David G. Healy

turf, Jim. T-U-R-F!

Lusty Bickerer sounds like the lead character in an adult-themed re-do of Stone's JFK. I'll take it. regardless, Stone's JFK-the movie set back WCR supporters and the report 25 years.... they've never recovered, and never will.

Ramon Herrera on this forum is involved doing the same type of 3D animation project. Evidently he found a good replication of Dealey Plaza. He posts here regularly. Just do a search.

visually interesting? Z313 is "visually interesting." The question is: WHO and WHY?

interesting twist... http://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.com/2010/08/who-are-paines.html

you'd think a couple of attorney's-word merchants, etc., could close this deal regarding the MO... NOPE!

This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed. How is the paper trail flawed? You're not going to argue it was postmarked in the wrong zone -- based on the assumption that the 12 specified a zone 12 in Dallas -- and that Oswald didn't have time to buy the money order -- based on the assumption that people never leave work after punching in and stealing some company time to do personal shopping or anything -- right? Your entire argument about the paper trail is flawed because it's based on assumptions and ignores the real world counter-examples. But I understand why you have to cite assumptions. You have no real evidence. Hank ​ slow down Hank... DVP is taking the weekend off, he's not watching.

This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed. How is the paper trail flawed? You're not going to argue it was postmarked in the wrong zone -- based on the assumption that the 12 specified a zone 12 in Dallas -- and that Oswald didn't have time to buy the money order -- based on the assumption that people never leave work after punching in and stealing some company time to do personal shopping or anything -- right? Your entire argument about the paper trail is flawed because it's based on assumptions and ignores the real world counter-examples. But I understand why you have to cite assumptions. You have no real evidence. Hank ​ slow down Hank... DVP is taking the weekend off, he's not watching.

It's a crucial question -- WHY WAS THIS EVIDENCE IGNORED? Regards, --Paul Trejo ahhh, let me guess... why muddy up the LHO did it all by his lonesome scenario?

You keep talking about the rifle when the subject of this thread is the money order. Why is that, Jim? Hank, you are priceless... You are not doing nutters, or DVP any favors....

I thought they were subpoenaed to bring in "assassination 'documents" and questioned about other potential material they may know about? If they were grilled about anything else, I think you can put it down to Turnheim losing control of the ARRB to the machinations of the Lifton-Horne conspiracy. Fact is, the ARRB very specifically had no mandate to investigate anything other than the provenance of documents and media related to the assassination. There was no wiggle room there and any slide into such questioning should have invoked some sort of sanction. In fact, have just checked Horne's bio here: Lifton's unseen hand. Hume's deposition (and the reason he was a subject of interest to ARRB) may be seen here: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm "Seated next to me is Douglas Horne, who works with me on medical evidence in the case." So Horne assisted with ALL medical evidence in he case - despite that having nothing to do with what he was hired for, In my opinion, Lifton had a hand in making that happen for the sole purpose of having his theories given an aura of official approval by a government body not authorized to do so. if you want start a thread about a Lifton-Horne conspiracy (tsk-tsk) fine... Ruth Paine is this threads subject.

Still changing the subject from the money order to the rifle. That's a LOGICAL FALLACY known as a red herring. Already pointed it out. I don't know why you persist. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html Description of Red Herring A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: 1.Topic A is under discussion. 2.Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). 3.Topic A is abandoned. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. ​And of course, your argument that "Unless of course you post at McAdams' site, like Hank. Then you leave the logic outside the door" is simply the LOGICAL FALLACY of ad hominem. That's where you attack the messenger, instead of the message. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Description of Ad Hominem Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: 1.Person A makes claim X. 2.Person B makes an attack on person A. 3.Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). My message was on the topic of the money order and whether it appears valid from the contents of the money order itself. I see you didn't bother to respond on that subject whatsoever. Instead, you bring up some supposed other 'anomalies' in an attempt to change the subject. Hank PS: I haven't posted at McAdams site for about a year. Besides, that's just another LOGICAL FALLACY known as "poisoning the well". You point that out (that I've posted at McAdams site) as if it's a negative, and that's the very definition of poisoning the well, Jim. I've posted at a lot of sites, Jim - going back to CompuServe, Prodigy, and the old AOL bulletin boards. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html Description of Poisoning the Well This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form: 1.Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. 2.Therefore any claims person A makes will be false. This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. ​Good luck getting anyone to fall for this kind of argument, Jim. you're a broken record Henry. No one is interested in your debate tactics. However, AMAZON debate defeat does look well on you. Looking for greener pastures these days? And.... you've been posting to .john looney bin for nearly 20 years, who are you trying to kid?

Gary Puffer (as well as Ben Holmes) at AMAZON has (have) been educating Mr. Hanky (the old Hankster) on the fine art of logical fallacy (ies) these days. When DVP get int rouble old Mel Ayton runs to his side...

