David G. Healy

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

It's fascinating that the name Curtis Berkley is so rich with anagams.

In alphabetical order:

Be Cruelty Risk

Be Truly Sicker

Icky Blusterer

Liberty Sucker

Lusty Bickerer

Rickety Rubles

Risky Tubercle

Trickery Blues

Ye Curst Bilker

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.

Can someone here tell me what the Elm Street grade is from the top to the bottom and also how much of a grade the pavilion is from Elm (where Zapruder was)?

Also, what is the picket fence height and the wall height, and the Zapruder pedestal? I found a nice layout of the plaza and am using that but it's incomplete and I'm trying to build a 3D animation sequence. See a snap shot.

Any help is appreciated including if anyone knows where that complete layout is.

Thanks.

plaza.jpg

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.

I concur with Vince. I've always been impressed with Pat's level of commitment and dedication he put into his site. I've read it several times, especially those times where I'm looking for something new on the JFK case, can't find and just revert back to his site. I especially love the way he completely exposed Dale Myers' hilariously bad 3D animation sequence for the fraud it (and he) are, yet every single time Myers appears somewhere, he just has to pose in front of his bright and shiny Emmy award.

I've worked in multimedia development for 28 years and I have 3 awards too that sit on my desk. Yes, I'm proud that my work has been recognized but I don't pose holding them in holiday or vacation photos

Anyway, there are some things I don't agree with on Pat's site, for example, he believes that shots were fired before John Kennedy disappears behind the freeway sign. I, on the other hand, believe that no shots were fired until you first see Kennedy appear from behind the sign. But as the saying goes, we can agree to disagree.

But a great site by Pat and great videos he produced too. I'd love to take Pat's content and create a brand new visually interesting website for him

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!

Klein's allegedly shipped a rifle upon receipt of an order for the rifle and a PMO. As Jim Di maintains, that's one transaction; purchase and sale.

If one part of the alleged transaction is demonstrated to be untrue, the whole transaction is untrue. No straw man at all.

Put other ways: [1] If Oswald never paid for the rifle, he never received the rifle. [2] If Oswald never received the rifle, he never paid for the rifle. [3] Unless garden-variety commerce worked differently for the transaction in question.

I suggest all here focus on this alleged transaction. Even though many other matters scream for your attention. Matters such as Allen Dulles.

This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed. The flawed paper trail not only screams cover-up but also points a finger at William Waldman and other executives at Klein's.

It's a finger worth examining.

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.

Klein's allegedly shipped a rifle upon receipt of an order for the rifle and a PMO. As Jim Di maintains, that's one transaction; purchase and sale.

If one part of the alleged transaction is demonstrated to be untrue, the whole transaction is untrue. No straw man at all.

Put other ways: [1] If Oswald never paid for the rifle, he never received the rifle. [2] If Oswald never received the rifle, he never paid for the rifle. [3] Unless garden-variety commerce worked differently for the transaction in question.

I suggest all here focus on this alleged transaction. Even though many other matters scream for your attention. Matters such as Allen Dulles.

This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed. The flawed paper trail not only screams cover-up but also points a finger at William Waldman and other executives at Klein's.

It's a finger worth examining.

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?

At least I got you to back u pin the whole A is not related to B is not related to C malarkey.

But I can't believe you missed all that yakking about the money order?

Incredible.

What I am showing is that all of this is fundamentally related to each other.

And you don't like it.

I really can't blame you. Because it's a loser for your side.

Oswald never had that rifle. Which makes everything about that transaction dubious.

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....

As I understand, the ARRB on paper had no investigative charter; but surely when it interviewed Humes and Boswell under oath it was functioning as an investigative body.

I believe the ARRB had the power, and should have exercised the power, to compel Ruth Paine to testify under oath about the backyard photos and other key matters constituting documents or other physical items relating to the JFK assassination.

Tunheim was worthless. Doug Horne did the best he could.

I'm grateful to the ARRB for one thing: uncovering that there was harmony between the Bethesda and the Parkland medical witnesses; and exposing the HSCA fraud as to medical facts.

