David G. Healy

I'm very sorry to hear this. Tom was a researcher held in very high esteem by myself and many others. His expertise has been missed for a while. Now it is gone. RIP Tom. David Healy

another one destined for the $1.00 book bin at K-Mart... after it's worldwide sales hit the 17 copies sold bracket, of course ...

he did? When did that happen? Apparently Vince you're getting a bit close to that WCR supporting, lone nut kool-aid, AGAIN !

thanks Monk for stating and reaffirming the obvious (above). I'm astounded the Z-film takes up so much discussion bandwidth, across ALL forums!

so says the flutist..... lmao!

Why is it muck-raking to ask pertinent questions? And, I repeat, it is only David Joseph's posts that have been edited by moderators. What does that say? Ok David, perhaps you know the answer to why the two chosen adolescents from different countries and different families would grow up looking so identical over a ten year period. It is precisely because you cannot answer this you are resigned to squealing "xxxxx" every time someone asks it. Just because you can't answer simple questions regarding your own cherished theories does not make me a "lone nut xxxxx". it just makes you all look very dishonest. #edit typo we await your future book concerning LHO and his many faces, Bernie. Till then, xxxxx on...

Opinion much-rakers on this board have a very loud voice David Josephs. Your knowledge of H&L and its "evidence," plus the fact that your conversant, express yourself well with written word and a grasp of the simple fact that conspiracy murdered JFK makes you a real bone of contention for the lone nut, .John trolls that still inhabit this place. Despite the fact that latter Ed Forum posters and their numbers have dropped by 50% or more lately, what else is new?. The lone nut trolls will whine for the pure pleasure of it. Your power is in presenting, not debating Armstrong's theses...

perhaps your desire to elevate science to the position of GOD-head has skewed your outlook concerning man and his origin? Surely your "science" will explain who we are, what were doing here, and of course, the WHY for's of what were doing here? I await your answer to those three simple questions... An honest position: believe in GOD is NOT okay for atheists, as well as painful (sometimes very painful depending on ones level of guilt-remorse) for the agnostics amongst us.

is the animation a "Lightwave" (software) animation product?

excellent article... it appears Dale *do you wanna see my EMMY* Myers, is a bit defensive these days.

Weigh in by all means, now If we can get beyond all your links here and to the subject, we'll of scored success. I shall remind you this is not a discussion started by a flutist about the air pressure in JFK's limo tires.... You're fully capable of posting your OPINION, yes, concerning whatever or whomever posts here, that it! Attempting to sound the eminent authority concerning Doug Horne's expertise, not to mention, his first person, hands on expertise-- passing judgement on his work is quite frankly, ludicrious. You should find someone else's boat to ride. This is not LANCER.

congratulations to Doug Horne. Job well done!

glad to see you back...

Evan, This is copied pretty much verbatim from another forum where someone recently asked me about my shift from a conspiracy believer to a lone nutter. My "conversion" is not an easy story to summarize. I got into the subject of the assassination when I saw Oliver Stone's *JFK,* read the books his movie was based on, then started reading every conspiracy book I could get my hands on. (Anti-conspiracy books, not so much, at least not until a little later.) In 1998 I began getting really excited about some of the newest developments in the case, including John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory; some of Harrison Livingstone's claims about the medical evidence, the Zapruder film, and a Texas-based conspiracy; the hints being dropped about evidence Barr McClellan was supposed to publish proving LBJ's complicity; and some leads that were new to me about David Ferrie and Guy Banister. (I never bought into Garrison's allegations about Clay Shaw; I agreed with a lot of prominent researchers who thought Garrison started off with some viable leads but then went off the rails after David Ferrie died.) I started trying to synthesize some of this into as coherent a scenario I could, and felt like something of a kid in a candy store when I finally got an internet connection and was able to post my ideas and debate points with others. Some of what I learned initially seemed to validate the theories I was pursuing, but some aspects became more troubling. Several unusually good researchers urged me to study more primary sources, rather than rely on books and websites, and even helped me get ahold of some. (A LOT more is available online now than then, thanks to researchers of both the CT and LN persuasions.) The first casualty was my faith in Garrison's reliability, and this was driven home quite forcefully when Patricia Lambert's FALSE WITNESS came out and verified what I was already encountering in the primary sources: that Garrison, with the help of some overly cooperative witnesses, essentially made his entire case up. My confidence in what I was learning about Garrison increased greatly as I debated Garrison supporters and found their arguments even weaker than I'd expected. They often didn't bother debating evidence much at all and relied on personal attacks about how I was some kind of CIA disinformation agent or propagandist. It's hard to underestimate how shocking it was to me that what I had thought of as a tremendously important chunk of history -- all the suspects developed by Garrison (Ferrie, Banister, the Cubans) and all the claims I'd thought were so enlightening about Oswald in New Orleans (and Clinton! and Jackson!) -- were just fantasies, things Big Jim took from unreliable, often mentally unstable "witnesses" and embellished, or speculation of his own that he simply declared to be factual. That changed the way I looked at a lot of things -- first John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory, which I'd thought so groundbreaking and crucially important, and now reminded me more of the way Garrison cherry-picked statements from dubious witnesses and wove them into a story that could often be footnoted and verified, but completely lacked any basis in reality when scrutinized more carefully. (I would characterize Armstrong as an honest but misguided researcher, however, not a flat-out xxxx like Garrison often was.) I've written pretty extensively about specific problems with Garrison's claims (first at John McAdams' Kennedy Assassination Home Page, then at my own website), and the subject is also touched upon in an essay I wrote a little while later about why I no longer believed Armstrong's theory: http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/dr1.htm I thought it was important to explain why I'd changed my mind about Garrison and Armstrong, partly because my early months online were spent wallpapering alt.conspiracy.jfk and alt.assassination.jfk with posts endorsing Armstrong and the earlier (pre-Shaw) Garrison theories, and partly because I wanted to try to spare other researchers some of the hassles and wastes of time that I'd experienced. Other problems with things I believed started to emerge. The Barr McClellan thing fizzled badly; his book, which was supposed to have all sorts of rock-solid evidence against LBJ, turned out to be a lot of hot air. Research on the Z film showed me that things I'd thought were indications of forgery turned out to be pretty silly. The Zavada Report came out around that same time and basically kicked the stuffing out of all the forgery claims. My fervent belief that Lee Oswald was just a poor, innocent patsy began to crumble. An interview with Nick McDonald in Walt Brown's JFK/DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY convinced me to give McDonald the benefit of the doubt about his encounter with Oswald in the Texas Theatre, and some research into his statements and those of the other Texas Theatre witnesses convinced me that Oswald had drawn his gun on McDonald, something I'd never believed before. (Citations available upon request.) Then Dale Myers' book, WITH MALICE, convinced me that Oswald had killed Tippit, something I'd vehemently denied for years. And then not only some more careful readings of things like the Warren Report, the HSCA Hearings, and Posner's book, but also some of the newer books like Gus Russo's LIVE BY THE SWORD and Gary Savage's FIRST DAY EVIDENCE convinced me that the case against Oswald as a JFK assassin was a lot stronger than I'd ever considered, and the Warren Commission wasn't the total joke I'd been led to believe. It still took a little time for the other shoe to drop, so to speak; I didn't become an LN overnight. In fact, I was being called an LN for quite some time before I actually was one, just because I'd become so critical of conspiracy theories I thought were ridiculous, like Garrison's. As a CT, I wanted the junkier theories off the table so we could all take a better look at what was left. By the time I was done, though, I'd decided that pretty much all of the conspiracy theories were junk and was convinced that, in all likelihood, it was Oswald alone who did it. An issue that started to seem more relevant to me than studying individual conspiracy theories was figuring out why intelligent, educated people can be so susceptible to conspiracy theories in the first place. Books like Michael Shermer's WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS, Daniel Pipes' CONSPIRACY, and David Aaronovitch's VOODOO HISTORIES helped give me some perspective, and some research published just in the last year or two has helped me get a better handle on some of the psychological aspects of the issue. I refer to some of this in my SKEPTIC article: http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/jfk-conspiracy-theories-at-50-how-the-skeptics-got-it-wrong-and-why-it-matters/ Dave What I find amazing is simple, alleged CT turned Lone *I done seen the LHO light* Nut, all seem to have a terrific aversion citing the very thing they claim to (NOW) support: the 1964 Warren Commission Report. I wonder W-H-Y ... Dave? Dale Myers? c'mon.... LMFAO!

