David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
I realize this requires you to THINK Lammy...
which bag did the FBI get,
which one did Studebaker give to whom,
How does Hicks not have a clue as to what they are talking about when he was specifically left to deal with this bag
and since Monty does not take this bag... where did he get the one he was holding in the photos?
Use that big Brain Lammy, or is all you can do is point out where you think others are wrong without offering ANYTHING in its place....
This subject becomes yet another aspect of the case you could care less about other than to xxxxx the thread...
Now post something pithy and original CL... ADD to the conversation (I forgot, math eludes you... adding anything is beyond you)
Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it?
Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent.
Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you?
Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in.
Mr. BELIN. By this you are referring to the bag itself?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was it folded over?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over.
Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?
Mr. HICKS. Paper bag?
Mr. BALL. Paper bag.
Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up.
Mr. BALL. Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it?
Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it.
Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints
Look, "larry" is here. Right on cue.
So "Larry" is Speer correct with his fake bag photo claim or not. Get on the record so we can make this a three-for now. I do so like making you look like a complete clown.
you are getting your exercise aren't ya there laddie... so when can we expect something from that tired old Gang of 6 camp? Something worth more than that regular old CT phrase "ho-hum, more .johnism, I told you so"?
-
...
Anyone with a fully functioning brain will understand that an ATTEMPT to recreate will be flawed. Welcome to reality davie jo.
I see these guys have you on the run, eh Craigster? Btw, if planned recreation is anticipated to be flawed, beforehand, why do it? Seems kinda dumb, unless you're into disinfo of course.... just curious.
-
did you want a serious answer to that or are you just trolling?
I was interested in how different people interpret that meaningless statistic, I suppose. I used a quote from Mark Lane to help reinforce my point, which I thought was reasonably concise. Perhaps I could have been clearer.
You've responded with a spattering of disjointed crap and an accusation of trolling.
Aren't you the clever one?
I should of known... a Dale *wanna see my emmy* Myers fan! Oh Gawd!
Say, if you have a real problem with Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, jump in at alt.conspiracy.jfk, there's been 236 seperatethreads started concerning Lane's RTJ. Beginning from pg.1.
.john mcadams lone nut wannabe's are pulverized on a regular basis...
Come by, show your stuff, of course, if you prefer trolling...
-
If you look a little closer (sign post), you will see that West was very detail oriented.
One can also see the other filming location used for making calculations/angles/sign position etc.etc.
chris
We are not talking about West, we are talking about you. Tell us how you measured using the sign post and the z frames?.
Better yet show us how 161-166 matches the data?
Good luck with that.
things get a tad bit tougher defending Zapruder-film legitimacy when you have to deal with documented Dealey Plaza survey benchmarks right Craigster? But when in doubt, try throwing the presenter under the bus, eh?
Sad, Craig Lampoon Lamson. We're all entitled to the facts as well as truth, just NOT yours. Carry on!
-
and YOU have seen, touched, smelled and saw projected the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original currently stored at NARA? Is that what YOU are saying here? YOU can prove the alleged in-camera original is in **FACT** the in-camera original? Speak to us, a simple yes or no will do. Yes or No, quite nicely, actually!
I'll wait while you ring Gary for his response.....
Poor davie,
Still stuck on that tired old song and dance, and you are still a hypocrite. Can you prove the film in storage is NOT the in camera original daive? Opps, there you are stuck.. again.
I'll wait for you to offer up yet more recycled garbage....
you got no game...never did.
yet, you can't answer a simple question, one that you surely know the answer to (after all it's your own experience), why is that, Craig?.... Can YOU prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder Film currently stored at NARA is in FACT the **ORIGINAL** film shot by Abraham Zapruder.
Let me save you some face, you can't! Nor can Rollie Zavada, Tink Thompson, Gary Mack, etal.... best ANY of you have is pure speculation!
-
good question Ian, however, I suspect Len is much over wrought with emotion from his current spiritual experience.
Perhaps he or Ortiz (above) fill us in on exactly what is on the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film, the film that no one here has ever seen or touched much let alone seen laced up in a projector and projected on to a screen, ANYWHERE, including the National Archives.
