David G. Healy

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

[...]

Have you ever been in a functional housemate situation? Would you appreciate being called "selfish" because the relationship benefits you and your housemates?

Ahh, no... and I doubt, Ms. Paine considered herself selfish either...

But, one may have been asked to keep an eye on a young Russian women (with certain KGB/NKVD connections?) with child (tug those old heart strings), and also the wife of a future, alleged, presidential assassin (murdered) -- Someone - Someplace dropped the damn ball, BIGTIME!

If Ruth is a victim, it's of her own belief system...

On 10/26/2022 at 5:47 AM, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

I had a look at Mantik's website

 

Kinda like his website... the content is all over the place...

When I get to study this specific subject (the medical stuff) I'll start at Pat's website 

 

 

Pat's a great record/music producer.... David is a great MD and knows X-rays... so, knock yourself out...

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

I'm 10% into the book, and unfortunately I'm not really enjoying it so far. It's a collection of essays and papers, and Dr. Mantik is not the only author. So it's by nature uneven and I feel there's a bit of inconsistency already.

[...]

oh-brother... enjoy? whats to enjoy about a cold blooded murder?

6 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

On what grounds? What would you like them to have been charged with?

wonderful when you talk like that.... lmao!

16 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

...

Ok,ok,a joke.  But the bottom line is: What do you got on Alesi?

he's a supporter and a water carrier for 90 year old, that's an important witness and known quantity (surrounding) the murder of the president of the United States perhaps???

Sounds exactly what I think a "historian" with his eyes wide open and notebook present should be addressing... and frankly I, and I suspect many others around here could care less about personal freedom of speech issues and other first amendments distractions. The simple facts would do just fine

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Alesi reports what Ruth Paine thinks of DiEugenio

From Alesi who approved this message:

"Just saw it on the forum. The guy [DiEugenio] is a dope and I hope he reads what I wrote. He gets the most basic details wrong.  He has just seen Max’s film and is commenting on it. I obviously have no hat and the plaque says Defense Investigative Service, NOT Intelligence Service, but of course that misrepresentation better suits his narrative.

"Does he know that Ruth has never heard his name? She told me that after we saw the film."

I'm sure if *he* is worth his weight cork, he'd get on here and address a few of the issues... 

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

What an astonishing response. I guess you've at least come right out and said you don't believe anybody other than published authors such as yourself could possibly post anything here of value or substance. Now that we know your exacting standards, I guess the 99% of forum membership who aren't published authors should just bow at your feet and refrain from providing any of our own further input henceforth, simply because you've written books on the case?

your problem young man, is your damn ego, EGO. And envy, ya just don't have the chops or the wherewithal to acquire them... becoming the argument is NOT the solution, I suspect even Galloway knows that... Give it a rest...

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I see the silliness of CTers concerning the Lunchroom Encounter continues unabated.

...

you ONLY see "silliness," if, IF it was so silly, I doubt you'd spend your quasi retirement getting fat & sassy whilst promoting more loon nut, conspiracy disinfo... lmao!

18 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

[...]

Vietnam’s human rights record remains dire in all areas. The Communist Party maintains a monopoly on political power and allows no challenge to its leadership. Basic rights, including freedom of speech, opinion, press, association, and religion, are restricted. Rights activists and bloggers face harassment, intimidation, physical assault, and imprisonment. Farmers lose land to development projects without adequate compensation, and workers are not allowed to form independent unions. The police use torture and beatings to extract confessions. The criminal justice system lacks independence. (Vietnam | Country Page | World | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org)

 

 

 

 

maybe Human Rights Watch should take a peek at the good old USofA. Have you tried to form a union in THIS country lately? And horrors upon horrors, "police use torture and beatings to extract confessions."  Same here Amigo, and sometimes the perp ends up in the morgue before his/her arrest is complete. Wonder why?

Some things never change. Now Putin is chumming it up with North Korea, he needs bodies don'tcha know. Doubling, Tripling down in Ukraine, Same thing happened with Vietnam, Johnson gave the mil-industrial complex the war they wanted. What armchair conservatives can't grasp is simple, ya can make bucks, BIG bucks off of war... especially if your NOT the one at the point of the spear...

All this nonsense about Vietnam policy is *bs*, makes as much sense as we need to be in the headlines for the next three weeks debating peace talks seating arrangements around the table... Kennedy wanted solutions not war

Even I, a lowly Sp4 knew if the great green machine gets involved here in Viet-nam, we are screwed. And I was one of Kennedys 1000 in 1963...

Read the history of Vietnam's epic battles with China, their kinda like Ukraine! Invaded, pissed off and unyielding and dying in droves... btw: Pre-historic Vietnam was home to some of the world's earliest civilizations and societies—making them one of the world's first people who had practiced agriculture... and, a known history, 20,000 years. Ya think Kennedy didn't know that history?

