David G. Healy

"Seventy-nine percent of the men who served in Vietnam had a high school education or better when they entered the military service. Three-fourths of the soldiers had family incomes above the poverty level. (In 1969, my income as soldier was only slightly above the poverty level, in spite of a middle class background and a four year undergraduate program prior to being drafted into service. The Issue of Military pay effects the statistics here. One could do a study of the number of soldiers who dropped socio-economically, because of military service.) Fifty percent of the US Soldiers in that war were from middle income backgrounds. Some twenty-three percent of Vietnam vets had fathers with professional, managerial or technical occupations. 76% of the men who served as US Soldiers in Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds. (In the US, then and now, a good percentage of younger workers begin in the lower midddle/working class and as they age they work their way up.) According to Barry McCaffrey, Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers. He has also pointed out that Vietnam veterans' personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent. (Speech by Lt. Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, (reproduced in the Pentagram, June 4, 1993) assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Vietnam veterans and visitors gathered at "The Wall", Memorial Day 1993.)" (Bob Fromme) The above is a bit self serving, at best! Let's get to the REAL figures, those figures that make: Be, All You Can BE in the ARMY television commercials, look foolish! 1 in 10 that served in Vietnam from 1959 - 1975 were line or direct combat support troops at the business end of a shooting war, that's 1 in 10. Which covers USArmy Infantry, Army Aviation, Artillery, Armor [all combat arms units], the US Marine Corps grunts and associated combat arms units, some Navy direct combat seamen and of course the Air Force/Navy Pilots. These folks made up, and suffered, 95%+ the casualties [KIA, MIA,WIA - killed in action - missing in action - wounded in action... 1 in 10! Determine how many "1's," served in direct combat get your fuzzy math going see what that total is, then we'll get to the 57,000+ names on the WALL! Hopefully, your fuzzy math will tells us what "those names represent" and what their socio-economic condition was, not to mention individual RACE. A Infantry Line Company 2nd Lt. squad leaders' life expectency was, what? Less than a day in combat? Not as bad as a PRC-25 operator, but close. Who does the fighting and WHO does the dying isn't a secret! McCaffrey's a good guy, too bad he likes FOX, but he's a pawn of the system -- he'll tell us what he's told to tell us, we call it "damage control" this side of the pond. Vietnam was a huge screwup, and we got another one on our hands. As do the Brit's! Which leads me to believe a few posts hereabout resemble -- propoganda, from a few US flag draping neocons. In short, rep's from the current GOP (Grand Old Party - Republican) administration and a few *Swiftless* shills have arrived on this forum. Welcome aboard guy's! David Healy

That is exactly right, Bill! Looking back on Mr. Healy's replies, I now wonder why he didn't just say to begin with that he had no evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. I had the impression, as I am sure others did as well, that Mr. Healy's referencing of the 'Hoax' book was his way of saying that he did support the photo and film alteration side of the coin. In the event that someone should come up with a specific observation concerning Zapruder film alteration - I will be happy to participate in the discussion. dgh01: there you are, thanks for dropping by, Bill -- we'll surely let you know! for those lurkers that haven't seen the book called HOAX check out what the non-alteration Z-film *flame* camp is so upset about. Course they do have a problem finding someone, anyone with a degree in Physics that can counter the Costella's HOAX Z-film thesis -- all they can talk about is Jack White.... tsk-tsk! David Healy

cleared...

You write:- [...] Your side believe that at Z 312 to Z 313 JFK suffered two shots to the head. The whole point behind fabricating the film was to disguise what actually did happen. [...] Now James, when have I, David Healy E V E R said JFK suffered two shots to the head? David, You need to read more closely what I said: I said "your side". By that term I meant the group who were responsible for the book TGZFH. You were a member of that group and contributed to both the symposium and the book itself. dgh01: James, I read closely - thank you very much --------- It may be that you, yourself, have never gone on record regarding the twin head shot but members of the group like John Costella have gone on record. dgh01: I don't think I spell my last name, Costella! --------- I assume that you support the work and contribution of John Costella to this argument regarding the fabrication of the Zapruder film. Since you all appear to be in agreement on the fundamental issues as stated in the book and symposium I simply used a collective description when referring to this point. dgh01: your SIDE of the debates use of collective description is tiresome and boring, not to mention misleading for the lurkers out there If you are in disagreement with John Costella on this issue, fine I can accept that. dgh01: when it comes to the Z-film, as stated earlier James, I can't prove the film is altered however, neither can your side DISprove what we put up in HOAX. I await your Physicist findings -- actually we've been waiting nearly a year now, if you factor in Tink's accidental acquisition of the HOAX manuscript... big headstart, James! tap - tap - tap I undersatand whats at stake if the film is altered, it's okay to be nervous! Whatever happened to Larry Peter's, you know James?The guy just plum disappeared, imagine that, Lurkers! How's the fog over there? David James. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[...] I am looking to find information about the Army Security Agency group during the Vietnam War. My father, Robert E. Wall, Jr., was in this agency during his Active Duty Army years. He served with this agency in Vietnam for 2 tours. My father has been diagnosed as having Manic-Deptressive Disorder. [...] Stacey, Not sure where you're located. I'm presuming you're in the US. Start here -- do a search on the web for the "VVA", that's: The Vietnam Veterans Association - nearly EVERY metro area in the US has a group, find the one *closest* to you -- drop a note to the group, explaining your Dad's plight [he's NOT alone, nor are you] or call -- in most cases a contact number is provided. They can provide you, referral/contact numbers. If you have access to internet *newsgroups*, find your way to * alt.war.vietnam * (don't include the *stars*). Post exactly what you posted here, thousands of us Vietnam veterans visit the site daily. It takes a few hours for your thread to appear, check back regularly. Do ****NOT**** provide names, addresses, phone numbers, etc in the thread you start at alt.vietnam.war. Warning: the site is cluttered with current political nonsense at the moment, but when a request like yours appears, especially as a new thread, you'll be surprised at the response... Take care and let us know how you make out. I hope this doesn't sound trite: I know you love your Dad, sometime these problems take years and years coming to the front, it's not you, your Dad or the family's fault - there's help out there, we're not ALL gone, yet! Keep in touch here, I'll be following this... Thanks for the note, JohnS... David Healy

