David G. Healy

It is being worked on. Just taking some time. Yes it was hacked. I posed about it here a few days ago. Stay tuned. When we are back up and running I will post here as well as on facebook. Dawn thank you Dawn.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing. I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing. And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes! you know Pat, you been on Mantik for quite awhile... the guy is an MD and also has a PhD. in Physics. Are you jealous he trumps, with credibility, your own un-lettered "medical" case research or something? Get over it! ... Mantik and I will be sharing a stage at the Wecht Conference. I'll let that audience decide whose "research" is built upon common sense and science, and whose is largely pixie dust. ... sounds like you're throwing down a gauntlet at the Wecht Conference, is that correct? So there's no misunderstanding of your intentions?

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing. I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing. And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes! you know Pat, you been on Mantik for quite awhile... the guy is an MD and also has a PhD. in Physics. Are you jealous he trumps, with credibility, your own un-lettered "medical" case research or something? Get over it!

excellent work.... thank you!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BELL-HOWELL-FILMO-SPORTSTER-DOUBLE-RUN-EIGHT-8mm-MOVIE-CAMERA-CHICAGO-W-CASE-/221275012466?pt=US_Vintage_Cameras&hash=item338504bd72 my model runs at 8, 16, 24 and 32 frames per second (fps). The above model runs at 16, 32, 48 and 64 FPS Above camera mfgr'd by Bell-Howell, same manufacturer of Abe Zapruder's film camera. Camera dimensions: 4 7/8" tall x 1 5/8" wide x 4" deep (end of lens to rear eye piece)... fits right in the palm of your hand (much smaller than Abe's camera). Fixed focal length, no ZOOM lens.

interesting if anyone will update this thread, Duncan?

^5

yep, uh-huh! Geez Blackburst.... LMAO!

What's truly "revolting" is to think how much profit Oliver Stone has made on his JFK fantasy flick. In my view, people like Bugliosi, Hanks, Posner, Davison, Myers, McAdams, Moore, and O'Reilly deserve all the reward they can rake in from their JFK-related work. After all, they've told the FACTS about the way John Kennedy died. Oliver Stone sure as hell didn't. DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Re: "Parkland") Ahhh, E-N-V-Y, not a good trait, Davey-me-boy. You aren't still ticked off because Dale *gotta see my EMMY* Myers got the Reclaiming History-ghost writing nod and not you? Bugliosi probably figures your JFK assassination related 15 blogs, 25 websites, unknown quantity of video clips, gazillion audio clips, 200,000 posts to various forums around the USENET and Internet, cover enough bases... I'm sure Myers enjoyed the work. And besides you got the internet marketing nod for Bugliosi's Reclaiming History (the worst book publishing disaster in the history of book publishing!) You're a natural, dude! LMAO

Excuse me, but why would anyone care about 14 years of JFK assassination related threads?

Tink, I believe is busy wrapping up a new manuscript that I think may explain a lot, though I too would like to know what his contribution to the NOVA special was. In the NOVA press release they also mention a new "virtual autopsy," which I can imagine is probably an application of Dale Myers computer generated cartoons and not a real, virtual autopsy of the body, which can and should be done now with the latest techniques and equipment. BK Does anyone, ANYONE actually believe the conclusion reached in the upcoming "NOVA" Special will be anything other than: LHO was the lone gunman, and the SBT is the most logical explanation as to what happened on Elm Street Nov 22nd 1963? After 50 years the Warren Commission Report supporters (the main stream media leading the pact) are going to change colors, at this late date? Come on, and the tooth fairy is on her way too? What would cause lone nuts and WCR support organizers to pause and take note is simple: JFK case researchers of repute leaning towards conspiracy 1) resign from internet forums, 2) organize the investigators, divey out areas of expertise, work-out a simple script-synopsis-presentation updating the entire JFK assassination case evidence, 3) STOP posting via the internet/USENET type forums and other web means, 4) announce on those same forums resigned from when the work is finished, 5) then wait. Reputable, experienced television/film producers will find you.