11 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Stone and DiEugenio argue that the alleged absence of Todd's initials is at least one thing that breaks the chain of evidence for 399. That assertion is now debunked. If anyone wants to argue about chain of evidence of 399 based on other assertions, they are free to do so.

and, if the initials weren't there and NOW are there, then there is a break in the chain of evidence... How'd they get there, Parnell?

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Take a  look at this place, talk about five star.

https://www.fairmont.com/frontenac-quebec/

The pool is almost Olympic sized. Two jacuzzis.

What the heck was Oswald doing at a place like this? What am I doing there? Pretty big jump from Denny's. As is the one in NYC...

the Fairmont in San Francisco is/was pretty nice and yes, expensive.

So, enjoy it, just say NO to everything not involved with JFKA matters, let Stone do the chit-chat, you and your company will have a hell of a time....And let him order meals, unless you are paying, if its your tab have the maitre de order for you ALL. Show some class...  Have a great time!

24 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

[...]

That claim at the end makes Ruth Paine look suspicious, based on nothing. It functions as a smear of Ruth Paine...

I will be cooperating with and supporting Tracy Parnell in defending Ruth Paine from the damage done to her by the claims against her in this film...

Last night I talked to Ruth Paine for the first time in 19 years. It was just a brief phone call. She is what she is, she is as she appears, and has been all along.

sounds like someone's hustling the makings of a great Dallas type soap opera... sounds like a bad, Grade B film script?

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Denny I see your points and "also" respectfully disagree and agree!

Yes, Ruth had some personal interest motivation in asking Marina to live with her.

It wasn't 100% pure altruistic.

Heck, hundreds of thousands of people taking in foster kids all across America get a check from the government for doing so. That doesn't generally equate into their intentions being much less than altruistic and admirable.

I'm not trying to make Ruth out to be a saint, but what is wrong with having at least "some" personal interest leeway in choosing who you decide to take into your home?

That is the ultimate act of giving. You give up so much privacy, space and expenses. And potentially risky for many reasons. What if Marina had a hidden selfish dark side? Or she was super lazy and slovenly? Plus, what if Lee turned ugly about Ruth stealing away his wife and baby and had become belligerent towards her?

Yes, Ruth had some needs of companionship and Marina fit the bill. In all the ways I previously mentioned.

When I commented that I think Ruth was smitten with Marina to a possible "crush" degree I was irresponsibly wrong in doing so as I honestly do not know anything at all about her sexual orientation. 

However, I think that it is easier for some people to open their homes up to others who they feel good about being around 24 hours a day. And an attractive young woman ( with an intriguing Russian background ) with a 2 year old child and late term pregnant with another fit that bill. 

If a 230 lbs. dirty, smelly, hairy faced and bodied man in need knocked on Ruth's door asking for shelter, pure altruistic intentions take a hike.

So, yes, one can say Ruth had some selfish need motivations in taking in Marina besides pure blindly altruistic ones.  But I don't think those on their own totally negate the worthiness of her kindness and generosity she bestowed upon Marina and her children, especially when the newly unemployed ( again ) Lee couldn't provide for their most basic needs of shelter, medical attention, transportation etc.

Now, the latter long term relationship Marina had with Precilla Johnson McMillan is the more suspicious one by a mile imo.

Oh, and to answer your curiosity about my wife's and my honestly altruistic intentions when helping the barefoot 17 year old girl holding her just months old baby in her arms  that knocked on our door one rainy night let me assure you, they were.

We knew the girl's parents. Their home life was pure chaos.

We had two children ourselves 12 and 9.

We had also taken my elderly mother into our home 6 month's earlier after she was financially abused by another brother in the 11 months he had her.

This girl's 17 year old boyfriend out of desperation to support his girl and new baby had robbed a local motel, gotten caught and was arrested at the time of her homelessness.

The boy called me with his one allowed phone call from the police department asking for some help. He was scared, crying even. He knew we had taken in his girl and baby.

To this day, I regret deeply that I didn't do more for him than just sympathetically listen to his anxious reaching out. 

I could have ( and should have ) done more. 

 

all very good points, unfortunately the dark side got there first and there is no erasing that cloud without a thorough investigation -- to much happenstance and innuendo... not to mention the murder of a president. And, if one has/had a security clearance anytime in their life they are bound to it which puts her at a distinct disadvantage... frankly, I could care less if she was with the agency... if, allegedly, some of her *alleged* work revolved around Kennedy administration and LHO and surrounding company, well.........