My lord, I think the .john mcadams-ites are now climbing out of woodwork, beginning their Z-film disinfo work in prep for the 50th anniversary. Carry on troops!
And yet all the ct alteration goofballs are OK making their claims using copies. Can you say hypocrite davie? What a very tired and over worked canard. But then again its the very best you have and you don't have squat.
What is your very original and witty reply...oh yes, carry on son.
and YOU have seen, touched, smelled and saw projected the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original currently stored at NARA? Is that what YOU are saying here? YOU can prove the alleged in-camera original is in **FACT** the in-camera original? Speak to us, a simple yes or no will do. Yes or No, quite nicely, actually!
I'll wait while you ring Gary for his response.....
-
Rollie Zavada is going to speak?
Ah, yes, the authenticity debate concerning the allege in-camera original Zapruder film is alive and well..... that should require a invite to Harry Livingstone, Rollie has a lot of questions to answer.
At Lancer they desire to put to rest any doubts on the Z-film's authenticity. I have a hard time believing serious objections/objectors will be entertained. All this at a time when there has never been more reason to be disgusted at this fraudulant film-this worthless piece of junk and deception. Zavada has to answer to the limo stop witnesses, the Parkland hospital staff, witnesses to an avulsive wound in the back of the head (with no, absolutely no debris exiting the back of the head in the extant film) and Horne's research. Good luck Rollie. What a waste of time, at least this presentation.
I'll add Harry Livingstone name to whom Rollie has to answer to, Dr. John Costella too!
It is certainly amazing how an *alleged* altered Zapruder Film scares the bejesus out of the 6th Floor Mausoleum AND Lancer. WHY?
Here's the line up against any altering of the Z-film: Gary 'Mack' Dunkle, Josiah 'Tink' Thompson, Roland 'bankrupt KODAK' Zavada, Craig 'Lampoon' Lamson, Bill 'YETI' Miller, Dallas City Father's, etal....
What, praytell do lone nuts (the 6th floor mausoleum and Lancer) have to fear? Even after 50 years, the Dallas City Father's or sumpin'?
Listen up nutters, you have a museum/mausoleum dedicated to the assassination of JFK (most popular public attraction in Dallas)... therefore, Dallas becomes known as: Dallas, Texas--the city where JFK was murdered... It's in the cards dudes!
Dr. John was destroyed here and he is too afraid to show his face and try to salvage his lost reputation.
The poor fool can't even understand how parallax works. Pretty bad for a guy who says he is a PhD in physics.
Only one way for a pan with Zapruders camera to NOT produce parallax and there is no way that ever happened. You even know how that works davie?
http://www.craiglams...om/costella.htm
Maybe you can do a better job of trying to defend dr johns ignorance in this regard than than Burnham did.
LMFAO! NOW you're a comedian? Getback in the studio I have a row of seats I need photographed! LMAO!
-
Len
Have you seen the in camera original?.
Ian
good question Ian, however, I suspect Len is much over wrought with emotion from his current spiritual experience.
Perhaps he or Ortiz (above) fill us in on exactly what is on the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film, the film that no one here has ever seen or touched much let alone seen laced up in a projector and projected on to a screen, ANYWHERE, including the National Archives.
My lord, I think the .john mcadams-ites are now climbing out of woodwork, beginning their Z-film disinfo work in prep for the 50th anniversary. Carry on troops!
-
Rollie Zavada is going to speak?
Ah, yes, the authenticity debate concerning the allege in-camera original Zapruder film is alive and well..... that should require a invite to Harry Livingstone, Rollie has a lot of questions to answer.
At Lancer they desire to put to rest any doubts on the Z-film's authenticity. I have a hard time believing serious objections/objectors will be entertained. All this at a time when there has never been more reason to be disgusted at this fraudulant film-this worthless piece of junk and deception. Zavada has to answer to the limo stop witnesses, the Parkland hospital staff, witnesses to an avulsive wound in the back of the head (with no, absolutely no debris exiting the back of the head in the extant film) and Horne's research. Good luck Rollie. What a waste of time, at least this presentation.
