David G. Healy

You sir are a xxxx! dgh01: oh? no need to get upset Mr. Peter's -------------- I have spent considerable time detailing the mistakes the alteration crowd as made and so far you have not offered a single sentence rebutting anything specific. All you have done is make general replies that don't address anything. dgh01: My work is available for ALL to see Mr. Peter's, and yours? ------------- Now you mention optical printers and mattes. All you are doing and have admitted to doing is prmoting the idea that alteraion was possible and then tell us you have no proof that it was actually done. dgh01: promoting? Mr. Peter's as someone thats worked in the "promotion" business for years -- I certainly know the difference between promotion and disinformation -- guess where your nonsense lies? ------------- Let me give you an example how silly you sound by me saying something equally absurd. Here goes - It is possible that a deer hunter was shooting at a trophy buck on 11/22/63 at 12:30 p.m. CST and his shot went astray and hit JFK in the head at Z313. I have no proof, but it is possible. dgh01: this really alerts as to just how serious you are... ------------- And for your information - we are not on Lancer - part of the evidence has been detailed before you and I cannot find one specific rebuttal of yours on this site to date. 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... and what do they show up with, NOW? YOU! Pardon me for not getting in a lather... ------------- I might also add that this so-called work being done by your scientist and researchers has made them the laughing stock of the JFK assassination community, thus causing several of them to not even be allowed to speak again in the two main Dallas conferences each year. dgh01: JFK Assassination community? Your not one of those "preservers of history" nuts that cropped up a few years back are you? Those that feign belief in some sort of conspiracy regarding JFK's Assassination? Perpetuate animosity between CT camps all in the hope that the status quo will remain just that -- NO progress, no advancement in what happened that day in Dealey Plaza? ------------- There was a name going around Lancer for a researcher who continually misquoted the facts and the name given to him was "Baghdad Bob". dgh01: Is that so? A few [very good] researchers i.e., ballistics, etc post on ocassion there, some ex-members of the media nose around and post, in general: pretty basic support stuff - so I term the Lancer site 'newbie' JFK related Assassination education and basic CT propoganda - very little research - loads of criticism - zero debate ------------- Because of your constant replies about how nothing is being offered to disprove alteration claims as if you cannot see the post before you, 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? You know who[the researcher provided it], what, when, where and why[he/she provided it]Mr. Peter's -- provide a full first generation print of the frame [one that can be verified in writing by KNOWN personnel - none of this phantom stuff, Mr. Peter's], inform us as to what was done to correct the lense distortion [pin cushioning or barrelling], if anything. After all everyone needs to be on the same page when claims are being made, don't you agree? ------------- you're starting to remind me of that very man who kept telling how the Iraqis were winning the wore. dgh01: that's WAR by the way, not wore -- earth to Mr. Peter's -- the US and British [and a few other allies] death toll in Iraq is increasing -- Shrub's Mission Accomplished was/is just a tad premature -- your naivety [did I spell that right, Bill?] is showing. ------------- David Healy <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahh, I don't know Mr. Peter's -- you know lines don't mean too much, especially when they're *not* on imagery - I point to your comments regarding JWhite studies and theses, actually I see this nonsense as delay, YOUR delay of the obvious. We might have something to talk about Mr. Peter's IF you had a simple understanding of optical film printing. Of course you've demonstrated NO understanding of even the rudimentary 'basics of optical printing'. Might I suggest you talk to Moe Weitzman, hell -- send David Lifton a note, or even praytell read Lifton's section in Hoax -- he did do a little optical printing himself you know -- talk to Doug Horne he's here on this forum -- a nice guy, too. What I see happening here Mr. Peter's is this, an obvious disregard for work done by noted scientists and researchers and all we hear from the peanut gallery is: they're wrong, trust me -- but don't ask me what my qualifications are when I post material composed of a few lines on a blank sheet that supposedly proves a thesis wrong -- then hide behind Lancer... You do any matte work Mr. Peter's? Till then, I'll be around...