Ray is the first guy who intimated something was wrong with the transaction: How could the money order do all of that in 24 hours. That is go from Dallas to Chicago to the bank and be deposited all in a day. ​Sorry, you need to provide evidence, not just intimation, that there's anything wrong with the transaction. McLeer has some interesting exhibits on his site showing there was more than one rifle in evidence. Sorry, changing the subject from the money order to the rifle won't work. We understand that's a logical fallacy, and we understand why you're trying this. Gil has done some really fantastic work on tracing the delivery all the way from Italy to Chicago. That work is really kind of revolutionary showing that the rifle in evidence could not have been the one ordered. Sorry, changing the subject from the money order to the rifle won't work. We understand that's a logical fallacy, and we understand why you're trying this. And David just did a two part article at CTKA, which also questions the provenance of the rifle in the BYP, among several other points. You understand the subject matter under debate is the money order? Why are you trying to derail the argument to the rifle at this time? For one reason only, you understand the money order is a lost cause. So now you're trying to do what all conspiracy theorists do, deflect the argument to other points. If you want to discuss the rifle, start a new thread, or contribute to one of the several dozens or hundreds on the rifle you can find on this forum. So to say that this is all Armstrong about the rifle, that is simply not the case. We know. It's about the money order. You're the only one making it about the rifle. Its a form of intellectual dishonesty. We agree! We just disagree on whose intellectual dishonesty. And I think its done for personal reasons and also to limit the scope of the debate. Arguing every point at once isn't very feasible. So yeah, the debate has to be limited if it's going to go anywhere. Right now, it's limited to the question of the money order, and whether there's anything wrong with it. That has not be demonstrated, despite Sandy's best efforts. You want to change the subject from the money order to the rifle because you can see Sandy isn't getting where he'd like to go. We understand, Jim. ​Hank Ben Holmes has been confronting you with case evidence every single day at the JFK AMAZON threads and you've been running as is DVP and his dwindling army of debunkers. For the past 4 months, that I know of! What's with that Mr. *changing the subject* Hanky? Here you are telling others they're changing the subject, huh? So get real, Dude.

the above is the typical lone nut obsession with minutiae.... diversion at it's finest. btw, DVP we've )those of us that post at AMAZON-remember that place?) gone to talking about Hank Sienzant as Mr. Hanky, he's become so pathetic you can feel his embarrassment... biggest (next to you of course) avoider of case evidence and minutiae monger I've seen in 20 years. Evidently nutters seem to think every post is courtroom qualified... LMAO! What do .John nutters fear, FEAR, F-E-A-R? Simple answer: the Warren Commission Report and evidence qualified debaters that KNOW case evidence, which is why DVP no longers posts to JFK assassination related AMAZON forums.

well, perhaps Mr. Talbot would consider a treatment for a documentary regarding the JFK assassination 2015 update? Know anyone that could write one?

Gee, where'd Curtis go?

ditto the last two posts, Jim D... and Happy holidays to you Jim, and all the other posters to these threads regarding JFK's assassination. It's been quite an education (pardon the pun).

Thank you for posting this, Monk. I heartily agree... Just saw this post this morning. quote on I have been most impressed with his unusual patience when his work comes under attack by those who are not educated in the medical field, (but would have us believe that they have a "self-taught degree" in medicine that's "just as good" as the real thing). His willingness to explain, in detail and in lay person's terms, the meaning of his findings to those unfamiliar with radiology (even those who talk a good game, but know next to nothing about the subject). quote off It doesn't appear to be Dr. Mantik's nature to tell some to *buzz off*! And that's too bad!

Thanks Brian. But if you read the review, I did not rely on the same sources in my review that Talbot did. For instance, if you follow the footnote on Phillips, I rely on his brother's phone call with him to place him in Dallas on the day of the assassination. As per Hunt, I rely on the Angleton memo which does state specifically that Hunt was in Dallas that day. BTW, its hard to believe, but the traffic to this review has gone through the roof. It is getting 1400 hits per day, and about 1200 visits. Which is an amazing ratio. great topic, great review, great sales = the big leagues. Congrat's Jim and David Talbot of course! p.s. the book is getting more ink, er..... pixels NOT being reviewed by the NYT -- go figure, lmao!

deleted: duplicate post

[...] Because we all know they planned the JFK assassination, so they must have all been together in Dallas when Harvey flew in from Italy? [...] sorry, I don't read it quite that way, because Harvey flew in from Italy... What did those heavyweights find so interesting in Dallas in the weeks leading up to the assassination?

it's way beyond you now... nor can daBug help.

congratulations Don!

Oh, brother. As if your 20+ theories of untenable junk deserve to be "taken seriously". Hilarious.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-114.html Re: the silly "White Blob Added To The X-Ray" theory.... "Mantik is the fellow who found a "suspicious" white blob over the back of Kennedy's skull in the lateral X-rays. He sees this as evidence of conspiracy, but he's never dealt with the fact that the HSCA published these x-rays in the 70s and there was no such blob then. The x-rays showed the back of Kennedy's head intact. Why would the Evil Minions tamper with evidence that SHOWED WHAT THEY WANTED IT TO SHOW?" -- John McAdams; December 22, 1999 Ben Holmes (currently at the AMAZON Forum) has been driving you nuts for years concerning the x-ray "white blob" that happens to be 6.5mm in diameter. You've failed to address the question of which there are many, concerning the "white blob." In fact, you've turned tail as recently as a few weeks ago.