For those that did not notice earlier - here is Dr. John Costella's [and other HOAX contributors] rebuttal to the detractors of Dr. Jim Fetzer's - The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. [the first site was setup immediately after the book release - in response to NON Z-film alteration proponents comments, questions and accusations...] The second site addresses specific concerns raised by Dr. Costella, regarding the Z-film. the original site - addressing non Z-film alteration proponents concerns http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/ more perplexing questions with animation examples... http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro/index.html David Healy

What is your take on Mr. White's thoughts, Mr. Healy. Do you feel like someone was thinking about drawing in a line of people across Elm Street? Shouldn't Mr. White have offered everyone some facts and data to show how he reached his conclusion - showed his work - given us some sources to go on and so on as you are always saying needs to be done? Should he have jumped right to film alteration without doing any research first? dgh01: Mr. Whites thoughts are just that, his thought's -- get to the source Mr. Peter's, your a "researcher" aren't you? I'd suggest you query Dave Reitzes, evidently the Z-film material in question and specific image is from his website - if you'd like his e-mail address I'll provide it. Maybe Dave will show up here and fill you in? Same old problem, as I see it: all the do-gooder's [and thats a stretch] posting version after version after version of the Z-film on websites from here to China, most of them undocumented, verified or confirmed as accurate! Clutter up research - Welcome to the 'bigs' Mr. Peter's, welcome to the 'bigs'!! David Healy

I think Larry said it best when he mentioned that on his copy of the Nix film that the grass isn't a burnt color. To better understand at what moment that Eugene believes to see this blood mist is to coordinate the Nix film with the Zapruder film. From where Orville Nix stood, Jackie's right arm comes to a 90 degree right angle with the street as she reaches over JFK's head. This happens just as she passes between Nix and the trunk of the pyracantha bush. The equates with frame Z326. The Nix frame that Eugene believes there is a mist cloud seen in it equates with Z335. JFK was not hit with a bullet after Z313 and there is never another mist cloud seen after Z316. That means that another color source is causing Eugene to think he sees a blood mist cloud in the Nix frame capture that he used. The darker burnt colors of the grass in different places on his copy of the Nix film seems like a logical source. I hope this information helped. dgh01: would be nice if you can provide a seamless DP film study, been what, 3 maybe 3.5 years now? Till then more NOISE - just another posting based on non-specified imagery[of unknown lineage] from who knows WHERE. Not scholarly in the least... dare you say Mr. Peters? Might want to intro yourself Bill, John Simkin and other moderators have a special page for that purpose - let us ALL know who you are! ------------- Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Peter's just post the before and after [regarding Dr. Thompson's 'drum scan' image] imagery, with a statement from Craig what he did to the image -- I would like to know what Craig Lamson did to ***enhane*** the image, if anything other than creating the CD -- Now thats plain English Mr. Peter's, James Gordon, Bill Miller or whatever name/skirt your currently hiding behind -- you've expressed ZERO knowledge regarding imagery posted on the net - guess we're back to provocateur nonsense aren't we....? For your info Mr. Peter's, I think it's a safe bet; JWhite wiped his hands of you long ago; your an amusing distraction; certainly nothing more than a distraction! Based on your photo resolution comments, I'm fairly certain your Bill Miller, all you needed to add is: if you save a 72dpi image at a higher resolution [300dpi], only you can see things in a picture others can't. roflmao So for lurkers hereabouts, that TYPE OF REASONING, not to mention the disruptions, is why the likes of these guys we're dumped from JFKRESEARCH and the forum going private - researcher funded... I'd say we're onto something - sure gave cause to those of us that need much convincing regarding the subject matter. Whinning about what researchers did with photos Mr. Peter's just doesn't cut it! ta-ta guy! ---------------- Mr. Healy - I see you're still trying to move on and keep Mr. White out of the spot light by continuing to beat a dead horse. Very well, here it is from someone who worked with Mr. White on the Badge Man project. Gary Mack has said, "Jack White not only has had access to all known Moorman photos - including an 8x10 print of the drum scan - he has copied all of them. Every single one! I was there. I gave some of them to him. He has them all, yet insists on using the WORST one to try to make his point." A CD that I was eventually given, as well. No - that is smoke and mirrors on your part and here is why. You can overlay every known copy of Moorman's photo over the top of one another and there will NEVER be one that shows the gap closed as Mr. White's so-called recreation photo does. Below is an example of two Moorman photos - One is Thompson's with the fingerprint on it and the other is Groden's without the fingerprint. Like with the pedestal, there is a gap between Jackie and JFK's head. When overlaid on top of one another - the gap never changes. The only way to get the gap to change is by lightening the photo until you start washing out the images and expanding the light colored areas. There is no Moorman print in TGZFH that shows the gap closed, nor will Mr. White ever be able to produce one on this forum. (see attachment number one) Mr. Healy - again you are trying to mislead someone. When enlarging an image after it has been reduced to 72 DPI it will cause it to pixel and become distorted with magnification. However, magnification can be achieved before posting an image to a forum such as this one. I can zoom in on the Moorman photo - capture it to where we can count the emulsion specs if you like. No matter how you slice it - the gap will not close. The transfermation to the Internet will not selectively alter any parts of the image being posted. In other words - it will not leave the some gaps like that between Jackie and JFK's head open while closing others like that between the pedestal and the pergola window. (see attachment number two) You mean the same resolution imagery that Mr. White didn't post? By the way - I did source my Moorman images, but you have to take the time to actually read the post thoroughly. That is the most honest statement you have made thus far. I believe you are talking about JFKResearch where no one can challenge alteration claims without being banned from the site. That brings us to the next question - If you are not here to share your opinions about photo and film alteration, then why are you posting in this thread at all? Interesting! <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. White - most everyone here are students and won't know what the 'Smith version of the Zapruder film' is. Don't you think you could have offered them some basic information? By the way, this latest observation of yours looks like something Vincent van Gogh would have posted just before going the rest of the way insane and cutting off his ear! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> dgh01: Appears Mr. Peter's is working at, and achieving: "beneath contempt status" truck on Mr. Peter's, truck on!

