David G. Healy

13-6.

H&L isn't on trial.... What IS on trial is the 1964 WCR...

"... General Counsel for the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), Jeremy Gunn, said recently, "If we actually ask the question was Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...I am convinced that Oswald would have been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To me there is just no question he is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Former prosecutor, and Deputy Chief Counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), Robert Tanenbaum, agrees. As he stated during a lecture in 2013, "I can tell you from my experiences having tried several hundred cases to verdict, and being responsible for thousands of cases as head of the criminal courts, and running the homicide bureau, that I don't believe there's any courtroom in America where Oswald would have been convicted on the evidence that was presented before the Warren Commission."

Beyond Reasonable Doubt by Mel Aytonand David Von Pein: Reviewed by Martin Hay

http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html

sift through H&L as you might. Reality is, lone nuts can't escape the flawed, corrupt, 1964 WCR... your poll is an exercise in futility. ANYTHING contrary to the WCR is a CT distraction... having said the above, 17-8...

problem with nutters is this: they simply can't put Oswald in that 6th-floor window... not to mention other same era conspiracies... Nutters need the distraction of Harvey and Lee to cover much larger sins of omission/commission...

Jim Hargrove said:

No one from your side will admit it, but I suspect this evidence would stand up in court to this day. That's probably enough for now.

I will say to you what I say to everyone that has "proof" of a plot. If you really and truly believe that, take it to Jefferson Morley who is an individual who will listen to what you have to say if you can convince him. He is not "working for the CIA" or "in on the plot". And he has the ear of several reporters so there are no excuses. The problem I see for you is when you tell him your theory of two Oswalds, he will probably bolt for the door as he won't believe you. Nor do the majority of CT minded people nor would the majority of any demographic group you can name. Because the H&L thing flat out didn't happen.

and who crowned Morley the king of lone nut openmindedness? Still that clever sense of humor eh, Tracy?

BTW are you still posting from that Wendy's way up north.... Taking pot shots at non-moving sandbags?

... He's given me permission to post them wherever I like.

There's one call that exemplifies Vincent's desire to get things right (and to get quotes right), in which he wants to confirm precisely what Steve heard when listening to the Dictabelt recordings in 1979.....

gotta ask then, why did the Bug need ghost writers to "get things right" then?

And quite frankly, why would anyone, ANYONE think that a plastic recording disc in the back of a girlee magazine lend Barber any JFK investigative credibility at all? Bunk! Lone nut refuse... Just like Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, book publishing industry worst publishing disaster.... Nutter's are a joke!

Bob,

Dale Myers' computer model (which is aligned with the Z-Film itself) shows how far Governor Connally is turned to his right when the SBT bullet struck. It's difficult to tell exactly how much to the RIGHT Connally is turned when JUST looking at the Z-Film. I certainly can't tell how many "degrees" to the right JBC is turned at Z224 by merely watching the Z-Film. But Myers has locked his computer animation right to the Zapruder Film itself. So this is the most accurate 3D rendering we're likely to ever get....

and.... if the Z-film is altered, Myers two-bit cartoon is based on what premise? Cone of probability, I believe that the lone nut shuck-n-jive... what a bunch of unadulterated, lone nut nonsense.... I recall asking Myers for his lightwave files so I could do a little "testing". Funny, he never responded. Guess he was busy doing ghost writing for daBugliosi's publishing disaster... As old Steve Keating use to say, "you (lone nut) guys are a hoot... Carry on, hon!

and all this time I thought you did the net from a western Michigan Wendy's... Well, I'm glad you're here, after McAdams got dumped by Marquette I figured you retired lone nut oldtimers would surface, AGAIN.... Still shooting sandbags with those old Manlichers, Tracy? LMAO!

Taking into account that the head is deformed in frame Z317

to my eyes the dark "Shadow area" in Z317 / Z312 appear very similar

ahhhh similar? So what? Robin, what's the lineage of the image you're speculating on.... where did it come from, what size (2-4K) and what generation... or, are you just pontificating, carrying Von Pein's water if you will? Perhaps you missed out on the Hollywood group presentation too, eh?