[...] Any questions, Mr. Healy? [...] Not-a-One you can answer Mr. Peter's or whomever -- keep trying though, you may spark some interest from one of the still photo pro's. Guess nobody but me will talk with you. Most of the folks aren't interested in trading nonsense with those they can't depend on being who they say they are -- Why waste the bandwidth, is what I'm hearing... guess that translates into Nope, no questions, Bill! Best regard's David Healy

Show us, YOUR best. Try as you might Mr. Peter's or whomever -- you might want to put a little evidence - as in, what your words profess? What Miller professes on Lancer ain't going to cut it, repeat -- SHOW us with clips, clips that have been certified by ONE with photgraphic analysis credentials, hopefully a Physicist specializing in optics - not by someone that wants a job with Photoshop's parent corporation Adobe -- I've already told you, I'll lay the groundwork for wild Bill's resume. Attention: the CEO of Adobe, Dr. John Warnock --done some business with him, way back when Illustrator was created... Perk up Mr. Peter's, we're still hopful that you'll get something, anything to together... btw - you've got poor net-ettiquete, why yell? Pauly want a cracker [geez] David Healy

Does anyone have any JFK assassination photo and film related hoax things to talk about? We appear to be getting away from the topic of this thread and it won't be long I expect we'll be seeing postings going back and forth about how the family pets are doing, if little Josh is potty trained yet, that one of you just had a root canal, or some other non-related event that has nothing to do with this topic. It just seems like a separate topic maybe called "General JFK related News" might be in order. dgh01:Call Gary, he'll give you a hand -- A few of us are waiting for you to put forth something -- anything JFK related that has one iota of original research --till then Josh's potty trained experiences will do just fine. I suspect it will be a VERY long wait -- then again, you may surprise me, but I doubt it! ---------- <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[...] A couple of months after the Washington Post publicized that the Committee’s safe had been broken into, a man named Harrison Livingstone claimed that he was selling photographs from President Kennedy’s autopsy. At that time, Robert Blakey had said, “There are two things possible here. Either it’s a fraud, or it’s an attempt to sell stolen property.” Harrison Livingstone responded at that time by saying that they weren’t stolen, but the day after he made his claim about trying to sell the photographs, he said he was taking them off the market, still claiming that they weren’t stolen but allegedly claiming that he feared the Justice Department would take action against him. Photographs ultimately surfaced that show a bullet-size hole in the back of President Kennedy’s skull and the public has accepted that they are from President Kennedy’s autopsy. [...] dgh01: Might want to check Robert Groden regarding: a source of "autopsy photos". He was queried about the pics and how he obtained them - I believe David Lifton discussed this in HOAX, in any case his [Groden's] testimony is in the public record. David Healy -------------

Fairly persuasive arguments for Zapruder film alteration... There are animations on each page, allow all images to load when moving from page to page. Thanks to Dr. John Costella in making these pages available to the general public and those researchers that have long held belief's that something is wrong with the extant Z-film. http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro/index.html Best regard's to all, David Healy

Bernice -- Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving the case for alteration. In refusing to address Mr. Peter's concerns regarding film alteration, of course all he can move on is JWhites work - discredit him [meaning Jack White], by default - possible alteration of the Zapruder film goes by the wayside ... yeadada, yadada, yadada... And the beat goes on... Nice to see you posting, lady! Hope all is well with you and your's. David Healy

[...] When you can't refute the challengers, post nothing contrary to the challengers responses, the best your left with is Mr. Peter's... "I can appreciate your desire to advertise for TGZFH book and Mr. Costella's web page..." ROFLMAO - Bill Miller or James Gordon? Your guess is as good as mine... Mr. Healy, If you spent more time reading the information being discussed between Jack White and I instead of trying to draw attention away from the dicussions, you would see that I am addressing an authoritive voice. If you have a particular photo or film alteration claim that you want discussed, then put one up and tell us why you believe it is legit and we can all take a close look at it together. Why you keep posting such things like saying that I cannot refute challenegs when that is exactly what I have been doing when I can get someone to actually make one, seems to be a total fabrication on your part. What I find even more amazing, other than the sites administrator tolerating your intentional childish interruptions, is that you make these claims when the postings I have made are still available for reading and speak for themselves by the level of detail I provide with each one. dgh01: Mr. Peter's, Jack White is more than capable in handling himself, he's plenty of experience...-- My challenge to you regarding your comments and discussions regarding JWhites photo studies and research -- is thi; post your own research, nobody in this research community like a whinner - a parrot of other people's work - show a little chuztpah, take a chance - let us see something original. Jack manages to do just that - he wins some and loses some - just the nature of the beast... He's assisted many in doing just that [creating **original**] - only respectful thing to do -- With this Mr. Peter's - Gordon or whomever you are, I bow out of your charade, your not worth the time... Have a nice life - David Healy