from the Warren Commission down to the 6th Floor Mausoleum, they're everywhere... kinda makes you wonder the motive for their help and service...

possible Z-film source?: http://web.archive.org/web/20021220055109/http://www.mte.com/nysmpte/meetings/sum0004.htm MEETING TOPIC: FILM FORENSICS AND THE ZAPRUDER FILM MEETING DATE: April 18, 2000 MEETING VENUE: Manhattan Center Studios, New York, NY ... "A long question and answer session included an anecdote related by Everett Hall who, in 1963, was president of Cine Magnetics Film Laboratory. He recalled that three FBI men visited his laboratory and requested that a copy of a single 8mm film of the Kennedy motorcade be duplicated. A 16mm printing machine was modified to accept the 8mm film, which was prepared with appropriate leaders and threaded up or the printing machine." ... Rollie Zavada was present at the above April 18th 2000 Manhattan, NY., SMPTE conference, in fact, he shared the same platform as Everett Hall that night.

Ms. Brown, The "*LIMO* crime scene" was contaminated, washed, cleaned, removed, destroyed then rebuilt. It most certainly would not be utilized as evidence in any forthcoming investigation other than the caveat: being where the assault and murder occurred. We knew what happened to the presidential limo 15 years ago. Essentially, it was rendered useless as evidence. So..... What is your point? Thanks

query Pat? or email Gary Mack...

Old Pat isn't doing so well re this thread... you'd of been better off Pat, biding your time, simply expanding your ever increasing in size gargantuan website. Now, Pat has become become a topic of discussion, his motives questioned just like David Von Pein, Dave Reitzes, Dave Stager, etal., way-back when, when they were CT's... Exposure is good!

more likely a politically IN-correct question....

thanks, Monk...

Indeed, lone nuts can NOT accept that logic, it's simply against their faith. Excellent postings in this thread, Paul....

Dallas yet? His work here is missed....

- Time Inc. sold the original film and its copyright back to the Zapruder family for the token sum of $1. - In December 1999, the Zapruder family donated the film's copyright to The Sixth Floor Museum, - The Zapruder family no longer retains any commercial rights to the film, which are now entirely controlled by the museum. Not sure someone couled sell an original Zapruder film or a copy , if they do not own the copyrights. The Zapruder family estate was paid 16million buckeroos for the Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA, the 6th Floor Mausoleum was assigned the custodial rights to the Zapruder film and one of the original 1963 1st generation film copy of same.... seems that when the US taxpayers pay for something, something is always held back, in this case, film usage rights... So what the hell else is new? Taxpayer always gets screwed... How much money did the 6th Floor Mausoleum make off of the Z-film this 50th anniversary, only a few hundred bucks.... LMFAO!

you're right, not much science is needed--frankly, a shot from the front to the throat, answers most questions... just like parkland doctors said: "an entrance wound..."