Mr Healy - I have said several times that it was Jack White who knowingly didn't tell the truth when he said that clear prints of Moorman's photo do not show the gap. Then instead of posting a clear print - he posted a poor quality print and it still showed the gap. dgh01: operative word here is "knowingly", if you can prove that, please post your proof. As far as posting on the internet, Mr. Peter's let me remind you, what you and lurkers see on this forum and in the websites in general is posted imagery that has NO higher resolution than 72 dpi (at no fault of the forum moderators, a internet **given** -- if you're unaware of what that means, you might want to get clarification - I'm sure the moderators can clarify this). Which leads me to Gary Mack's note [recv'd this morning], reminding me of what I've known for years, Dr. Thompson has had in his possesion a Moorman 5 copy/interneg for years, it was the basis of the "drum scan" image used during Moorman Street/Grass debate. The "drum scan" image was forwarded AFTER Dr. Thompson's work in San Francisco to Craig Lamson for further/other processing[?], later copied to CD's and distributed, I being one of the recipients of a CD with the image. Understanding the seriousness of the debate and the implications of the street/grass Moorman position, it is prudent that researchers see [Craig's before and after imagry] the components that drew your side of the **gap** debate to it's current conclusion, YES? Doing research on imagery of no greater resolution than 72 dpi, is dangerous at best -- if that's all you've got, then the honest thing you can say is: "no conclusions - just opinions". For what it's worth, Jack White always requests comments regarding his work [new and old]. If YOU are not in the vicinity when his requests for comments are made, well what c an you say? Maybe, you've been 86'ed from the very place where Jack posts regularly, Rich's JFKResearch forum? Now about my conclusions: Some of the overlays you will find in this thread will be found nowhere on the Internet. The overlay of White's so-called clear print was made immediately after I read his post. The explanations and descriptions I have given are my own words and not just pasting jobs off the Internet as you have falsely stated. Unlike you, if someone states why something is a certain way - I can actually tell people why I believe it's right or wrong. dgh01: if you understand what I wrote directly [above regarding internet photo resolution], you'll see how someone, anyone may see your post here as disengenuous at best. -------------- As far as showing Jack White's material: If someone says that two poles along side each other in a photo are the same height - does one need to drive two more poles in the ground to test the observation or can one make a transparency and test the claim with an overlay by placing one pole over the other ... Of course one can. You make up so many stupid excuses in trying to defend poorly researched claims that you just cannot be taken seriously. dgh01: Mr. Peter's if you can't post right here, the exact resolution of imagery your working with, what your comparing, where that referenced imagery is located, make it available to other's. NOISE Mr. Peter's - just another opinion -- far cry from research, Mr. Peter's. A very far cry! -------------- I have yet to even see one post on this forum where you've detailed why you thought a certain film or photo alteration claim of White's was right. Instead of helping the alterationist position along, you have repeatedly showed the viewers of the this forum that you can't even say why you believe the photographical record was altered. I've heard Mr. White referred to as 'The Emperor who wore no clothes'. Never has anyone showed that comment to be more true than you have while on this forum. dgh01: I post my opinions regarding photo alteration research. elsewhere -- LOL! nearly every post on this and other forums regarding JFK Assassination photo imagery had its nexus with Jack White and his work, [and yes, some of Gary Mac's work] - THAT is what brings certain folks blood to the boiling point... We can thank Jack for many things, the least being: Some photos and films just don't match up to the events portrayed in Dealey Plaza that day. Not forgetting; something ELSE was going on in Dealey Plaza that day. A something else most of the world seems to understand In my estimation, status quo will remain till the altered photo issue is cleared, one way or another. I suspect it can be cleared up in short order if certified and verifiable camera originals are put on the table for indepth review -- till then Mr. Peter's, your best efforts are needed in getting the research community to this end, not positioning yourself amid an agenda driven position, with nothing more than maintaining the "status quo" as it's final goal. Think about it! What do you have to lose? Want to preserve history? Let's make sure we understand "whose" history we're preserving! David Healy -------------

You have only copied and pasted my remarks about the false allegation several times over, so what is the mystery? I am starting to understand why you can't debate the evidence with evidence. Just more healy nonsense and evading the issue. Mr. Peter's or whomever you are - your shirking your responsibility, where is your team spirit - who is lying? I created a nice place for you to insert the nameof who is lying and what did you do? Ignored it! You've had plenty of chances to explain the material your basing your conclusions on - all you can tell us is it's Bill Miller's stuff, Tink's stuff, Lancer stuff, you've provided no links to source material that other researchers can run tests that will confirm your contentions -- NOPE, best you can do is show us Jack Whites material. In short your a PR flunky[we call them propogandists] running interference for the Gangs disagreements with HOAX which have been responded to, months ago... yet here you are, new kid on the block 'trying' to make their team. Good Luck, I'm sure the [the Gang] is measuring your mettle - as of this time, your a little in the wanting in my eye's - ceretainly not up to discussing the matters with those that have an interest in Z-film alteration.... there's hope yet, though -- Raymond Fielding is still teaching the artform of optical film printing somewhere in Florida - hey, you can always read the Zavada Report, great place to start.... Btw, your the last person I depend upon for ANY info regarding this subject matter -- just another phantom with keyboard trying for a little recognition -- your audience is Lancer. Good-bye Bill er, Mr. Peter's David Healy