My name is David Healy - I reside in both Northern California and Southern Nevada, (Reno - Lake Tahoe and Las Vegas respectively) My interest in this case goes back to 1963. (I was stationed with the USArmy in the Republic of South Vietnam when JFK was assassinated) My specific focus, regarding this research endeavour, is JFK assassination motion film "evidence", primarily the Zapruder film. Contrary to many that "do film/photo research regarding this subject, I make NO claim that the film or films are altered! WAS it possible to alter the Zapruder film, as in: was the time; personnel; equipment; optical film printing techniques and know-how available in late 1963 and '64? Of course it was. It was available 25 years before that. In certain forms, 80+ years before THAT! With all the noise that's generated here and other places on the internet regarding this subject, it's little wonder that other's are starting to give the film alteration thesis room to grow. The question has ALWAYS been, ** IF ** the film is altered - WHY, and if so, WHAT is being covered up. Questions regarding techniques of possible Zapruder film alteration, or Zapruder film specifc questions covered in the book HOAX? Attempts will be made to answer any and ALL questions posed by readers that aren't addressed on Dr. John Costella's website or Dr. Jim Fetzer's websites. I sincerely appreciate John Simkin's effort in bringing the JFK assassination to this fine 'teaching' forum. David Healy Reno, Nv. - Lake Tahoe, Calif. 07-14-04

Evidently Mr. Peter's is attempting to last as long as he can without debating authorative voices regarding the finer points of possible alteration regarding the Z-film -- We all know the time frames for this and that, most times are in dispute, too! Thus we see these non-sensical points Mr. Peter's continuously falls back on -- he's nothing to say -- as he takes refuge in taking shots at Jack White -- and most of those are blanks ... When you can't refute the challengers, post nothing contrary to the challengers responses, the best your left with is Mr. Peter's... "I can appreciate your desire to advertise for TGZFH book and Mr. Costella's web page..." ROFLMAO - Bill Miller or James Gordon? Your guess is as good as mine... ------------------- Mr. Healy - there are many people who have studied the JFK assassination and I bet that before you heard of this site - you had never heard the name John Simkin before. Besides, it's not the researchers who are usually remembered for being in the spotlight, but rather the grandstanders. dgh01: I do believe John Simkin posts on the JFK Research site, as well as lancer, which I'm sure YOU of all people know of! David Healy ------------- Mr. Healy, I have seen every claim of photo and film alteration mentioned in TGZFH and let me remind you that it has not been I that has evaded getting into the specifics of these claims. When you feel that you can address the questions put to you or can at least explain why you believe an alteration claim is valid other than just saying 'anthing is possible', then I'll be happy to go over the evidence with you, as well. . The first three URL's discuss "The Gang" which is more grandstanding that I have little interest in. Mr. Costella does have a piece written about a 27 hour window of time before Mary Moorman's number 5 Polaroid was ran in the newspapers whereas he claims that left time for her photograph to have been altered. What Mr. Costella didn't know or bother to find out before hand is that Mary Moorman, her camera and her camera original photo were filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination, but the film wasn't shown on NBC until 3:15pm Dallas time on the very day of the assassination. When filmed, the picture had not yet been out of her hands. Like with the Altgens 6 photograph going on the Associated Press news wire by 1:03 p.m. CST and before any time could have been allotted for altering that photograph, it's really waste of time talking about what could have been done to the photgraph at a later time for the window of opportunity was closed when the photo was shown publicly. Unless Moorman altered her photograph herself within the first 30 minutes following the assassination and before it was taped to be shown on TV in a few hours, then what occurred over the next 27 hours after that is meaningless. I cannot stress the importance of this enough and I am sure you are intelligent enough to see the problem here for Mr. Costella. Maybe had Mr. Costella had known all the facts to start with, then maybe he would not have even written the piece on Moorman's photograph to start with, but he did and he wasn't aware of all the details. Now with all that said - there can be no logical purpose for reading what Mr. Costella wrote about the possible altering of Moorman's #5 Polaroid over the next 27 hours following the assassination. On the other hand, if he should ever write about how Mary Moorman altered her photograph within the first 30 minutes following the assassination, then that would grab my interest in seeing how he explains it was done. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evidently Mr. Peter's can't quite find his way there - hopefully he'll venture out and see what the Z-film alteration camp has for his perusal, let us know his ** opinion **, unless of course he's degreed in the appropriate specialty, then he can correct or point out errors -- if he'd like Gary Mack's email address to write and ask permission, I'll gladly provide it. Alway helpful, David Healy p.s. here's the URL Mr. Peter's re: the main page of Dr. Costella's website http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/ I'll be posting a URL for the NEW main page - one with animated .gif's that even Mr. Peter's can understand... I might learn to like this guy, once I meet him. If he's been around as long as he say's, I don't understand why nobody knows who he is? Once Mr. Peter's reviews the website, get's up to speed sort of speak - we can dialogue about the possible alteration of the camera original Zapruder Film - which is why he's here in the first place. The attacks and criticisms on Jack White and his voluminous work is a charade, Jack's convienent, forthcoming, as well as a great - respectful guy, not to mention a great photog. How he puts up with the abuse he deal's with, I'll never understand.