On 6/3/2022 at 3:51 PM, Denis Morissette said:

From researcher Jeremy Bacon in a FB group:

Quote on

I just got off the phone with Elmer Boyd. I asked him about not only the alleged Paine slap, but also the Frazier incident…

He said… “Those are lies! In all the many years I worked with Captain Fritz, I NEVER saw him lay a hand on a prisoner or anyone else!”

This is coming from the Detective who was closer to Will Fritz than anyone else at the Dallas Police Department. This should put these matters to rest…

Quote off

perhaps another source might of worked out better here? I doubt the matter will be put to rest...

20 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

Lots of unlikely things are possible. But not all possible things are equally likely to have happened.

In this case, we have a large number of witnesses who would have had a good view of the car at the time it is claimed to have stopped (or almost stopped, or slowed down significantly). It is reasonable to assume that all or virtually all of those spectators would have been looking at the car, firstly because looking at the car was what they had come to Elm Street to do, and secondly because several films and photos show that virtually all of the spectators were facing the motorcade.

It's also reasonable to assume that spectators would have found a car stop more significant than a drasitc slowing down, and that they would have found a drastic slowing down more significant than a slight slowing down. The more significant the event, the more likely it is to have been mentioned.

We know that only a small minority of those spectators claimed that the car came to a stop (or almost came to a stop). What we have to decide is which of the following two options is the more likely:

• The car came to a stop (or almost came to a stop), and a large majority of the spectators who saw it didn't think it was worth mentioning.
• The car merely slowed down a bit, just as we see in the home movies, and a large majority of the spectators either mentioned it or didn't think the slowing down was significant enough to mention.

It has to be the second option, doesn't it? It's far more likely that a slight slowing down was exaggerated by a few than that a severe slowing down was considered insignificant by many.

But there weren't "many" witnesses who claimed this. As I've explained, it's much more likely that a small number of witnesses could have been mistaken than that a much larger number failed to mention something that would have struck them as worth mentioning.

The Bronson film's relevance is that it appears to be consistent with the Nix, Muchmore and Zapruder films in showing that the car didn't slow down significantly before going out of the frame immediately before the head shot.

It's good that Sandy acknowledges that all of the other three home movies (Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore) show no significant slowing down of the car at around the time of the head shot. If one of them was altered to hide a drastic slowing down or stopping, all of them must have been altered.

It's also good that Sandy acknowledges that the witnesses who claimed the car came to a stop could have been exaggerating what they saw. Witnesses do sometimes exaggerate, and this provides a plausible explanation for any statements that the car slowed down more drastically than we see in the home movies.

Again, just because something is possible doesn't mean that it happened. If the claim is that the FBI (or whoever) altered a particular film, it's necessary to show, at the very least, that they had the opportunity to do so. But such opportunities appear to have been very limited:

In the case of the Nix film, the FBI had the original for three days from 1 December, after which time at least one copy existed and any alterations to the original were at risk of discovery.

In the case of the Zapruder film, copies were made on the afternoon of the assassination and other copies were made the following day, again creating the risk of discovery; and it's quite possible that the authorities didn't have access to the original until much later.

In the case of the Muchmore film, the authorities appear not to have had possession of the film at all, and weren't even aware of its existence until after frames had been published in a book a few months later.

In the case of the Bronson film also, the authorities appear never to have had possession of the film.

There seems to have been very little opportunity to alter any of these films without the risk of discovery. No-one has yet come up with a plausible scenario that explains how the authorities could have altered two home movies for which early copies existed and two others to which the authorities never had access, in order to eliminate a car stop which the bulk of the witness evidence shows never actually occurred.

the in camera original NIX film is gone, fini, poof -- the in-camera original Zapruder is under question, no one can validate it's originality, hence, any case against Oswald is toast.

Ya wanna talk case JFK assassination evidence, present both those originals with validation right here, otherwise you are stuck with eyewitnesses and that probably won't go well for the *Owald did it all by his lonesome crowd* -- that's when we'll discuss the merits of the Z-film, till then, you're making noise -- actually, more like a fa*t in a sealed spacesuit....

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

David,

In your post that I'm replying to, you quoted Jeremy. However, in that Jeremy-quote it begins with "Sandy Larsen writes:."  I didn't write what follows that... Jeremy did. So please delete the words "Sandy Larsen writes:."

Thanks.

 

done.... hmmm, I know exactly who I was responding to. Software issue, maybe?

9 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 

 

But Armstrong is not only wrong about the Russian speaking Oswald in Minsk, he is wrong claiming, that Marina Oswald and Ella German did speak English with Oswald in Minsk.