TOP POST and IN thread responses dgh03: Mr. Peter's snipping is not kosher - I and I suspoect many others reading this thread can follow it quite nicely without your selective snipping.... I'll be asking you to post "proof" regarding some of your claims - pretty quick now! Jack White claims it what faked - can't you read? I bet that cirlce is made up of of a handful of people who didn't know when Moorman's photo was first shown following the assassination or wasn't sharp enough to see the gap problem - Mr. Thompson isn't hurt any by some small circles in my opinion. dgh03: I suspect Mr. Peter's, all concerned are well aware of the Moorman 5 showing. What are you talking about: "... or wasn't sharp enough to see the gap problem..." You seemingly are a simpleton after all! Jack said the gap was faked on the Thompson Drum Scan and I said that every Moorman photocopy dating back to the assassination shows the gap, so his saying there was no gap and that it was a product of fakery put onto the drum scan is a blatent lie. Did you not see the gap in Groden's copy which was around many years before the Thompson Drum Scan? Are you just spouting off without looking at the photo examples provided with these replies? Stay focused Mr. Healy! I have provided the gap as seen on one of Groden's copies of Moorman's photo found in his book "The Killing of a President". Now I hope in your next say nothing of importance reply that you won't pretend once again not to have seen the image I have provided. dgh03: simpleton? rave on, Mr. Peter's rave on. Appears you've completly forgot what the heading of this thread reads. Your not Robert Groden are you, Mr. Peter's? For the record Mr. Peter's, the Moorman 5 photo has deeper implications than what's being discussed here [the gap] -------------- Wait a minute - you're the person who thought he knew all about the drum scan, dgh03: Mr. Peter's for the LAST time: I know who created the drumscan CD, you still having problems with the English language? it is you who should contact Josiah or Mack and get the facts before spouting off. After all, that's what I did! The copy Mr. White used for the Badge Man discovery didn't raise questions from you as to it's pedigree. dgh03: I'd check with Gary Mack, he collaborated with Jack on Badgeman or was that Blackdog man? --------------- His photo shows the same gap as Thompson's Drum Scan, so check on White's pedigree while your investigating Josiah Thompson's. I know that doing your homework is something you guys aren't known for doing, but give it a try - you might actually learn something from it. Groden also had access to two of Moorman's original photos - one of them being the #5 Polaroid. Groden made copy negatives from her original photograph, too. Groden will also tell you that the gap is the same in each copy. dgh03: Groden made copies of everything, literally EVERYTHING -- you did read Pig on a Leash in HOAX didn't you? I don't look upon Robert Groden as the savior in any photo research endeavour. What he withheld from the research community in the past... -------------- The bottom line is that Jack White made a false statement about there being a Moorman photo showing the pedestal and the window touching. dgh03: false statement, how? How in photo research analysis can you make a "false" statement, you present what you find the other side does the same -- bingo, your done! Let other's make up there mind. What are you grandstanding for? Your not in a court proceding Mr. Peter's, the ball is now in your court, provide a first generation image of the Moorman5 that's verifiable, in writing preferred. Do your analysis the same as Jack did - post your conclusions. Name calling and making accusations doesn't prove or disprove alteration Mr. Peter's - might want to raise the bar a little at your end... ------------- Such a photo would blow the lid off the assassination by showing true hoaxing of the photographical record and yet White has never produced such a photograph - WHY? The reason is obvious - there is no such photograph and White made it up rather than to admit he had made a mistake concerning his recreation photo. White used such a Moorman photo copy to discover the Badge Man and Arnold. That Badge Man copy will show the gap just as Thompson's Drum Scan does and Mr. White knew that before he made his malicious statement. dgh03: here you go again -- malicious statemnt? Admit man, your in over your head all you've got left is spouting - Bill, Robert, Mr. Peter's gotta get focused. -------------- Asking for me to answer questions that should have been answered before such an accusation of fakery was made against Thompson's Drum Scan is something that you should be criticizing the accuser over. dgh03: Mr. Peter's are you aware of the right to harbor ones OWN opinion? If not, I suggest you read our Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights -- Free speech is in there someplace. -------------- I'm starting to wonder what simple minded gofer would want the topic of White's mistakes to be set aside, only to then keep inciting replies that keep White's blunders in the spot light. I'm not doing your homework. As the guy to help you that storied to you when he told you that he created the drum scan. You said earlier how polite Joaish has been to you, so contact him and get straight from the horses mouth. dgh03: its clear to me other's have done your homework - I have no intention of contacting Dr. Thompson, he disappeared from the fray, a few years back. ---------- --------Not everyone, Mr. Healy. Please stay focused here! I didn't make Mr. White make up that story about the drum scan being faked by adding the gap between the pedestal and the pergola window. I certainly didn't invite you to get involved in the topic and by trying to make excuses for White's behavior. If trying to get to the truth by exposing a falsehood derived from malice is making a fool out of myself, then call me "The Joker". dgh03: I wouldn't take Frank Gorshen's name is vain like that, Batman is just around the corner, and you ain't he! ROFLMAO! <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As usual you can't seem to stay focused. Josiah Thompson is part of the group the alteration believers call "The gang" and Josiah Thompson supplied the photo that was used. Josiah Thomspon has sinced wrote about that Drum scan and validated it being legit. Anyone claiming the Drum scan is a sham is slandering Josiah Thompson's credibility. What is even worse is that someone like yourself doesn't seem to be bothered by the false statement Jack White has made, but thinks instead that it's more important to blame the person who actually did the scan who you don't have correct at that. Josiah Thompson had the original copy negative done in 1967. The Drum scan of a few years ago was done at Gary Mack's request. And the work was carried out at a commercial lab in San Francisco in the presence of Josiah Thompson. dgh02: Mr. Peter's, Focused? Whose claiming the drumscan is a sham? And how praytell does the claimant Josiah Thompson validate a document he claims he created? Simply by saying so? I don't think so Mr. Peter's, maybe elsewhere but when it comes to the JFK Assassination its a whole different ballgame -- The drumscan CD was sent to me by the creator of same - the very same image that was under intense debate on JFK Research a few years back, a debate I was active in, which YOU Mr. Peter's, were NOT, unless you want to fess up to all of us that yes indeed, you participated in that debate under a different NAME. Now, evidently you don't understand English -- so here it is for the last time: "I know who created the "drum scan CD" it was sent to me by that creator (very large.tiff file) of 'the' drum scan. It wasn't, Dr. Josiah Thompson!" Understand it this time? Mr. Peter's? Does "Craig" sound familiar? As far as Dr. Josiah's credibility is concerned, hey, he was always polite to me, I've no bone to pick with him -- let's just leave it at. However in some circles his image is slightly tarnished - ... Your gonna have to prove to me and others here and elsewhere that Jack is slandering anyone or making false statements -- you have a problem with his research your gonna have to do a lot more than quote verbatim other's comments regarding JackW's photo research. Oh, Dr. Thompson had the negative copied in 1967? Do you mean a 35mm interneg was created of off the original Moorman5? If so where, when and by whom? -- Now were getting somewhere - provanence - the pedigree of the image under discussion... ---------- Your reply needs to be more to the point on on target for I cannot follow your off the wall ramblings about water brigades. dgh02: water brigade = a simple minded "gofer", you know, one of the guys that brings the water bottles out to the players onto the football field during timeouts....2nd string, junior varsity... ------------ The information about the drum scan has been stated above. The work was done in Josiah Thompson's presence. That information was obtained through Gary Mack during a conversation he had with a JFK assassination researcher. Unless you know differently and can state it here, I will assume that this is just more erroneous supposition on your part. dgh02: as your so knowledgable about this -- just WHAT kind work was done (in San Francisco) when the CD was created [photo researchers need this info] -- feel free to discuss at great length how this was accomplished -- I'll understand -- I do use Photoshop too! Daily actually -- i.e., filters, unmask sharpen (color correction or otherwise) applied to the image? ---------- You are probably right for it takes character to admit when you are wrong, but in fairness to Mr. White, you should give him the chance to do the right thing before telling people not to hold their breath waiting for that to happen. The important thing is that Jack White purposely made a slanderous comment that he had to know or should have known to be false and it can be shown to be false by comparing the Thompson Drum Scan against copies of Moorman's photos that were in existence dating back to the 1960's. There is only one thing lower than someone purposely making such a false accusation in my view, and that is someone trying to defend it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> dgh02: WOW Mr. Peter's your calling everyone under the sun names because some do NOT respond to your ranting -- they don't have character? -- your making a fool out of yourself... --------