I'll add Harry Livingstone name to whom Rollie has to answer to, Dr. John Costella too!
It is certainly amazing how an *alleged* altered Zapruder Film scares the bejesus out of the 6th Floor Mausoleum AND Lancer. WHY?
Here's the line up against any altering of the Z-film: Gary 'Mack' Dunkle, Josiah 'Tink' Thompson, Roland 'bankrupt KODAK' Zavada, Craig 'Lampoon' Lamson, Bill 'YETI' Miller, Dallas City Father's, etal....
What, praytell do lone nuts (the 6th floor mausoleum and Lancer) have to fear? Even after 50 years, the Dallas City Father's or sumpin'?
Listen up nutters, you have a museum/mausoleum dedicated to the assassination of JFK (most popular public attraction in Dallas)... therefore, Dallas becomes known as: Dallas, Texas--the city where JFK was murdered... It's in the cards dudes!
-
Hey Chris.... How is old Tom these day's? Last time I talked with him via email he was recouping from some nasty weather down there Mississippi way. I send my best to him and you, You're doing great work, btw!
David
-
Rollie Zavada is going to speak?
Ah, yes, the authenticity debate concerning the allege in-camera original Zapruder film is alive and well..... that should require a invite to Harry Livingstone, Rollie has a lot of questions to answer.
-
One step at a time.... Redd would be proud!
-
ya want my autograph, just ask son, no sense hiding or lurking.... Envy really does suit you! LMFAO!
Can I have your autograph please, David?
I'd be interested to know whether you're able to sign your own name, or whether I'd get a palm print or a spidery cross instead.
of course, always glad to help -- there's a source closer to you than I Paul, rumor has it, Dale Myers has been stockpiling my autographs since before he won an EMMY award (incredible stroke of luch, eh?). I'm sure one of his 15 agents can set you up. Carry on son!
-
Belzer is a better actor than he is a researcher and he isn't a very good actor. I'm hardly an expert but I've not seen solid evidence more than one rifle as found. It seems some cops got confused about the make of the gun. This doesn't even make sense. Why would the plotters plant more than one weapon?
Truly stated multiple rifles were in *fact* inside the TSBD just days before the 11/22/63 assassination.
Why did Roy Truly bring a rifle to work?
http://educationforu...?showtopic=7214
b
they (the rifles) were in his office, whether HE, Truly brought any or all of them to work, I don't know. They were there in his office none-the-less. A day or so prior to the assassination!
-
Belzer is a better actor than he is a researcher and he isn't a very good actor. I'm hardly an expert but I've not seen solid evidence more than one rifle as found. It seems some cops got confused about the make of the gun. This doesn't even make sense. Why would the plotters plant more than one weapon?
Truly stated multiple rifles were in *fact* inside the TSBD just days before the 11/22/63 assassination.
-
LOL.
From the guy who goes to Ken Rahn's site to revive the deader than a doornail NAA bullet lead analysis.
Talk about rich.
THUD! NAA analysis? There's still someone out there who thinks that's serious stuff?
Jimbo thinks that neutron activation analysis is junk science. He's wrong of course, but he never admits that he's wrong.
I say David, you have a Ph.D in Junk Science. Why don't you educate Jimbo?
ya want my autograph, just ask son, no sense hiding or lurking.... Envy really does suit you! LMFAO!
-
David:
I used to be under the impression that you were a civilized person.
What exactly did I do or say that prompted you to place me in the "uncivilized" category, Ray?
Was it my "Go Gary!" remark?
If so, perhaps your skin has become too thin for these never-ending JFK frays.
when it comes to winning baseball games Von Pein, ya gotta show up and field a team--dude, when it comes to: did a conspiracy do JFK in[?], you aren't in the right hemisphere much let alone playing on the right field. Perhaps you're standing to close to all those deep fat fryers, eh?
-
I read and considered the entire entry on David Von Pein's website, Bob. Why don't you?
LOL.
From the guy who goes to Ken Rahn's site to revive the deader than a doornail NAA bullet lead analysis.
