 'Sinatra: The Untold Story' by Michael Munn. The latter gives a more detailed account of that weekend and Giancana's role there.
Munn's book I have to say isn't especially well-written and by his own admission is reliant on statements given to him by a drunken Lawford; Ava Gardner and Sammy Davis Jnr, along with ol' blue eyes himself are among others who talk about the Marilyn matter. It appears to be an honest recollection of what they said to the author when he was a young shaver, and does indeed fill in a few gaps, but should be interpreted with caution.
Linda,
Out of curiosity, have you visited the Cal-Neva Lodge at North Shore Tahoe?
David Healy
-
For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here...
_______________
and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal
David;
Although obviously missed, from the moment that Chuck Marler provided portions of my work with the survey information, an integral element necessary to prove the absence of frames of the Z-film was now in the public domain.
The "vehicle speed" portion of this data will demonstrate why.
Tom
Yes, Tom -- the very reason I sent you a email years back -- thanking you for your in-depth Elm Street - DP research, in particular- FBI/SS recreation limo positioning re the final fatal shot...
David
Knew we had discussed things. Forgot what it was!
That happens more and more. Surely it can not be AGE?
Did I also provide the information relative as to why Mr. Z should have been able to see the top 10 inches of JFK also?
Tom
Tom --
Well, for me, it is age...
and NO, I haven't seen your specific research re AZapruder, if you'd be so kind to post it here or, email to me...Thanks,
David
-
For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here...
_______________
and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal
David;
Although obviously missed, from the moment that Chuck Marler provided portions of my work with the survey information, an integral element necessary to prove the absence of frames of the Z-film was now in the public domain.
The "vehicle speed" portion of this data will demonstrate why.
Tom
Yes, Tom -- the very reason I sent you a email years back -- thanking you for your in-depth Elm Street - DP research, in particular- FBI/SS recreation limo positioning re the final fatal shot...
David
-
I send John Costella the Lamson post and, based on my experience
with Lamson, I was not surprised to receive the following response.
The pity is that naive readers are susceptible to taking him seriously.
Jim,
Lamson is (as always) misleading. He has taken the start of one of my
sentences and tacked it onto the end of another. Of course the
frankensteined statement is completely incorrect!
I did not state that I 'transformed 2d images from different camera
locations to the "same optical axis"'. Only images from the same camera
location can be transformed to the same optical axis. I am happy to provide
details of how this is done -- it is shown graphically in the DVD of my
Minnesota Symposium lecture, and was used, for example, to create the Dealey
Plaza panoramas, and also to transform the Moorman Polaroid to compare it to
photos taken with the camera pointing directly at the Zapruder pedestal
rather than at the grass on the knoll. (See the transformed image in my
Moorman chapter in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.) The mathematical formulas
are straightforward, but not in themselves enlightening to most people.
'Moving the camera around' obviously changes the objects in the image, and
in particular which objects are obscured by others. Shifting the camera
left-right or up-down (or any combination of the two) by small amounts
shifts image objects, depending on their distance from the camera. This is
called 'parallax' and Lamson can read about it in optics or graphics text.
A simplified argument to understand what is going on here is to realise that
if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be
vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera. The mathematical
subtlety comes in catering for the fact that a camera need not be held
horizontal, either left-right or up-down. This is where the transformations
referred to bring everything to a common basis, where the optical axis is
horizontal and the image orientation is horizontal, by calibrating against
the background objects in Dealey Plaza (which, being distant, are affected
negligibly by the small movement of the camera location).
I have not received any requests from Lamson for clarification of this
point, probably because he has been blocked from my email for years due to
harassment. I am sorry that he has remained confused and confounded on this
issue for so long. I hope he can do the homework necessary to enlighten
himself. I have wasted many hours on his hairbrained requests in years past,
and am not inclined to throw away more time on him. If anyone wishes to
believe his rantings, then by all means let them. It's a free country.
Best
John
For those who would like an easy-access route to understanding some of the evidence that establishes the alteration and recreation of the Zapruder film, in addition to the studies presented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), parts of which may be too technical for many students of the case, John P. Costella, Ph.D., an expert on the film, has provided an introduction to the evidence that is largely cinematic and very easy to understand athttp://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/
Every student of the case, I believes, needs to be familiar with the evidence related to the alteration and recreation of the film, which exceeded mere frame removal and excision of sequences of frames and extended to recreating the film using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. The purpose was to create a framework that would defeat serious study of events in Dealey Plaza, since, once you assume it is authentic, it becomes logically impossible to reconstruct what really happened. Those who want to pursue this further can always consult the studies in the book.
For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here...