Mr. White - They say there are intelligent people who make mistakes and there are ignorant people who make mistakes - the difference being that an ignorant person doesn't know when to admit he or she has made a mistake. You just accused Josiah Thompson of creating a faked image rather than you admit your own mistake. The charge is a serious one to say the least. dgh01: Now - now Mr. Peter's I know who created the "drum scan" a CD was sent to me by the creator of 'the' drum scan. It wasn't, Dr. Josiah Thompson! -------------- Below is the Moorman photo that appears in Robert Groden's book on page 34 of "The Killing of a President." That particular Moorman photo Groden used is not from the Thompson drum scan and is clearly seen without the fingerprint on it. It too, has the same noticeable gap on it as the Thompson Drum scan. Are we to finally hear you say that you totally screwed up or are you going to now accuse Robert Groden of faking the gap so many years earlier and well before your 'Moorman in the Street' claim was invented? Some of you people have taken the low road at every turn and there can be no doubt that for you to believe Josiah Thompson faked the drum scan to create a gap, you'd be the first one to post your copy of the Moorman Polaroid that shows "no" gap present. dgh01: where does this 'water bucket brigade for the gang of 5-10 come from? See my above response. ---------- The fact is there is no such photo - is there Mr. White! You certainly didn't show such a photo in TGZFH. Instead you placed your replica photo next to a crop from the Moorman photo and that's what Bill Miller used to check your work. dgh01: if you can't get who created the drum scan correct, should we, or anyone for that matter, believe what you put forth here. From what I'm seeing here you have access to ALL the original photo's or those that DO. And, I know you don't! Some are questioning your motives. ---------- It was your own evidence, your own example images of alteration that was used to check your work. Dating back to when Moorman's photo was first seen on NBC just hours after the assassination there was a gap present. You may think I relish in pointing out your deceitful ways, but it actually shames me. You did such good work in the early years and now you have opted to blame your mistakes on everyone else, but yourself. You owe Mr. Josiah Thompson an apology the next time you see him in my opinion. All scans below are from page 34 of Groden's book 'TKOAP'. dgh01: don't hold your breath and that's Dr. Josiah Thompson, btw! ---------