And, of course, we can also go back earlier in the Z-Film and find many more frames which show the "blackness" on the back of JFK's head BEFORE he was even shot in the head. Here's just one example below--frame 275. And what about Roy Kellerman too? His head looks pretty black here as well. Does that mean Kellerman's head has been "blacked out" by film-fakers in Z275?....

LMFAO! you're a hoot Von Pein... a real lone nut wannabe... carry on, hon! Ever hear the term, GAMMA?

I'll be dipped. Healy got something right for once. It is Fetzer's site that I linked to in Post 58. I had never realized that before.

Thanks, David. You're a peach. I'll correct my previous error where I called it the "Costella site".

one has to keep an eye on you amateur lone nut photo analysis buffs. Keep it up though, you just might get curious about that 16.xmillion $ (US taxpayer expense) Zapruder cartoon...

You must be joking, James R. Gordon.

You're coming up with lots of lame excuses to totally discount ALL of the obvious signs of distress on JBC in the Z-Film. You're now even denying that Connally raised his right arm quickly at Z226.

But it took me three seconds to confirm you don't know what you're talking about. The following three frames are from the Costella site. ...

C'mon Von Pein... that's Dr. James Fetzer's site... if you can't cite the correct source, ya need a new life, hon!

hidden posts (from acknowledged researchers) = tacit approval of the WCR, PERIOD!

what strains credulity is one assuming a "General" looks on anyone as an equal other than *other* Generals, of course! Education and *competence* notwithstanding!

Stripping a Professor of Tenure Over a Blog Post (link)

Professor John McAdams is being stripped of tenure by Marquette University for writing a blog post that administrators characterize as inaccurate and irresponsible.

Academics all over the United States ought to denounce the firing of the 69-year-old, a Harvard Ph.D. who taught courses on American politics and public policy. If tenure can be taken away based upon one controversial blog post, what protection does it offer? How many tenured professors will censor themselves from participating in public conversation to avoid a similar fate? Marquette has violated core academic values, regardless of what one thinks of McAdams' commentary or the shabby treatment of the graduate instructor he was criticizing (who deserves sympathy for the horrifying torrent of misogyny others directed at her).

You are repeating what McAdams wants you to believe, and not what actually happened. When one reads through all the info one realizes that McAdams is being fired for harassing a student. On two prior occasions, he had posted the names of left-wing female students on his blog, who were subsequently harassed by the militant right-wing predominantly male readers of his blog. The university had warned him about this. He had promised not to do this again. And yet here he turned around and 1) defied protocol by naming the student teacher in his blog 2) misrepresented an incident between a student and the student teacher 3) defied protocol by criticizing the student teacher in public, as opposed to alerting the administration about her actions 4) made use of an illicit recording (presumably made for his benefit) while constructing his criticism of the student teacher's actions 5) misrepresented the nature of the student who'd made the recording of the student teacher (the student was in fact an F student preparing to drop out of the class, who apparently decided to get a little payback before his departure by goading the student teacher into saying something McAdams could use to destroy her), and 6) created a link on his blog to an email address for the student teacher which led to her receiving a hundred or more hate emails, many suggesting she should be raped or killed.

This was a serious infraction of all things decent, and was a betrayal of the relationship between the student teacher and the faculty of Marquette University. Apparently, hundreds of college professors have weighed in on this issue, and virtually all of them have sided with the university that McAdams should be fired. Perhaps more to the point, however, is this... IF the university failed to fire McAdams and he decided to harass yet another female student who defied his expectations of proper feminine behavior by naming her in his blog, and she was killed, injured, or even just harassed, he would have exposed the university to millions of dollars in damages. For the university it just wasn't worth it...

thank you for succinct recap as to the McAdams/Marquette fiasco. The guy is a "drip"!

"If, by the "why," you mean: "True lone nutters just can't seem to leave her and her tales of woe alone, why?", I don't know the answer."

...