From the hordes rebuttal:
"I am also more than happy to explain how moving the camera around will change the results. Moving it sideways, or up and down, won’t help: that will shift the sign sideways, or up or down, but the images I present show that the bottom of the pole, at least, does not move sideways, and the top of the sign does not move up or down. (See how easy a verification is with the direct method? You can just look at the images with your own eyes. No sleight of hand, no incomprehensible “sticks” from some sort of graphics engine, no wondering how on earth they put the sticks onto the Zapruder film frames.) Moving the camera toward or away from the sign will changes its width and height (see the section below), but it won’t make it flip and flop. There are fundamental mathematical and physical explanations for why this must be so, which I am happy to explain to The Gang if they are still motivated. Finally, changing the three Euler angles of rotation of the camera doesn’t do anything at all, because we have shifted the optical axis of each frame to the same direction (that wipes out two angles), and we have simply rotated the images to match up the background precisely (which knocks out the final, third angle).
Which is probably more explanation than most of you readers of this page really wanted to know. That’s why I didn’t describe these things in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax—it’s not a physics textbook, nor an opportunity for me to show that I’m a physicist, but rather a book on the assassination of the 35th President of the United States. But rest assured that I have these explanations for you, should you want them."
Clearly Costella has no experience "moving the camera around". But lets take him at his word have have him explain exactly how he transformed 2d images from different camera locations to the "same optical axis".
You say you have the explainations Costella, so produce them. I've asked more times than I can count and yet you have not provided anything. What exactly is your word worth these days?
I see John is well versed in the fine art of fetzering just like you Jim.
First. the quote is direct, I suggest John read it again. His fetzering on this is really silly.
The Zapruder camera moved between every frame and John, that means you took two 2d images from two different camera locations and did the transformation you just said you could not do. So which is it? can you do it or not? Time to put up or shut up. Produce the work.
John continues:
"A simplified argument to understand what is going on here is to realise that
if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be
vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera. The mathematical
subtlety comes in catering for the fact that a camera need not be held
horizontal, either left-right or up-down. This is where the transformations
referred to bring everything to a common basis, where the optical axis is
horizontal and the image orientation is horizontal, by calibrating against
the background objects in Dealey Plaza (which, being distant, are affected
negligibly by the small movement of the camera location)."
Yes a perfectly vertical pole will remain vertical, but what about one that is not perfectly vertical, like the signpost on the freeway sign? Costella lives by the numbers which is his complete failing when trying to do work on photographs. Unless a camera is rotated exactly on the nodal point of the lens you introduce perspective changes that, depending on the rotational point and its distance from the nodal point, introduces perspective changes that are impossible to "transform" away. People who use cameras for a living know this, it seems math teachers dont. Then add into the mix photographing a leaning pole from different camera locations and Costella and his "proof" go down in flames. Is it any wonder why he is not forthcomming with his proof that he can do what he says he can do?
None of this is hard to show with simple emperical evidence. A simple camera and tripod will do. I will be happy to post camera raw digital images of a simple street scene taken with only one axis of rotation...pan...that show a sign post "flipping and flopping when photographed in the center of the frame compared to being photographed at the edge of the frame. Now remember Costella tells us that the laws of physics makes this impossible, but the reality of the matter is that it is not. You up for the challenge John, or are you going into hiding again? Want me to also send you some images that also prove that your "impossible" Apollo shadow is not really impossible? LOL!
For all of his "scientific" bluster and his PhD., Costella is playing a shell game on the readers. He claims he can do certain things, but when requested to show exactly how he did them, he runs, even though he clearly states any number of times his willingness to do so. Not a good place to be if you are a math teacher playing scientist and trying to convince the world that the Zapruder filim is fake, the Apollo photos are fakes, that a US senators aircraft was taken down by an "EMP" weapon by the GWB administration, and that rain sensors in Dealy Plaza are really listening devices. Not a good place to be at all.
I suggest that Costella spend some time with a real camera, and provide emperical proof of concept. In the process he might actually learn what happens when you "move the camera around". A little real world time just might open up your eyes and perhaps then you might actually "see" the error of your position. Then again given your past performances that is unlikely. I suspect we will just see you "fetzer"
So John are you still going to "fetzer" or are you going to finally make good on your word?
Error? We've noticed the physicists running to defended your position, what were their names again? Just for the record...? roflmao! Anybody find those .pov files yet?
THIS is the best the "gang" can do...
Be happy, the Shuttle is UP!
Thomas H. Purvis--posting methodology
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Tom wrote:
[...]
Had the WC truely wanted to know the position of Mr. Altgens (which rest assured they did not), then all that they had to do was open the survey plat, locate the yellow marks on the street curb which Mr. West clearly placed on the survey plat, then look at frame# 350 of the Z-film.
[...]
_________________
Thank you!
David Healy