If it was altered? I thought TGZFH said it was altered! dgh05: According to Dr. Costella not only altered, a complete fabrication! His conclusions and findings are based on tests and analysis of the "best" imagery available -- Be nice if we had access to test the film density of the Z-film alledged camera original and the "3 optical prints". Wasn't it Roland Zavada that requested the same -- who turned him down and why? ------------ I often wondered why the book acted like it was a mystery where the different versions of the Zapruder film came from. Did Lifton forget that it was Groden who supplied him with his copy? dgh05: David Lifton cover that whole subject quite nicely - more, I'm sure than Robert Groden cared for! ------------- What would I ask Mr. Costella? Why he didn't know that Moorman and her photo was taped for airing just 30 minutes following the assassination and then shown on TV within 3 hours? Would I ask him if he knew that before that taping that Mary was the only person who had possession of her photo? Would he then tell me that maybe Mary Moorman possibly altered her own photo within that 30 minute window of time? The bottom line is that Costella screwed up and you're still trying to make excuses for him. Maybe it is Costella that should email me if he has any questions about Moorman's photograph. I'll be happy to walk him through the gap difference between Mary's photo and the alleged recreation that White, Fetzer and Mantik did. I have put up the Moorman and White example again. Maybe if you look at it long enough and follow the arrows closely - you will spot the gap difference between the upper left corner of the pedestal and the lower right corner of the pergola window in the background. Once you finally get that far - I'll then try and explain to you how that shows that White, Fetzer and Mantik had their camera too low and to the right from where Moorman stood. I will also explain how that incorrect line of sight is what Costella not only failed to see, but allowed him to say Moorman's standing height on that LOS only brought her up to his shirt button. The example shown below leaves three possibilities as to how White and three Ph.Ds made such an error. One option is they made it on purpose to promote Zapruder film alteration. The other possibility as they didn't know what they were doing. The third option is they were all blind as bats to not see that gap difference between their recreation photo and Moorman's. I've added an animation and I'll let everyone choose which ever excuse they think best fits these four alterationist. See the Attachment below Why praytell, does a few researchers doing tests in Dealey Plaza with surveyors equipment create such a stir? Absolute foolishness - unless of curse there's something to hide -- personally, I find the Moorman street/grass issue a moot point - there's plenty of other evidence on the record, such as the FBI/SS recreation that states: 3 shots - 3 hits Z-276, 313 and 358 thereabouts. But that blows the Z-film completly out of the water doesn't it? Then that is that nasty Tague fleshwound situation cropped up. The birth of the **magic bullet ** - the rest is, quote 'offical' unquote, history! ----------- Let me answer this question with another question. How many PGA golf courses can you name that is under a water restriction ordinance that says wasting water during a rain is illegal? dgh05: probably every golf course in Las Vegas [and there are many PGA rated golf courses there], I suspect the same for Pheonix and surrounding area -- shall I go on? ---------- A rain sensor would not be needed unless such an ordinance existed and in Dallas, Texas such an ordinance does exist. The reasons for the rain sensors in Dealey Plaza was explained and should have been easily understood. I will repeat it once again so maybe the second time reading it will allow you to make some sense out if it. The rule is part of a conservation plan they implemented. The Plaza is divided up into sections and each section is set on a timer that tells it when to water a particular area. Common sense would tell someone that shaded areas may require less water than those exposed to direct sunlight. An area that has plants may require a different amount of watering than areas where there is just grass. An area where the ground slopes causing a quicker run-off would absorb less water than a section that would have a slower run-off or possibly be flat and would have a higher absorption rate. No, Mr. Healy, all it takes is a little effort to seek out the answers before going overboard and thinking that the world is out to get you. It's not just amazing, but rather a needless shame! Anyone can just spout out claims. The term is called throwing crap on the wall to see if anything sticks. These claims take no effort to make up off the top of one's head. The shame of it is that manpower has to be wasted to expose the errors in these claims so people with less knowldge of the Plaza and the assassination photos won't be taken in by people who are supposed to be responsible researchers. dgh05: I suspect the same type of intransigence arose amongst the flat earth society For anyone wanting to read about the rain sensor fiasco, they can do so at - http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejoejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm I am guessing that Mr. Durnavitch probably figured that someone who couldn't see the gap variance between the pedestal and the pergola window in Moorman's photo Vs. White, Fetzer and Mantik's recreation, or someone who couldn't reason out why the Dealey Plaza had rain sensors installed across it, just didn't have the common sense or ability to understand his 3D program. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> dgh05: Ah, another guess! Maybe someone told him just what the actual gap measurement was all about? In any case Mr. Durnavitch 3D exercise in futility was about the Stemmons Freeway sign, NOT the pergola-pedestal gap analysis...Thank you. David Healy ------------

