David G. Healy

...

But its interesting I think to take notice that the WR does not mention Kennedy's terrific rearward motion.

...

Viewing the film's headshot was more than enough to keep one and all (commission and staff) on the SBT reservation, if you will.

Jan 27, 1964

Warren Commission members studied copies of the Zapruder film for a week with members of the FBI and the Secret Service.

This is according to the 6th floor timeline.

somewhere towards the end of February 1964 the WC sat and viewed the alleged (currently stored at NARA) in-camera original Z-film. The original was laced up, and projected. Questions were answered (for the record) by SA Shaneyfelt... I'm sure staff of the WC saw stills and copies of the film and excerpts from the alleged Z-film many, many times in the course of their investigation/whitewash (to coin another researcher)...

I believe the alleged Z-film did not see the light of day again until Jim Garrison had it shown in New Orleans during the Clay Shaw trial.

I believe the Shaw trial was the last time the alleged Zapruder film was ever projected onto a screen. EVER

edit: spelling and correction

...

One copy went to H.L. Hunt...

it did?

has any media hack ask Trump about what he'd do regarding ISIL (ISIS)?

yeah, and....?

I did not say that, Tanenbaum did.

But you clearly agreed with him. Otherwise, why post Tanenbaum's words? (Duh.)

And as anyone who knows JFK 101 understands, the sine qua non of the WR is the Singel [sic] Bullet Fantasy.

The WC lawyers understood this thoroughly and they wrote words to the effect, that if the SBT is false, it is admitting there was a conspiracy.

But, of course, that whole point is a moot one---since the SBT was so obviously the correct conclusion for the Warren Commission to reach.

The Warren Commission was a twisted travesty of a fact finding panel and a sick perversion of a legal procedure.

Says the man named James who has a bunch of things all "twisted" around himself, such as the following golden gems of fantasy from DiEugenio's archives of the bizarre:

"[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

"I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010

"You cannot even prove he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever had possession of the handgun." -- James DiEugenio; June 25, 2013

"I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010

"JBC [John B. Connally] does not react until around frame 237." -- James DiEugenio; August 2010

"Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"A Mauser was the first weapon found and...a Mauser shell was found in Dealey Plaza." -- James DiEugenio; April 3, 2015

"It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing." -- James DiEugenio; August 1, 2015

"I think that that whole thing about burning the [autopsy] notes...was just a cover story." -- James DiEugenio; December 11, 2008

"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. .... What's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010

"Specter and Humes understood that the probe was gonna be a big problem. They thought the photographs would never be declassified. So Specter made up this B.S. story about the strap muscles, never knowing that that story was going to be exposed." -- James DiEugenio; July 16, 2009

"I have minimized the testimony of Linnie Mae [Randle]. I do so because in my view it is highly questionable." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." -- James DiEugenio; August 5, 2015

"I just proved that CE 399 was not found at Parkland." -- James DiEugenio; June 4, 2010

"At Bethesda, the military severely curtails the autopsy so that no one will ever know the true circumstances of how Kennedy was killed. Also, the FBI switches the bullet found at Parkland Hospital to fit the second rifle found at the TSBD, a Mannlicher Carcano." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"I am not calling [Dallas police officer M.N.] McDonald a [L-word], the evidence is doing it." -- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015

----------------------

[End Quotes.]

Boy, with a record of absurdity like the one presented above (and also HERE), one of the very last individuals on the planet who should be using the words "twisted travesty" when talking about anyone else's conclusions relating to the JFK case is Mr. James DiEugenio.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html

man, are YOU dancing the dance of the worn out nutter these days... I think you're ready to concede the 1964 WCR is baloney.... go ahead it's alright, I won't tell a soul.

...

...

The question about the alleged fascination with Philbrick fascinates me.

as did the rest of the USofA TV audience, Greg. Most were fascinated with I LED THREE LIVES

"He (Philbrick) went on to write an autobiographical book, I Led Three Lives: Citizen, 'Communist', Counterspy, which was made into a movie. In addition, a television series called I Led Three Lives, starring Richard Carlson and Ed Hinton, loosely based on Philbrick's experiences, aired in syndication for three years during the 1950s.

It's worthy to note Philbrick's work with the Communist Party was at the behest of the FBI...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Philbrick

well now there something which may, just MAY, prove your photo research is worth something anyway (something which Bill Miller never did, although requested multiple times). Establish a baseline comparisons (side-by-side comparisons) of all Nov 22nd 1963 DP films... full frame comparisons (in motion), off of in-camera originals with declared lineage including signed affidavits. Dude, till then, you and Lammie are just other roving opinions, I could care less if you think your the second coming of Ansel Adams...O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S

The Zapruder film as we see it today is flawed. All the whining won't change that.