[...] I expect that what you say is true, but if those people cannot tell whose overlay is which like you failed to do with the pedestal example that I posted showing the alleged missing windows, then maybe some of that email you speak of as to my being in error has been wrongfully misplaced. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> dgh01: hang in there, Bernice - Gary is at top form for the moment, I suspect he, Miller and this guy are attemtping to postjack this forum when it comes to Z-film photo info -- we've been down the road before, their credibility amongst the "research" community is firmly positioned in the cellar. All they can do is tear apart jack White.. David.

In the event that some other people may have gotten the wrong impression, I want to clarify some things that Mr. Healy did not. Zavada had been asked to authenticate the Zapruder films authenticity in ways that had nothing to do with comparing it to other films and photos. When Zavada learned what the Deluth Conference was about, he had no choice but to bow out because he had not done any film and photo cross-referencing for signs of alteration. By no means did Zavada ever mean that he was not qualified to have done the job, just that it was not part of the process he had undertaken in his previous work. So at that point in time he may have felt out of his league to discuss Jack White's claims at the conference, but not in the way Mr. Healy portrayed it to mean. dgh01: Ah, Mr. Peter's Dr. Costella might have a differing take on this than you do, actually so do I -- of course, if you can cite for Zavada's reasoning -- have you spoke to him, Roland Zavada recently? David Healy <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This subject was dealt with in-depth on Lancer and I am sure I seen your name on some of the replies in those threads, so you surely cannot be in the dark on this subject. I'm not going to go back and do your homework for you, but I will cite from memory as to how the information was discovered and how you can check on its accuracy if you really want to. dgh02: don't bother - I own the books, btw -- I don't do Lancer, Miller is quite comfortable living behind Debra's skirt. He has the same problem you do -- nothing original, therefore a provocateur. ---------------- Richard Trask wrote in his book "The Pictures of the Pain" about Muchmore's film in a chapter called "The Justin McCarty Women". Trask details the sale of the Muchmore film in that chapter. Then one of the researchers at Lancer contacted Gary Mack to see what more could be learned about what happened next with Muchmmore's film. Mack cited a TV station where the film was aired and a newspaper article that was printed the following day talking about the airing of Muchmore's film the night before. All this should be a matter of record and it was posted on Lancer no less than a year ago and possibly as long as two years ago. I would think that has been plenty of time for anyone to have contacted Gary Mack to validated the specifics and then followed up by searching their local libraries for the newspaper article that mentioned the airing of the Muchmore film. As I recall - the dates to look for have to be around the 25th to the 27th of Novemeber 63'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do think your right Jack - appears a few of these dudes are the European version of "Wee Willie Miller and the Wannabees". I'll be gone soon -- they can prop each other up with their endless debates about nonsense... Wonder how much Mr. Peter's paid for the franchise :-) David Healy