Talk about rich.
THUD! NAA analysis? There's still someone out there who thinks that's serious stuff?
-
"Kook", "delusional", "conspiracy-thirsty clown"--yes--I've utilized those most-appropriate terms to describe your absurd anybody-but-Oswald beliefs...but "xxxx", not very likely.ROTF LOL
To me this is a distinction without a difference.
No. I think the difference between "kook/delusional" and "xxxx" is substantial. A person can be very truthful and honest and still be a kook. That type of person, when it comes to the JFK case specifically, just simply has no capacity for properly evaluating the evidence in front of him. And it has been apparent to me for quite some time now that James DiEugenio is one of those persons. I mean, when a guy can suggest that Lee Oswald didn't carry any large bag at all into the Book Depository on Nov. 22--well, I think you get my point and I can safely rest my case.
You are saying that whatever I say cannot be trusted.I'm saying that the conclusions you draw from your research cannot be trusted. Take that "paper bag" example yet again. Almost everyone alive--even hardboiled conspiracy theorists--agree that Lee Harvey Oswald carried some type of large brown paper package to Buell Wesley Frazier's house in Irving on the morning of November 22, with Oswald placing that package into the back seat of Frazier's car. And almost all conspiracists love the idea that that package was too small to hold Oswald's Carcano rifle.
But you, Jim, can now never again utilize that very popluar "too short" theory about the paper bag -- because you don't think Oswald had any bag at all. Therefore, if you ever try to argue that the "too short" or "too small", you're going to look mighty foolish, because according to you, Linnie Randle and Buell Frazier didn't see ANY bag at all. (Which should make you wonder, Jim, why on Earth those two liars known as Randle and Frazier didn't at least say that their make-believe was big enough to hold the item that they both knew had to go inside of it. That's hilarious.)
And speaking of Jim's conclusions that "cannot be trusted" -- let'sd have a look at another one (and this one is a real lulu):
"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]. I mean, they might have been. But 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. .... And I've always suspected there was a sniper in the Dal-Tex Building." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010
In light of the massive amount of evidence that PROVES that an assassin was firing shots at JFK from the east end of the sixth floor of the TSBD (including the eyewitness accounts of people like Mal Couch, Bob Jackson, Amos Euins, and Howard Brennan), the above statement made by DiEugenio is so outrageous and ridiculous it deserves only a hearty laugh or two.
And in case some people think I might have just made up the above DiEugenio quote just to ridicule him, you can listen to Jimbo say those words HERE (at 34:17).
And in all the reams you have written about me, how can you be so sure you never did call me a xxxx? I mean why not? You called me everything else.Oh, it's quite possible I have. I'm not 100% sure. And I left open that possibility by using the verbiage I did in my previous post, when I said:
"And I think you might even have a difficult time digging up a post of mine where I have called you a xxxx. Because I don't think I have used that word when referring to you. "Kook", "delusional", "conspiracy-thirsty clown"--yes--I've utilized those most-appropriate terms to describe your absurd anybody-but-Oswald beliefs...but "xxxx", not very likely." -- DVP
While it's "not very likely", it's still possible that I've let the L word slip through the cracks a time or two when talking about the hundreds of silly things that James DiEugenio believes concerning the Kennedy assassination.
But I've certainly never accused Jim of doing the despicable, vile, and illegal things that he has no problem at all accusing many people of doing (sans any proof whatsoever) -- such as: planting evidence in a Presidential murder case in order to incriminate an innocent "patsy" named Oswald....covering up tons of stuff relating to the assassination....falsifying official documents....coercing witnesses and forcing them to tell one lie after another about the murder of JFK....and on and on.
Those are the kinds of serious allegations that I would love to see a conspiracy theorist have to defend in a court of law someday, after somebody who has been slandered by one of those conspiracy mongers takes them to court on a defamation charge. The CTer wouldn't stand a chance.
Y-A-W-N and the lone nut-SBT-WCR apologist beat goes on! LMAO!