So SHOW US the film (in motion) comparisons!

I see they've let you out again for a short while, David. How long for this time?

Now, to the point. Why would I want to waste more than minimal time on such scatter brained garbage as Zapruder alteration.

You geniuses are making the claim, so, the onus is on you guys to prove your thesis.

To date none of you have managed this. It's all hearsay, no hard evidence, ever!

When you and your cronies manage to study THE ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM, not a copy, and then get some peer reviewed confirmations of alteration or fakery from some real world acclaimed technical experts, not Costella, then you can put your case forward to this forum or any other.

I hope you enjoy the rest of your "Vacation" son.

Dunc...

If you can't make it in the professional world of media, what makes you think you can make it here? Your interest in JFK assassination film and photos is most illuminating, must be what the put in the water in Scotland (and I ain't talkin' Scotch son!), eh, champ!

For the record, I don't preach to stumps, hon!

Attacking specific researchers, mocking them and their work, in the hopes THAT will reopen the JFK assassination case? Ain't gonna happen.

In order to be taken seriously by the outside world, this "community" has to engage in some some serious housecleaning AND have some serious resaerch to put on the table. It's a two-pronged plan. That you don't get it, is understood.

You need do but one thing when it comes to dealing with today's "research community." The very same thing Oliver Stone did in 1980's. It's simple, a good script! PERIOD!

Cleanse the research community? You've got to be kidding... How do you cleanse free speech and free thought in all forms of media? Then toss the internet into the mix? Oh-my. Impossible.

Get that "serious" research into script form. Have support staff get a synopsis together. If a synopsis is any good, good money will find you!

Oswald, patsy or a murderer? Do what Stone did, his best creative vision and license put forward.

The best story (script) wins hearts and minds! Advance truth or make a point (assassination research cop), which is it?

Good luck, champ!

Good job, David G. Healy. Just pretend that nobody has ever "built a case" to prove Oswald guilty, even though you know damn well that many people have done so.

That sand is nearly covering the top of your head, Dave. How can you breathe?

easy boy... just tell me when and where LHO's trial for the murder of JFK.

No need for you to get all exercised, surely with your vast knowledge you have that info at your finger tips....

I know damn well? Son, just give me a court docket number and who the presiding judge was, make it easy on yourself....

...

But more importantly, one can only wonder why more of his "supporters" have not come to his rescue on this thread! Could it be that most members agree with us, i.e. that the premises and conclusions of Harvey and Lee are ... hogwash?

--Tommy

LMAO! You're sounding more like Dave Reitzes did 20 years ago Tom.

What is amazing here, in my eye at least, an example: David Lifton's much herald and planned book on LHO went to the scrap heap 15 or so years ago, because, in my estimation (and many will agree) John's H&L. Now Greg has a lot invested in his present LHO work (which is in progress). In fact, you might say, he has a lot to lose if he can't discredit H&L in its entirety.

David needs no online/forum support here, in fact, I'm amazed he even bothers with you and those few peanut gallery responses you put forth... in my estimation ya need that H&L hogwash Tom, without it, Greg's book(s) fail. Such a strange way to promote a new work sales... whatever floats one's boat! I'll buy Greg's books (I did buy H&L at Jack White's insistence, it was an expensive yawn for me... I already believed LHO was a patsy, the rest was details. End of story for me!

(update: rumor has it, there is a new LHO book in the works by a NYT best-selling author, how is that for timing?)

C'mon, DVP. Make your case here. Lay out your reasoning. Be an advocate for what you believe. If you're persuasive, and I hope you will be, you'll gain adherents.

Your post #10 does not advance the ball down the field.

I'm open-minded, and I believe many others here are as well.

You've got a blank slate and an invitation to write on it. Choose wisely.

...

Give me a reasonable explanation for how all of the evidence (bullets, shells, guns, paper bag, prints, eyewitnesses, Oswald's own actions, and Oswald's lies) can exist as it currently does exist in this case and still have Lee Oswald being innocent of shooting JFK and/or J.D. Tippit.

...

so, when was the trial? I had no idea LHO being guilty of ANYTHING...?

I believe as prosecutor one has to build a case, develop charges, if there is enough "evidence charge a defendant, provide the defendant legal team your discovery, then PROVE your case in front of Judge and jury. You know something we don't DVP?

Show us the PLOT you think was going on, why you think this and anything to support that conclusion...

But this is a thread about the H&L theory, the onus is on you to prove it. As a member of the forum I am simply exercising my right to question a theory and a method used by a section of the research community I don't agree with. Like you do on other people's work.

No one said they "looked nothing like" each other...

The witness Jim implored us all to read, presumably because it strengthens the theory that 'Lee' was in the USA whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia, also said that they were "very very similar". Personally I think she is referring to the same person. But you HAVE to believe her because she is one of the witnesses you rely on for the story to fit.