Ville, Thanks for your interest in this film and photo alteration subject. I look forward to having someone to help think through the findings that Miller and others came up with for I have reviewed each and every aspect of the critique on Lancer and I didn't find a single flaw in it. dgh01: not a single flaw? Not even Miller can sell that to those on the Lancer forum, let alone anywhere else... oh-boy, what do we have here? [...] I believe it has been shown time and time again that no one could have possibly known what to alter on the Zapruder film because no one could be sure who all had filmed the assassination or that all those who did film JFK's murder had turned copies of their films in. I know Marie Muchmore walked out of the plaza with her film immediately after the assassination and it wasn't until the 25th of November that she sold it to UPI without the film even being developed. UPI then flew it to NY and had it shown on TV for the public to see. The Feds never found out Muchmore's film existed until after it was aired on television. Orville Nix was another example where he carried his film pout of the plaza, as well and didn't have it developed until the 30th of November. Orville made the mistake of turning in the camera original in my opinion, but he did keep a 1st generation copy in his control. So these are just of examples of what occurred which would have surely been detrimental for exposing any alterations being done to the Zapruder film. dgh01: I suspect competent scientific researchers will correct errors made by Dr. John Costella, Dr. David Mantik - David Lifton, etc ... Someone on the OTHER side of the alteration argument needs to provide PROOF of a clean *chain of evidence* summary regarding the alledged Z-film and 3 optical film prints of. Till then all I'm seeing and hearing is a bad remake of a GERALDO show -- lot's of OPINION, rumor, ennuendo... Muchmore? Eh, At the time TV stations did NOT air film in the 8mm format, it has to be bumped to 16mm. Who in New York Citydid that, and where is that film? Guess what? Any film in the 16mm format is a **prime** candidate for alteration. Did the TV station have a "air check tape recorded" that show's us the EXACT Muchmore film that was aired? What NYC - TV station aired the segment, how many times was the segment aired and over the course of how many day's did it air... Devil's in the details Mr. Peter's. Miller can't support the contention that Muchmore's film was aired on ANY TV station. When he or you provide the material above, you'll have my attention and other's till then... -------------- The bottom line is the people in power behind the conspiracy didn't need to alter the films and risk being caught. dgh01: bottom line is the people behind the conspiracy murdered a sitting President of the United States, they'd do ANYTHING to avoid capture and have avoided same for 40 years - they're very good at their game... --------------- From the evidence I have seen - the idea was to take control of the body of evidence, dgh01: what evidence have you seen, touched and evaluated...? David Healy claim to have reviewed and fill a report and then lock it away until everyone who could contradict any of it was now dead and buried. It was the work of Harold Weisberg in his legal battles to have the assassination records released that poked holes in the dam and eventually caused the flood gates to open. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and others with interest. Here you go Mr. Peter's, Few hours early... but, what the hay! Hope the included link helps clarify and answers some of those nagging questions you might have, big waste of time to debate something you nor I can prove of disprove, unless of course you have access to films and photo's [for verification purposes] of the JFKassassination that we MERE mortals do not have - Here's a great a starting point for your OWN, original research. This field has so little of that, original research - it's a shame. Plenty of debunker's though, screaming Nellies if you will! So try out the site, you'll find the GANG'S responses to TGZFH, guess it was around early October '03 that the heat rose, they got a early start on us, evidently a manuscript of the book made the rounds, it was originally sent to Dr. Cyril Wecht, the Patholigist for comments somehow or other Tink Thompson got hold of it, there was a big flap, really messy. [Welcome to the big leagues regarding the Assassination of a sitting US President] Same kind of stuff beginning here -- slam Jack White and his research -- yadada, yadada, yadada! So: here it is - been there since November '03, surprised your search engine had difficulty finding it! http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/ Full index and opening explanations [of what HOAX is - for those that don't have the book] re: the responses to the gang's challenges and comments, then presenter by presenter answers regarding what was challenged and most interesting what was NOT challenged - on the same Main page you'll find hyperlinks to the Gangs website that was set up for immediate attack after the release of HOAX. Most of it is/was nonsense, with the exception of Ron. He's a worthy opponent. All presenters, present and accounted for with the exception of Roland Zavada, a shame he backed out on the eve of the May 2003 together at the University of Minnesota. Now is the time to get educated Mr. Peter's. Most of us, this side of the aisle, took the time to understand the breadth of the situation. Hopfully you'll do the same! One thing is for sure, we do know if one has understanding of basic film/photo composing techniques. And speak with some authority - you have ANY science in your background? Physics perhaps? Optics generally, Optical Film printers specifically? For the lurkers with interest in this fascinating subject, I invite you to peruse the website via the included link (http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/) - a wealth of knowledge regarding the film/photo side of this tragedy can be obtained there -- Dr. John Costella writes so the layman can understand quite easily, he is a teacher after all, a great one in fact! He's also a member of your forum AND my home forum, JFKResearch.com under the auspices of Rich DellaRosa, also a great researcher. Questions? Drop me a e-mail through this forum, reasonable requests will be forwarded to the appropriate author, whether the answer is another story, but most of the book's contributors find the time to respond to other contributors fowarded queries -- or, just come by http://www.jfkresearch.com If I've offended any forum member with my comments to Mr. Peter's, I apologize. Unfortunately I have a tough time with parrots of misinformation - we've dealt with hundred's of them, I'm sorry to see one appear here, there will be more. This is a controversial subject, the photos and films add another layer to the controversy, it will not - however, go away! Here it is again: http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/ (ALL hyper-links are on the main page, even mine - buy the book, ALL proceeds that I'm aware of go back to the research community) Best regard's to ALL, David Healy

dgh05: thanks Mr. Peter's, I thought you might know one of the above select photo researchers. Why is info so difficult to attain from some of these "preservers of history"? How's the weather in Scotland? The URL will be up at Midnight US - PDT, have a nice weekend! David Healy ----------

Thank you very much for your post - might I download this to my desktop, read again then respond when I have the appropriate time? David Healy Producer - Director