-
Lindsay,
There is another element to consider which compounds the challenge of making definitive determinations from this photograph, namely:
All web browsers, without exception, are limited to 70 dpi on a computer monitor no matter the quality, resolution, or size of the image
being viewed--and no matter the type of computer being used or the quality of your video card or monitor itself.
If a person had a high quality scan of the photograph from a DVD or CD or Flash drive, etc. they could then view the image without losing
the data. However, once that image is uploaded to the forum, for instance, not only would the image size be limited by the forum's rules,
but the same WEB BROWSER limit of 70 dpi would apply. Moreover, even if one was to upload a very high quality version to their own
FTP site that had sufficient space to accommodate the entire high resolution image without compression, once it is viewed on, yes, ANY
WEB BROWSER it is limited to 70 dpi.
The images that Cinque and Company are using possess unknown original quality to begin with, but as I pointed out, they are showing
an extremely TINY--or should I say--tiny area of the photo which has been compressed an unknown number of times (causing loss of data)
prior to being uploaded to the web, only to then to be viewed in a web browser limited to 70 dpi.
The amount of total data loss is huge, but this is what they are working with and upon which they base their pseudo-scientific conclusions.
...
72dpi .jpg/bmp upload format -- standard web imagery norms
-
Gary Mack has become a clown. .... He has no qualms about lying is head off in public over and over.
One of these days, it'd sure be nice if someone would sue the pants off of a few of the conspiracy-happy clowns (like DiEugenio, for example) for defamation of character, as a result of the clowns constantly calling various people liars, Presidential murderers, "accessories after the fact to murder", and various other specious and vile charges that the clowns couldn't prove if their lives hung in the balance.
The Warren Commission created 26 volumes of LIES, not to mention weak, cherry-picked case evidence, contrived facts and innuendo and YOU support and promote said (failed) investigative report hook, line and sinker, then YOU are a participant in the grand WC LIE. Lest you be reminded what up to 90% of the educated public have come to understand:
a C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y killed JFK!
Frankly, you, a part of that fabulous Dave syndrome: Dave Stager, Dave Perry, Dave Reitzes and Dave Von Pein--all onetime CT's and now seer$ of contrived truth$... LMFAO... sorry, ya need pity son, not scorn. Especially on public forums, but mostly you need a private spanking. Which of course I heard lampoon Lamson is willing to give you....
-
Wait a minute.
The real point is this, and I mention it in my article on this topic at CTKA.
This is the SECOND time Gary/Larry has done this.
For ITTC he said Jackie was in the line of fire. Yeah Gary, after you lined up the actors wrong. He was then forced to retract.
He now does it AGAIN with the so called Walker note. Which did not surface until AFTER the assassination. Via who? The omnipresent Ruth Paine. And the note did not have Oswald's fingerprints on it. Although there were other prints on it.
Gary Mack pulled off two howlers in public like that? He forgot the Waker shooting was in April?
I don't think so. And neither should anyone else.
Awaiting the lone nut Gang of 6 (probably 8 these days) to misdirect this thread... Hello Lampoon, Gary and by default David Von Pein are in a pickle, you out there?
-
David "ZAPRUDER WASN'T ON THE PEDESTAL AT ALL" Healy said:
so.... how are things in that cloud called illusion that you inhabit? Comedian isn't you [sic] gig, Studley... <sigh>Gosh, you're a strange person.
strange enough to own a whole flock of lone nut trolls, David *I owe my heart and soul to Vincent Bugliosi* Von Pein... Carry on, hon!
-
David...you seem to be dodging my question:
How do you know that Lee had never previously left his money with Marina?
...
Mr. Spence, your witness.
so.... how are things in that cloud called illusion that you inhabit? Comedian (comic, so even Von Pein can understand) isn't your gig, Studley... <sigh>
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David G. Healy
Not short, just lightyears ahead of you..... so, position of a pop can = the position of president of the United States head, that the comparison? Really? You are getting worn out with all the mental gymnastics you're performing here.
Z-film alteration is not going away, is it? In fact, you can't live without Z-film alteration mis-direction! Heaven forbid trolls, WCR supporters and .johnites have to deal with JFK (assassination) case medical evidence, eh?