Of course WE know the answer. Simple: a conspiracy murdered JFK on the streets of Dallas, Texas., 22 Nov 1963, that's it! All the nonsense is about destroying LHO, guilty of murder or not--by association or NOT! Preserve the conclusion of the 1964 Warren Commission Report

Seeya 'round kiddo! You'se guys have worn this undecided, LHO *did it all by his lonesome* oldtimer out!

Very hard to follow, Dave: Why do LNs obsess about JVB? I don't know. You may be right that they see it as a way of discouraging conspiracy thought. Capisce??

capisci ...

"If, by the "why," you mean: "True lone nutters just can't seem to leave her and her tales of woe alone, why?", I don't know the answer."

...

Of course WE know the answer. Simple: a conspiracy murdered JFK on the streets of Dallas, Texas., 22 Nov 1963, that's it! All the nonsense is about destroying LHO, guilty of murder or not--by association or NOT! Preserve the conclusion of the 1964 Warren Commission Report

Seeya 'round kiddo! You'se guys have worn this undecided, LHO *did it all by his lonesome* oldtimer out!

I think the main things that concern many parties - LN and CT alike - are that her claims are mixing into the good evidence stream, and some newbies are citing them as established facts; and that she seems to be trying to legitimize herself by holding conferences.

You've long been a very partisan guy, and I see you trying to make it an "LN thing," but the current wave of concern over her story has lots of CTs. The most recent was Greg Parker; there are rumors of an impending article by Jim DiEugenio; and there are lots of other CTs who mistrust her stories (Lifton, Conway, Junkkarinen, etc).

nice dodge on the "why"...

You do know Gerald Ford could rise from the dead and state, Judyth has a credibility problem--and that same old nutter faction would continue the same old relentless, useless assault...

Someone, someplace needs to rewrite the script.

So now its rumors about impending articles concerning Judyth? Feed that grist mill, dude!

Nothing to do with partisanship ma-man... Judyth is simply a clever, finely tuned, steam rollin' PR machine, who may or may not have a story to tell...

Another thing to consider in evaluating Baker's account(s): Some caught-on early to her tendency to sanitize her account. That is, when she is caught in a seeming falsehood, contradiction, problem, she is strikingly resourceful at "spinning" her way out of trouble with a torrent of nonlinear prose, effectively changing her story. She has done this again and again. (I disagree with those who see her as very intelligent: Crafty, yes. Smart, no. She has made poor judgments again and again. One decision in particular.)

speaking of poor judgement, methinks Blackburst, a few here and of course, the entire alt.assassination.jfk crowd (here and elsewhere) need Judyth much, much more than she needs these forums. Folks sure do give her a platform, don't they (present posters included)?

Also, some JFKResearch veterans here gave her a more than fair shot at making her point 8 some years back. Her story was found wanting then. True lone nutters just can't seem to leave her and her tales of woe alone, why?

A intentional shot thru the windshield does one other thing, in a true investigation the location of a shooter could be pinpointed.

If a hole in the windshield caused the frontal throat injury, tracing back to the rifle would be simple and absolutely proof of a conspiracy.

They would not have chanced this shot. IMO

Pamela, I agree with you that professionals would not create this evidence intentionally.

Thanks, Robert...I do think the shooters were smarter than that. They managed to kill one person, nearly kill a second, and narrowly miss a third (Jackie, who imo climbed out on the trunk to get away from them). The damage to the limo was minimal. A ding to the windshield, shown in CE350 and also Altgens 1-7, and perhaps a hit to the chrome molding, shown in CE 349.

LHO was using a $12 M/C with a misaligned scope. He had not had anything to do with the M/C that we know of from the time he put it in Ruth Paine's station wagon in NOLA for the trip to Dallas. He did not practice anywhere that we know of. I have spoken with SA Robert Frazier who did the reenactment and seemed convinced that LHO could have made those shots, but I am not convinced at all.

and unfortunately YOU can't put LHO in a 6th floor window, ANY window. Unless of course he possessed a magic flute...

More silliness from DiEugenio.

Plots; CIA agents everywhere you look; hidden "agendas" around every corner.