If I had my way, this Christmas day, Robert Blakey would be in federal prison.

Peace to all here.

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:

Horne worked on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in Washington, DC for the final 3 years of the Review Board's 4-year lifespan, from August 1995 through September 1998. He was hired as a Senior Analyst on the Military Records Team, and was later promoted to the position of Chief Analyst for Military Records (i.e., the Head of the Military Records Team).

Horne was not only involved in the location and release of US military records on Cuba and Vietnam policy from 1961 through 1964, but he played an integral role in conducting both unsworn interviews and formal depositions of witnesses to, and participants in, JFK's autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and was also involved in joint efforts between the ARRB and Kodak to both digitally preserve the photographic images of the autopsy, and to conduct an authenticity study of the Zapruder Film in the National Archives.

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.

HS :You're trying to salvage the money order argument by changing the subject to other things you question.

That is pure baloney from both an intellectual and a forensic angle.

Again, refer to the infamous exhibit CE 399. Which DVP and Hank--the McAdams' poster--ran away from. To me that is a very good comparison. The WC used the rifling marks on CE 399 to cinch the case that this was the bullet that hit Kennedy and Connally. Well, I don't think they believed it. But to someone who just read the report without doing any other research, then yes it made sense.

Until you analyzed the whole one day journey of CE 399.

http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

You cannot separate out one single part of the transaction from the rest of the multi steps in that same transaction. Just like you cannot ignore the work of other authors and make Armstrong the sole focus of the debate. Like I said, this is a dodge. Coming from people who do not know anything about the work of the other authors. For example:

1. If its the wrong rifle, then how can the transaction be genuine?

2. If Oswald never picked up the rifle, then how can the transaction be genuine?

3. If the postal regs actually prohibited Oswald from picking up the rifle, how can the transaction be genuine?

4. If there is written certification Oswald was at work all day, then how can the transaction be genuine?

5. If the rifle Marina saw did not have a scope on it, then how can the transaction be genuine?

And I could go on and on in this regard. And we can argue about this most current debate also. Everything that Sandy has presented indicates that the bank should have stamped that PMO. And this includes the two bank executives that John and I talked to.

But that is how rabid and unbalanced the other side gets in this particular debate. In any other case, rational people understand that when you pile up anomaly onto anomaly until you have like seven or eight of them in just one transaction, it is simply illogical to say well look at this--the rifling marks--it makes all the other stuff go away. Oswald killed Kennedy.

No it does not make it all go away. And for a lawyer to say the contra when he knows in a court of law all of this would have been in play and witness after witness would have been called to say so, I mean that is just really incomprehensible to me.

The deduction should be the opposite. Unless of course you post at McAdams' site, like Hank. Then you leave the logic outside the door. Its a requirement to post there.

PS: As for Tommy, the droll, as I said before, if you have nothing of substance to offer, then just don't say anything.

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...

And let me add this other point which Lance and his buddy DVP are busy distorting--this work was not all based on Armstrong.

That is an adulteration of the record. There are at least four other sources for this rifle debate: the late Ray Gallagher, Jerry McLeer, David Josephs and Gil Jesus.

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.

McLeer has some interesting exhibits on his site showing there was more than one rifle in evidence.

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.

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.

So to say that this is all Armstrong about the rifle, that is simply not the case. Its a form of intellectual dishonesty. And I think its done for personal reasons and also to limit the scope of the debate.

Which is what they always try and do.

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.

As usual, James DiEugenio doesn't have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate the sum total of the evidence connected with the various sub-topics associated with the JFK murder case. In this particular instance, Jim has decided that Marrion Baker told a bunch of lies in his Warren Commission testimony and in his 1964 CBS-TV interview.

And Jim believes Officer Baker lied about the lunchroom encounter even though Jim knows about Roy Truly's 11/23/63 affidavit, wherein Truly confirms that both he and Officer Baker saw "Lee Oswald" in the second-floor lunchroom within just a couple of minutes of the assassination.