Then you have enough ancillary evidence to prove a conspiracy murder JFK, Bill. Go with it! All we need! Just the same, I'll stick with medical evidence and medical experts.

David, I am not looking for an argument, I'm looking for agreement: The ultimate goal is to show how to prove what happened during the shooting, not argue about what did not happen. ... Then 100% of our focus should be on the medical evidence, there is no wiggle room, nor room for debate. Especially if one is looking to prove, a conspiracy murdered JFK! Obviously you will do and pursue what you feel best. However, the door is closing on case debate and dumb JFK forum arguments that go absolutely no where...

Here's your problem Bill, Like DVP you expect debate where there is none, nor will any argument happen. The SBT was dead on arrival in 1964. The entire Warren Commission Report failed and failed miserably. Where have you guys been for the past 40 years? Staging faux arguments sounds about right.

In your estimation: planned or negligence? Thanks, DHealy

With all due respect, is your opinion the point? Or is demonstrating the truth so convincingly by working together that the WC defenders pack up shop and go home what we are working toward? David's point may be that anyone who has looked at the available information believes that there is sufficient evidence to show that the SBT (Single Bullet Theory) did not happen. For example, when you look at the pictures of the back of JFK's shirt and jacket, there is no way the bullet went up to exit JFK's neck and then down to hit Connally in the back. There are many things that appear to show the lone gunman theory is not correct. The discussions have been reduced to the SBT is correct with the counter argument is that no it is not. It is analogous to two kids yelling yes it is, no it isn't. To move the argument forward, it is going to be necessary to show what actually happened during the shooting. Do you have any idea what happened if the SBT is not correct? There is no need to be concerned at all. There is no "SBT". There are merely different scenarios that the LNTs have tried to play a shell game with. I discuss this in my article "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night"' http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372&hl=pretty+pig%27s+saturday+night correct, NO SBT.... 2 shooters from the rear hits on (JFK and JC) -- 2 shooters from the front (insurance)-1 hit possibly 2 (JFK in the head). End of story, hence CONSPIRACY. Anything other than a SBT, aka LHO did it all by his lonesome, would lead to conspiracy and that, would lead to upheaval, possibly anarchy. I believe Earl Warren knew that and chose the easier, softer way out!

... we just fall prey to the aspect of the WCR mindset that claims the WC defenders all 'agree' on everything (they don't) and the CTs can't even get along... That in my humble opinion is nonsense. There is enough evidence right this second to prove, conspiracy murdered JFK. And we did it with overblown egos and stepped on many toes. Who cares what lone nut trolls think (they are stuck with the Warren Commission Report and, with NO- read Z-E-R-O debate, wiggle room), ya think a courtroom-judge-jury would care what bottom feeders think? It's pure case evidence. A conspiracy to murder the president is there, right now! Lone Nuts (aka Warren Commission Report) and their supporters have an agenda that being fractionalize the debate, ANY debate... nit-pick minutiae, debate lies... Facts being what they are, there is NO need for debate, dedicated researchers who have come down on the side of conspiracy, not only understand it, but KNOW it. We could get rid of 5 internet forums today and it won't change a damn thing, with the exception of a few, bent out of shape lone nut egos and more than just a few CT ego's, of course. This case medical evidence alone blows the entire case, and the WCR and its supporters right out of the water. ... so cross your projects 't's' and dot your 'i's', who knows, we might just make a wee-footnote in history.

IF? o' yee foreigners of little faith... LMAO!

we're to assume Garrison suppressed his knowledge of Milteer tapes because of Barbra LaMonica unpublished, non-cited research? C'mon... Your question is irrelevant. btw and who is Barbara LaMonica?

Interesting article Paul, will you continue along this same vein? Perhaps a separate thread with the entire articles information. Thanks --David

baloney Paul... nice dance though. When it comes to history and historians (sic) circa. 1963, most students/researchers know, the historians were asleep at the wheel and remain asleep, to this day, ALL of them! Reason? Whose reason? Certainly not the American public's. Further, "historical method" goes to the victor-- and you know what that means.