When did the alterationist have contact with the original Zapruder film? You seem to run a crooked game with double standards. You first complain that test were not run on the original Zfilm to show there was no alteration that took place, but support alteration claims that were not run on the original Zfilm either. You are a seller of snake oil and when confronted with evidence - you call it noise because you have no other way of dealing with it. dgh04: may of been within 24 hours, actually - sooner! If it was altered! Double standards? Even Roland Zavada wanted to do density tests on the Z-film Mr. Peter's! Are you sure you should be carrying the water bucket for the non-allteration gang of 5-10 Mr. Peter's -- this must be embarassing for you? ------------- I know what a matte is for Groden and I have talked about it many times when he is telling me how much of a nut he thinks you are. You can't even keep it straight as to whether you believe the Zapruder film was altered or not. You say in this reply that it "could" have been altered and the reply before you said, "I'm definitely leaning in the alteration direction" - you sound more like a politician than a researcher. dgh04: Groden is commenting? roflmfao! He still hawking pictures in Dealey Plaza -- He probably has the time, according to David Lifton piece in HOAX - ole Moe Weitzman wasn't happy about wayward protege Groden and his escapades with the Zapruder 35mm optical prints under his [Weitzmans] care (you can read all about that, Pig on a Leash - in HOAX...) For someone thats looking for credibility Mr. Peter's you keep strange company. Did Mr. Groden get that "selling autopsy pictures controversy cleared up -- and that farce about the Bruno Magli shoes in the OJ case? Groden claiming altered photos, good God Mr. Peter's Maybe you can ask Mr. Groden: "could" the shoe photos have been altered? ------------- Credentials don't mean anything if you don't know the evidence and that's why I withhold mine. The evidence speaks for itself. Costella can have all the degrees known to mankind, but if he doesn't know Moorman's photo was shown on TV within hours of the assassination - his writing chapters about it having a 27 hour window for alteration is a fallacy on his part based on not having his facts straight. Fetzer and Mantic can also have degrees out their ying-yangs and it doesn't mean much if they think their recreation photo showing the pedestal corner touching the pergola window is what is seen in Moorman's photograph. Again, look below at the attachment and tell me how White and two Ph.Ds tested this LOS on several occasions while thinking they were recreating where Moorman stood and never once noticed that they didn't have the distance between the pedestal and window corners correct? Better yet, explain how it was that even after their error was pointed out to them that they allowed their faulty alignment to go into print several years later as if it promoted Zapruder film alteration? I know ... instead of you explaining it - just call it more noise! dgh04: I suspect withholding YOUR credentials is fabrication, but that's okay, serious folks get on the record, which allows you guys something to shoot for - send Dr. Costella a email, ask him about Moorman...you've done that, yes? Ah -- who has proved "faulty alignment" regarding Dr. Mantik and Fetzer's recreation - Bill Miller, Gary Mack, Josiah Thompson? who? Where is the data posted? Let's get on the ball here, your making accusations -- where's the BEEF? Why do you care? ---------------- Yet you have not been able to give one example to this forum of an alteration claim of Mr. White's that you believe to be correct and why. You appear to be one of those people who might be considered more of a help by not trying to help at all. The info discussed was presented to it's viewer by putting up a clip of the Zapruder film that is being played too fast. A fair minded person would say that the author of the claim should state the speed at which his clip is playing and why he used a speeded up version in that particular case. dgh04: translation ---> Mr. Peter's or whomever doesn't know - why does that not surprise me/us -------- One of the things that you guys are noted for is not researching the facts before speaking. Upon hearing these nutty paranoid remarks in TGZFH - some researchers actually called the city to gather information on the sprinkler system in Dealey Plaza and found that there was a city ordinance that prohibits the use of water when it is raining and this explained the need for rain sensors. dgh04: they did? Who did they talk to? Why are there more rainsensors in Dealey Plaza than most PGA rated golf courses? ---------- The rule is part of a conservation plan they implemented. The Plaza is divided up into sections and each section is set on a timer that tells it when to water a particular area. Common sense would tell someone that shaded areas may require less water than those exposed to direct sunlight. An area that has plants may require a different amount of watering than areas where there is just grass. An area where the ground slopes causing a quicker run-off would absorb less water than a section that would have a slower run-off or even flat and would have a higher absorption rate. No, Mr. Healy, all it takes is a little effort to seek out the answers before going overboard and thinking that the world is out to get you. dgh04: you may be onto something here Mr. Peter's, we'll reserve a special place in history for you. It's amazing - the manpower, time and effort that goes into debunking a rainsensor claim. Simply amazing, the lengths that the non-film/photo alteration camp will go at **NOT** posting... never mind, I'm just repeating myself --------- For anyone wanting to read about the rain sensor fiasco, they can do so at - http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejoejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm dgh04: that the same Joe Durnavitch that made the claim the Stemmons sign was NOT changed? He the guy that proved it with a 3d program called Povray? If so, might want to ask him if he recalls, we communicated about the Povray source code (a version of C++) he used. I explained to him I'm quite familiar with the program, have been since early 90's. Requested he send me the exact code he used and the topo .inc file of Dealey Plaza so I could verify his findings -- never heard from him again - I believe the gangs "Povray" Stemmons Fwy's sign website came down right after that, could be wrong about the website! -- Hey listen seeing that your dealing with the heavy hitters on the other side of the argument, maybe you could get them to send me the material I requested. When that happens I'll show you how you too alter 'reality' using a great public domain 3D program like POV-RAY [tm] truck on Mr. Peter's, truch on! -------------- <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If your contention is that you can tell the world the Zapruder film is altered unless someone can prove to you that it's not, then that is an asinine statement on any level. In the section you had witten in the hoax book, you claimed you had no proof that the Zapruder film was altered, now you contradict what you said in the book. You were presented examples as to why the claims of alteration are in error and instead of you being specific about anything, you just say no one can show you why it's not altered. At least I assume that is what you stated from the disjointed and poorly structured sentence you wrote saying "Because folks such as yourself can not show me why it [the z-film] altered ..." dgh03: no contradiction at all Mr. Miller/Peter's -- welcome to the world of JFK Assassination motion film analysis -- unless you've completed forensic tests on the Zapruder film - which Rolanda Zavada unfortunately did not do, hence I suspect you haven't -- just more noise. More opinion, no verification from official sources as to the legitemacy of the Z-film. --------------- dgh02: I expect nothing from you Mr. Peter's other than NOISE, with on exception [below] -- you've advanced this case not ONE iota -- parroting what is heard on other 'agenda and profit driven motive' forums regarding JFK doesn't quite cut it! I disagree, but for arguments sake, let's say you are correct. Please tell me how that is any different than what you have done in every one of your replies? At least I can say why I found someone's claim to be correct or wrong ... I have yet to hear you address one alteration claim in a way that would lead someone to think you might know why you thought an alteration claim was legit. dgh03: Mr. Peter's I'm on the record: "the Zapruder film could have, may have been altered by means of film optical printing techniques and effects" Are you on the record Mr. Peter's? Is the Zapruder film altered? Now, I'd like you to tell me the error of my way - are you telling me/us that the use of film mattes in Z-film compositing is impossible or just improbable? Do you even know what a film matte is? If you find this approach to film alteration is wrong, WHY is it wrong? ---------------- dgh02:Nobody at Lancer is qualified to make an educational - technical "guess", let alone prove Dr. Costella thesis as wrong --- I think anyone who can place Costella's overlay against his Moorman and Hill images taken from the Zapruder film and place them over the same Zfilm images to see if Costella sized them correctly only to find that he made himself a good head or more taller than Charles Brehm is qualified. I'd say anyone who corrected his alleged 27 hour window for alteration of Moorman's #5 Polaroid by pointing out Moorman and her photo was filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination is qualified. I'd say that anyone who can show the gap variances and how far off White, Fetzer and Mantik were, despite Costella flip flopping back and forth only to fall on the alteration side of the fence is qualified. Below are several people's recreation photos of the pedestal to window ratio as seen in Moorman's #5 photograph. Maybe someone should question Costella's credentials. (see gap comparisons below and explain how Costella thought White, Mantic and Fetzer got it right) dgh03: Can't question anyones credentials here Bill, we're not sure of who were talking to here, let alone what YOUR creditentials are especially in questioning lettered folks, with known expertise in the given fields -- why don't you give up the ghost and lay out the fact's as your team sees them: tells us why the Z-film can't be altered... tell me why, aerial image processing would be a bad choice for optical printing? ------------------ It's important because Costella supported Jack's poorly researched claim. It's important because you keep talking about Costella's credentials meaning something when his work is shown to be full of poor observations and a lack of knowledge concerning the facts of the case. Keep in mind that this is the same guy who wondered if the CIA had tampered with his cordless razor and bugged the sprinkler system in Dealey Plaza with listening devices. dgh03: My goodness Bill, er, Mr. Peter's - I was present when Dr. Costella corrected Jack on a few things regarding his imagery - evidently your behing the curve on some of this material. ---------------- I have stated that I believe there was a conspiracy. As I recall - you have defended some of the alteration claims Mr. White made and despite my asking you to expplain why you agree with his, you evade being specific on anything. dgh03: you do, what part? Can we have that for the record? I defend fellow JFK photo researchers that are attacked needlessly, Mr. Peter's - Jack's research is just that, Jack's, period! Whether I agree or disagree [on most accounts I agree with him, and most certainly are suspicious] with him isn't the issue. Because he's a convienent target is repulsive to myself amonst other's. What I also find offensive Mr. Peter's is never ending researcher baggering. Not to mention, direct or in-direct support by those re: the deeply flawed document, WCR. --------------- I have detailed several opinions here and you just pretend that you don't see them. I explained that Costella had his data wrong when he thought a 27 hour window of time was available to alter Moorman's Polaroid by pointing out the showing of Mary's photo on NBC TV within hours of the assassination, and you pretend that you cannot hear me. I pointed out that Costella's web page has the Zfilm playing at a higher speed than it was recorded, and you ignore it's importance when talking about people being seen moving too fast. I could go back and add all your replies together and not get one specific answer to anything out of it. So because the alterationists either cannot or choose not to defend their position, it, at the least, casts doubt on their thesis; at most for those who have carefully studied those claims, it substantiates their belief that the alterationists have created a deceitful work of fiction far surpassing anything that the Warren Commission accomplished. dgh03: ah, from the preservers of modern day history! your a little late, Bill -- Next I'm gonna hear about the historical signifigance of Dealey Plaza bus tours -- LOL... So, how fast is Dr. Costella's Z-film animated .gif/.jpg playing? Are you attempting to distract from the info discussed in the Z-film animation, which animated .gif/.jpg -- not many, least of all the Gang of 5-10 has carefuly studied the Z-film alteration claims, who are you kidding? They can't bear the consequences if said proves to be true -- just like yourself... --------------- murder of the President of the United States of America -- Truck on Mr. Peter's, truck on! David Healy I thought the last major anything was the work of the alteration geniuses, not forgetting their major discovery of rain sensors with listening devices in them! dgh03: if nothing else Mr. Peter's you show a distinct lack of humor -- why would rain sensors be plastered all over Dealey Plaza? Seven or eight of them, maybe more! I guess from one side of the street to the other there's significant differences in rain levels, why waste water with all those lawn sprinklers on -- then again there's all sorts of blurring issues from frame to frame in the Z-film - anything is possible, I guess! Hi Gary! David Healy --------------