So you'll accept it was definitely 'Lee' that she saw. She was right about that. But you discard her observation that they were "very very similar" because that is now inconvenient.

Can you see why people get irritated with you David?

C'mon Laverik get with the game here. There is no onus on anyone to prove anything, that includes you! You are way out of line demanding anything from anyone..

If you don't like certain published material, simply do your own book concerning the subject matter... in other words, put something on the table other than noise...

You're suspiciously sounding like a CT preparing for lone nut conversion.... I've seen this before, in fact, many times before....

Same old same old.... and the nutter beat goes on!

I hope Gaal has the decency to apologise for the smear he is trying to fool members with.

He accused me of making a buck of the Oswald family's pain.

What evidence does he have for this smear?

Smear? Apologize? By your own admission: "...What because I said I was writing a play about the assassination?"

DUH, a non-profit playwright? That's the ticket... Just a *spec* only project, eh? Not much experience or success in the craft yet, eh Bern?

In case anyone wants to see the DPD Arrest Worksheet on Walker, it is attached

Not to go on about this, but a rap sheet such as this is hardly indicative of the lifestyle of one who, a dozen years before, is alleged to have taken out the POTUS. Did some kind of reward come to Walker for organizing such grand conspiracy? He couldn't even buy off the Dallas cops at the time of his two arrests.

Take a look at the 1963-era pictures of Walker's Turtle Creek house and compare it to real estate listing photos taken in this decade, or look at it today on Google Earth. Any financing Walker collected was sufficient only to print the boxes of provocative literature piled up inside. It's the house of a recluse and an obsessive, a tool trotted out by others who needed an opposition figurehead, and that status was afforded him solely due to his "martyrdom" at the hands of the Kennedys.

With a more moderate administration in the White House, and an active anti-communist war escalating, Walker became a puppet with cut strings. There would be no more presidential bids, no elective office of any kind. When his phone calls were returned, the replies became condescending and off-putting, and then ceased to appear. He couldn't make the money for Texas oil and industry that a Texan president in control of the defense budget could. One thinks of George Lincoln Rockwell, gunned down because he had to go to the same laundromat every week.

brilliant, David Andrews...

Should add a "toothfairy" page Greg.

I'm sure Greg appreciates there's someone trailing behind him with a dustpan...

Dude, it's gonna take a generation, at least one generation to get the 2 Oswald's idea out of assassination researchers heads, by default, and the same time period, if not longer, for the more than casually interested. Interested that there were possibly TWO Oswald's. That's two Oswald's, that idea exists right NOW!

Who cares the details, that's the reality of the mountain you're climbing? Expunging that idea, or creating and all new Oswald? Is that your focus? Now that could be interesting!

Just curious: Your take on, what's the point of two Oswald's? How does it fit into a conspiracy to murder the president of the United States? If at all?

You've garnered attention now. Most of it a negative slant. At least from my take of the few related threads at EF.

So don't leave the viewing public here with: perhaps the "toothfairy" created another sophomoric JFK assassination website --or-- just another website driven by wishful thinkin' and a hopin'.

Attacking specific researchers, mocking them and their work, in the hopes THAT will reopen the JFK assassination case? Ain't gonna happen.

Ya know what Greg, How about shutting the expletive up already.

Nobody here cares what you have to say or offer. There was a time when you almost had something to say years ago... But that time has passed.

Put that next volume up mate... Like you with JA, I too can play this game... I too belong to Amazon and can review the book, unread as you've done to H&L.

You ever wonder why no one here has written a single word about vol 1 while you've spent the last year opening up the world of H&L to all sorts of people who want to know what could be so volitile to engulf your time and how you can be so wrong all the time.

So we come to find, bottom line, your books rest on H&L not being true... Cause you say so. Your, 'reasonable to assume' junk that reflects those faith-based conclusions which you cling to like a life raft.

No worries sport. When and if you ever get around to your own work... We'll all have some fun.

Btw, you want to debate H&L anywhere anytime you let me know. John needn't dirty his hands...

As you like to say... You got nothing.

Hugs and kisses mate...

[emphasis by T. Graves]

Who are you to say that, Josephs? Do you actually think you speak for everybody "here" ?

Or is Greg Parker just getting under your skin a little and frustrating you because you can't rationally counter the excellent points he brings up regarding the subject of this thread?

--Tommy

lmao! Surely you jest Tom? If Greg wants topic feedback, just publish then defend if warranted. What's the problem?

Self-publish, turn the research community on its head like John's H&L did, and quite frankly could afford to do. We'll weigh the goods and take notice if the anti WCR goods are there...