So now Jim has no choice but to believe that BOTH Marrion L. Baker AND Roy S. Truly were big fat liars when it comes to the topic of their lunchroom encounter with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963.

DiEugenio probably thinks the above affidavit filled out by Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly is totally worthless and completely bogus due to the date that is on it -- November 23rd. Jimmy thinks that the fix was in by that time. So that means that anything Roy Truly said on the 23rd must have been the result of coaching by patsy-framing members of the DPD and FBI. Right, James?

As far as Baker saying "Nothing about a Coke" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, that's easy to explain, which I do, RIGHT HERE.

Re: this comment made by DiEugenio....

"And the guy [Marrion Baker] saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."

....as I told Hank Sienzant recently:

"I like to keep this "Assassination Arguments Part 1000" page handy whenever somebody tells me that it would have been utterly impossible for any witness to think Lee Oswald weighed as much as 165 pounds." -- DVP

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.

I don't want to speculate that I am the cause of this, but I have been following the Amazon sales rating of the Talbot book.

Since my review came out it has gone up by about 400 places.

Think I should ask him for a percentage?

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).

Thanks for the back up, Jim.

Perhaps Pat would do better identifying the anatomical structure of a song that's recorded on the "B" side of a 45 by his favorite singer.

All joking aside, David is a Founding Member of my Research Forum. I have known and worked with David for over a decade now (since early 2001). In that time, there have been several traits he has consistently displayed:

1) a vast knowledge of human anatomy associated with his credentials as a Medical Doctor, Board Certified in Radiology

2) a vast knowledge of the behavior of "objects, light, anything with mass or other physical properties" associated with his credentials as a scientist with a PhD in Physics

3) a reluctance to toot his own horn

4) an unparalleled attention to detail

5) a refusal to enter into pissing matches with skunks

6) an extremely generous nature, which makes the sharing of information he's discovered easily accessed by all

7) a willingness to readily admit to an error * if an error was actually committed--and the graciousness to publicly thank the person who discovered and pointed out that error (the opposite of Bugliosi)

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).

* Of course, where no error has been proved by the critic then no admission is forthcoming.

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).

Great review, Jim.

It is well documented that Dulles was in Dallas in late October 1963 as part of the book tour. He places Harvey in Dallas in early November, per his deputy Wyatt, who saw him board a plane for Dallas. As for Phillips, he relies on the Veciana story of DAP meeting Oswald in September. In the case of Hunt, he really doesn't provide any hard evidence, but discusses the Marchetti Liberty Lobby article and ensuing lawsuit, as well as Hunt's own confession.

Edit: He also asserts Morales was in Dallas.

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

I am kind of surprised that no one has mentioned what I consider to be really important information, some of it original, in the book that I specifically detailed in the review.

Let me name just a few:

[...]

5. That Bill Harvey was on a plane to Dallas in November from Italy. Which means that the following people were in Dallas either on the day of the assassination or in the weeks leading up to it: Allen Dulles

Allen Dulles

David Phillips

Howard Hunt

Bill Harvey.

Hmm. Maybe they were all Cowboys fans? I doubt it.

[...]

[...]

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?

And WHO CARES if the M.O. has Lee's writing all over it? (Means nothing to Jimmy Hargrove.)

And WHO CARES if the M.O. was definitely handled by Klein's (as their stamp proves)? (Means nothing to Jimmy.)

And WHO GIVES A DAMN if there's a FLN on the M.O.? (Means nada to James H.) After all, EVERYTHING can be faked. Right?

And WHO CARES about those CD75 and CD87 documents from the FBI & SS. (They mean less than NOTHING to Jimmy.) After all, everybody was framing LHO in Nov. '63.

As I said.....

Whatever it takes to pretend Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy on 11/22/63, an Internet CTer is ready and eager to do it. And Jim Hargrove proves it with every post he makes.

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

congratulations Don!

C'mon. We will never be taken seriously it we continue to do this stuff. We will (rightly) be perceived as a bunch of jejune axe grinders.

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.