You have no work to offer, Mr. Healy. You just make references to alteration being possible, only to admit that you have no specific proof it was done. dgh02: After all this time Mr. Peter's, i do belkeve your beginning to understand ENGLISH -- And regarding the Zapruder film -- I'm definitely leaning in the alteration direction, why? Because folks such as yourself can not show me why it [the z-film] altered -- other than the weak assertion that the Dealey Plaza films are seamless which of course you/gang of 5-10 can't quite get THAT proof together, hence Mr. Peter's - all you do is make noise just that, NOISE! ---------------- You certainly are a promoter and you have shown the JFK research community that you can do your job without any knowledge about what your promoting and why. While you like to use the excuse that someone hasn't done their own work even though you seem to like citing everyone elses yourself, I have given you ample opportunity to at least state why YOU believe any of the alteration claims are valid based on YOUR OWN interpretation of the evidence and not once have YOU been able to do so. dgh02: I expect nothing from you Mr. Peter's other than NOISE, with on exception [below] -- you've advanced this case not ONE iota -- parroting what is heard on other 'agenda and profit driven motive' forums regarding JFK doesn't quite cut it! ------------- You keep telling the members of this forum that Mr. Costella dealt with the critics. The "gang" that he refers to did not offer anywhere close to the detail of the rebuttal that was offered at Lancer. Here is a sample of 'the gangs" rebuttal ... dgh02:Nobody at Lancer is qualified to make an educational - technical "guess", let alone prove Dr. Costella thesis as wrong --- ------------- "B is for Betzner…Zapruder & Sitzman" Jack’s claim of alteration is based on fuzzy blow-ups with inadequate illumination. Lack of detail is not proof of alteration."F is for Franzen…mystery woman" Jack is easily confused, by photos taken from different points of view. "M is for Moorman…in the street" Jack starts with the presumption that Mary is in the street when she takes her famous photo, and ignores all evidence to the contrary. dgh02: the exception " Jack this - Jack that -- poor taste Mr. Peter's, attempting to undermine the work done on Moorman 5 street/grass issue without stating why it's being debunked isn't quite fair to the members here, maybe you'll be so kind and explain to the forum members why it's so important to get the Moorman 5 Street/Grass issue cleared up. Then you can step up to plate, present your case - contrary to those that are claiming the Z-film is/may be altered. -------------- dgh01: search on Mr. Peter's search on -- Dr. Costella clearly outlines and responds to ALL comments the best the non-alteration camp had to offer... What the non-alteration camp said that Costella refers to is shown in part above. Costella, like yourself, has never addressed the more detailed critique on Lancer. dgh02: your just going to have to get beyond JWhite, Mr. Peter's. You appear obsessed with him, a few of us here understand though -- why not forget Jack's work, let's get on to the real meaning of your posting here -- LHO was the single; lone killer of JFK; the magic bullet theory is accurate; the Warren Commission got it right... -------------- dgh01: ..... so I term the Lancer site 'newbie' JFK related Assassination education and basic CT propoganda - very little research - loads of criticism - zero debate So basically, you deem the Lancer site's approach to be the same one that you have been using here on the Education forum - propanganda - little research - loads of criticism - and zero debate. dgh02: Lancer site approach is just that: their approach. I could careless how they approach the JFK photo analysis subject, I'm waiting for Y O U R research - right here telling me WHY the Zapruder is or is NOT altered -- pretty simple Mr. Peter's ... The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK. Title is pretty clear... ----------- dgh01: you mean the one with the lines on the blank page, that one? Ah, maybe you can start with the exact *provenance* of the Z-frame image used as the template for your lines? That's just the point, Mr. Healy - you cannot follow the simplest of explanations. The illustration was said to be a theoretical example. dgh02: and here we are: ANOTHER "theoretical" example - that's the extent -- just another opinion hence, more NOISE. ------------- The rotation of the limo is smooth in the Zapruder film and the distance of rotation between film frames can be plotted. The alteration page you mentioned didn't offer a shred of the evidence that you are asking me to now layout in rebuttal and they are the ones making the claims of alteration in the first place. And how do they do make those alteration claims that was apparently done to your satisfaction ... they show a clip that is played at an incorrect speed and say 'look, the people are moving to fast, thus something has been altered!' Those are the types of reasons that such ground breaking research will not be invited to speak at a major Dallas function ever again. dgh02: last major "anything" to happen in Dallas Mr. Peter's was the murder of the President of the United States of America -- Truck on Mr. Peter's, truck on! David Healy

disregard - duplicate post DHealy