When published I doubt Greg will be put on PR trial--whether his project pans out or not.

What is YOUR goal concerning this subject matter? Do you have a dog in these anti H&L attack?

i asked for some highlights with which i can 'research.' They offered some. You and Parker tried to xxxx it up.

everyone did their job.

You sometime wonder if they don't have a "Pounce" button on their keyboards which kicks in their "Post faith-based beliefs without proof once again" auto-reply functionality...

David,

H&L has many folks running in circles as to just WHO was Lee Harvey Oswald? It's been my experience that when "JFK researchers" start attacking another researchers project, the attackers own project(s) foundation, yes foundation is crumbling...

If one can't figure out, just who LHO was, it makes little or no difference how many books or videos one is producing covering the JFK assassination. That project will fail! And chance for failure is much higher these days...

Lifton's book concerning LHO was suppose to be out, what, 14-15 years ago? It seems David has a problem with LHO's identity too!

The Zapruder film has been called into question, as have other Elm St. assassination films and photos. All questions challenging the WCR findings concerning conspiracy are now met with deaf ears and indifference...

LHO, the alleged assassin, his identity is challenged, that is met with fear!

It's simple, post ones project research and results (tentative or final), that's it... There is no reason to DEBATE that research result. Researchers looking for endorsement(s), will get them or not. On and off-line.

As far as I'm concerned Greg and his team are biding time concerning release of their books/video programs. That's telling in and of itself. They're simply not sure of their results, or worse yet, some might be trolling for results, and doubly worse, make unnecessary arguments regarding the results they've arrived at. Hence, the recent bravado, arrogance and posturing. And frankly another wholesale assault on an already fractured research community, and of course that attracts a certain type of attention, usually the wrong kind, but attention none-the-less...

Why some persist doing this, despite the best of intentions (one hopes) is a wonder in and of itself. It's happened what seems like hundreds of times, and here it is again.

Keep on truckin', might be time for a book, eh?

--David

I'm sick to death of arguing against Mantik's findings, which I consider unscientific, so I'll just make a couple of historical points.

There's nothing new about this study. The research and conclusions date back to the nineties.

...

In short, it seems quite possible Ebersole simply had no time for Mantik, and that he would have ended the call no matter what Mantik asked next.

So stop arguing! DMantik's latest published article is peer reviewed. Outside of that, is irrelevant, including Ebersole. It's the facts as best as they can be ascertained... Except, of course, the peers doing the reviewing.

first image in the above article ( http://deadline.com/...len-1201501840/ ) is the actress who is playing Jackie... Is this a serious, tight production? Or, irony on parade... Gotta love Hollyweird!

Ray, Dave:

Me and Bob and Ken have all left the field. I mean I think I accomplished what I set out to do, especially on the fictional rifle order.

If you keep on feeding the xxxxx, then you allow him to keep up this exhibition of nonsense which was already discredited by James, just a few weeks ago.

I mean I have no interest in doing this any more. And neither should you.

you're right Jim... he loses the feeders, he's done!

...in case you haven't noticed[,] your film clip here is also rotating around it's [sic] y-axis (where 'y' is UP)...

But you'll be happy to know that it's snowing in the mountains.

follow the bouncing ball Sherlock. The last resort of a failure, is punctuation.....Focus: the y-axis. I know it's difficult what with the drubbing you've been taking at the AMAZON forum, you'll limp through for another month or so....

Ben Holmes make you a believer yet? lmao!

If you keep on feeding the xxxxx [T-word], then you allow him [David Von Pein] to keep up this exhibition of nonsense which was already discredited by James [Gordon], just a few weeks ago.

"Discredited by James"? Oh brother, that's a laugh.

The CTer excuses and SBT denials are truly a sight to behold in that discussion here at The Education Forum a few months ago. It's one of my very favorite pages to revisit (the one I've archived below), because like no other discussion I can think of, it exemplifies the truly desperate status of the Anti-SBT crowd.....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html

WOW! You're the last to know DVP, A-M-A-Z-I-N-G! Only safe place is .John's (AAJ) David. I can just see it now, you and Marsh holdin' court... Appropriate to finish there, don't ya think?

What is Connally doing here, Ray? Could he be "reacting" to a bullet injury? This clip ends at Z225....

in case you haven't noticed your film clip here is also rotating around it's y-axis (where 'y' is UP), why? Perhaps it's time for Lampoon Lamson, (or Greg's boys from down undah) to get on the job.

Yeah, David H., Oswald's posture is merely identical (or pert-near) in both images. But just ignore that fact because of the "clothing texture". (Hilarious.)

Or maybe you'd like to add the photo on the left to your list of "Fake" items, huh?

you're my distraction in-waiting... perhaps a two legged, 300 pound ameba would make a better comparison -- priceless!