Oh pleez, Paul. . I think you're going way too far in this analysis. What about the 58,000 people whose names are engraved on the Vietnam memorial in Washington, D.C.? (And the 1 million Asians who died in that conflict?) Are we supposed to believe that somehow their deaths too, somehow are invested with some "meaning" because "they" too, functioned as a buffer of sorts, and prevented World War 3? Sorry, but I can't buy into that kind of analysis. At all.... DSL 6/18/13; 8:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, California ... However, the closest we came to World War Three was, I will argue, the moment when the truth of the JFK assassination had to be declared to the American People. That is a separate instance and stands alone in history. ... Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> perhaps you should refresh your history AND argument.. when it comes to potential events leading to WW3: The Cuban Missile Crises... (see below) Then again, if you were not born then what would you know, eh? http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Cuban-Missile-Crisis.aspx

This is the voice of reason, Pat. Many thanks for your objective perspective. Best regards, --Paul Trejo any port in a storm, eh Paul? btw, the Warren Report is kaput, how's that for reason!

I haven’t missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine. There is much evidence open to debate, because it can be construed more than one way. That’s fair game. It’s a difference of opinion that makes a horse race, they say. However, just as a recent example, Paul Trejo asserted that there were 20 witnesses to Oswald’s abuse of his wife Marina. Were he merely ignorant of the actual facts - which is a recurring pattern with him, as I’ve demonstrated - that doesn’t make him a xxxx; it merely means he’s wrong and needs to be corrected. In order to correct his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I meticulously searched through the testimony and demonstrated beyond doubt that most of the people Paul Trejo included in his “20" figure had no such direct first-hand knowledge and did not testify as he said they did. Nevertheless, and despite acknowledging the "20" figure was overstated, Paul Trejo thereafter still contended there were twenty witnesses. At this point, it is no longer a mistake - because he’s been shown and admitted the error of his ways - and is an outright falsehood. Fairly clear instance, wouldn’t you think? I raise the point because I think there is a parallel with the Janney episode. A few observations which I’ll try to keep brief. From the little bit of correspondence we’ve had during the eight years I’ve been a member here, I believe John Simkin to be a liberal egalitarian who felt he could construct the single best and most effective JFK site by inviting the best researchers and authors. A laudable goal, and one he achieved I think. (It is a measure of his liberalism that he has granted membership to persons such as Jim DiEugenio, who had written some unflattering things about John prior to joining here.) Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they’d be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don’t think this is John’s living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books. Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors’ part? This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney’s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I’m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book’s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney’s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.) Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney’s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer’s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don’t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney. I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney’s favour: “The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.” If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn’t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum’s raison d’etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be. Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here. I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear. (Edited for typo) I wonder sometimes if my world experience is vastly different from that of my fellow forum members. The reality, IMO, is that very few people EVER admit their mistakes, and that writers--once their brilliant words have been carved in gold--almost NEVER admit their mistakes. The best one can hope for on a public forum, therefore, is to point out "Well, hmmm, look at this, I think you're wrong and here's why" and hope those following the forum come to believe you. Pushing the issue--and trying to make the writer or fellow forum member AGREE with you--is, IMO, a de facto form of harassment, designed to make that writer or member quit the forum. I wish it weren't true, but 'tis so. We have many members, with a variety of opinions, and variety of approaches to the evidence. Whittling it down to a few whose facts are completely in order would lead to a very quiet forum, in which few ideas are explored, IMO. People need room to breathe, and come to their own decision about their having made a mistake. Pressuring them to do so leads nowhere, unfortunately...which is why this case drags on...and on...and on... you've spend too much time in Hollyweird, dude! "People need room to breathe..."? <sigh>

quoting yourself? Is this what you call sweeping up after yourself these days, from October 16, 2006? 7 years ago? Really, quoting yourself? You should be ashamed.