Paranoia at its finest....

jfk-archives / dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-96

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

yep, and you're at the head of the list.... carry on, son!

the nutters are gettin' tired. The 50th is long gone, they think now it's cleanup time... Now Von Pein is doing a book with Mel "I hate CT's" Ayton. lmao! K-Mart $1.00 book bin folks. see it there in 3 months.....

$160.00 bucks? That says it all.... ROTFLMAO!

Annoying or not, me thinks there is much wringing of hands, rancor and way too much ENVY here... simply put, Judyth has it dialed in.

That's kind of a weird question, David Healy. I agree that the disappearance of the brain is suspicious, and that this disappearance (when taken in the context of the autopsy doctors' supposed failure to section the brain and Admiral Burkley's statements about there possibly being two gunshot wounds to the head) suggests the brain showed the likelihood of more than one shooter.

Many, however, assume the problem with the brain was that it showed a blow out on the back, and suggested a shot came from the front. When one accepts the photos and x-rays as authentic, and intensely studies the medical evidence, however, one realizes that the problem was that the damage at the base of the brain, by the EOP, was unrelated to the damage at the top of the brain, and that the brain thereby indicated two shots to the head.

indeed weird, you're non-answer even weirder... where's the brain, the PROOF! Mr. Tidd's last post is correct. Dishonesty, plus, cover up and diversion are STILL order of the day for Warrenistas and foolish, blind support for the 1964 WCR findings.

From a 2007 discussion re: "the cerebellum"....

JOHN CANAL SAID:

Furthermore, I would have appreciated your take (and Vince Bugliosi's) more if you had added not only the fact that 10 doctors and other eyewitnesses, including TWO neurosurgeons, not to mention Humes in his WC testimony, saw CEREBELLUM tissue exuding from the large defect, but also the fact that it would have been virtually impossible to see cerebellum exuding from a wound that was limited in its area to the top/right/front of his head.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No cerebellum was seen by anybody. In fact, via Doctor Boswell's 1996 words on this subject (reprinted below), it would have been literally impossible for any cerebellum to have spilled out onto that stretcher at Parkland (or at Bethesda) on 11/22/63. .... (And we all know that Mr. Canal thinks Dr. Boswell's ARRB remarks are very, very solid and worthy of accepting.)

And in this particular instance, since there's not a sign of ambiguity at all in this testimony, unlike Boswell's remarks concerning the BOH situation, I'm inclined to accept this as the final "Cerebellum" word:

DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB Testimony) -- "In Dallas, they had said that the cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding. But they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort of compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to cut the dura around, and then you--that's the only hard part about getting the brain out. And the manner in which we were doing it, both the cerebral hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was really very simple to take out."

QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you noticed during the time of the autopsy?"

BOSWELL -- "No."

QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum were intact?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."

~~~~~~~~

The "I Saw Cerebellum" comments made by the various witnesses are yet additional errors in a series of innocent observational errors made by the doctors. And some of the doctors who initially said they thought they saw cerebellum have since reversed themselves on that issue (Pepper Jenkins and Paul Peters on the 1988 NOVA program, to name two). [Although I must add, by way of footnote, that the on-camera comments made by four of the Parkland doctors for the 1988 PBS/NOVA program regarding the precise location of the large wound in President Kennedy's head are very strange comments indeed. So it's a very good idea to take everything uttered by those four physicians during that program with a large grain of salt by your side. See the link below.]

THE ODD TALES OF THE PARKLAND DOCTORS ON PBS-TV IN 1988

JFK-ARCHIVES.blogspot.com/search site for "Boswell" & "Cerebellum"

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

perhaps you will point where the autopsied JFK's brain is today? Complete with verification and other documentation including autopsy pictures citing yes, indeed, that proves it's JFK brain? Then let the audience and laymen make their own decisions. Can you do that DVP or Pat? If not, why not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=17tIST8HWRM

Doug:

Thank you so much for posting this YouTube video of my presentation back in 2003.

I haven't watched this in about 10 years. I'm very proud of this talk, I stand behind what I said, and I hope it serves to educate (and entertain) newcomers to the case.

My best,

DSL

10/20/14 - 9:40 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

nor have I, David

thank you....