Ernst Titovets was Oswalds friend in Minsk and wrote a book: OSWALDS RUSSIAN EPISODE. When confronted with some Armstrong fantasies he said: 

Armstrong: “On October 18 [1960] Lee Harvey Oswald celebrated his 21st birthday. Ella German a girl from the Horizon factory who Oswald had been dating the past two months, and spoke very good English, attended a small birthday party at his apartment.”(p. 311).

Titovets: Ella German did not speak English at all.    

Armstrong:”It is clear that Marina associated with Americans, spoke English with Webster and almost certainly spoke English with Oswald… Marina’s ability to read, write, and speak English fluently before she left Russia is indisputable.” (p. 340). 

Titovets: Marina did not speak English at all.  

Close quote

a Soviet citizen writes a book about an alleged US presidential assassin? Who edited/published it, Pravda, TASS? You can do better, Karl...

12 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

The argument from ignorance fallacy is essentially a shifting of the burden of proof, e.g. you haven't shown that the trees on the grassy knoll were not made of papier-mâché; therefore they were made of papier-mâché.

The claim I made was:

This isn't an argument from ignorance. I'm claiming that a drastic slowing-down or a complete stop would have been noticed by a large number of witnesses. There's a specific reason that explains this particular absence of evidence.

The fact that only a small minority of these witnesses mentioned such an event, combined with the fact that witnesses get stuff wrong sometimes, is positive evidence for two conclusions:

• For a large majority of the witnesses, the slowing-down of the car wasn't drastic enough to be worth commenting on, which matches what we see in the home movies.
• The car neither stopped nor slowed down significantly, just as we see in the home movies.

"which matches what we see..."  and ah....who is *we* big guy?

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is unfortunate.

I just learned there will be no DVD distributed directly in the UK.

Get this: the reason is they don't make money on them.

Wow.  This is how much the market has changed.  I guess streaming has knocked off the DVD market in a really significant way.  I remember the days when DVD ruled. Movies made more money on that sometimes than they did theatrically.

So I guess if you live in UK, you will have to order from either the USA or Australia.  Down under they are going with a DVD release.  Man did Oliver just take over that continent with this documentary.  The four hour one went over like gangbusters there.  Thanks to the Aussies.  The gift that keeps on giving.

after how the BBC-2 treated/did to Mark Lane's and Emile de Antonio's film Rush to Judgement (I believe it aired in 4 parts) in London Jan '67, and on bended knee to Brother Arlen Spector? I'd of told the BBC to go fly a kite, we have a long memory...

The thought always pops into my mind, from *Penn Jones: "I really believe that the only way you can believe the Warren Report is NOT to read it." (emphasis mine)

* from a Citizens Dissent by Mark Lane 67/68?

On 5/10/2022 at 2:40 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Jonathan Cohen writes:

Indeed. If that patch doesn't exist in other copies, that particular copy is worthless.

Copies several generations removed from the original are likely to contain all sorts of weird marks that aren't present in the original. If anyone wants to demonstrate that a black patch exists, the first thing you need to do is to show that it clearly exists in the best quality copy that's available. Those Hollywood experts we've been hearing about for years: have they published anything yet?

This is one more example of uncritical believers seeing what they want to see. It's just like believers who see the image of their preferred deity in a piece of toast.

perhaps as the astute investigator you are you should ask the provenance of that particular z-film clip. I bet you'd find that its a 72dpi copy of a 35mm blowup (4-6k) of the Zapruder 8mm, in-camera original film that was housed at NARA for years. The blowup found its way to a Hollywood theatrical release film restoration house some years back. In fact, that very house ordered and bought the 35mm Z-film blowup from NARA (who made the blowup)... Color reduced and contrast corrected by the restoration house, and guess what...

I'd say the blowup is 2 or maybe 3 generations off of the 8mm in-camera original Z-film? But trust its documented. For some debate is over regarding the Z-film alteration, for years...

20 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I seem to have got the 'everything is a fake' gang rather worked up, haven't I?

[...]

In the interest recycling, your noise has been deleted in my response.

Here's a tidbit even you can understand and, a request. The prior: this forum is not a court of law, nor is it a debating society. Your demands fall on deaf ears... The latter: give us your own scenario as to what happened in Dealey Plaza, you have the 1964 WCR opinion(s), give specific facts that reinforce WCR conclusions.

After 50+ years of review and UP-TO-DATE case evidence, .John and his lone nut supporters have never, ever been able to give their own rendition and the why's, (ie., their scenario) as to what happened in Dealey Plaza 11/22/1963 and the preceding and following 10 years.

Will you be the first to venture down that road less traveled by nutters, Jeremy?

On 4/23/2022 at 5:20 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Thanks David.  Just to clarify your quote or the way it reads.  Thats not what I wrote.  The "three claims you need to demonstrate" is what Jeremy was telling me, for anyone who might misinterpret it.  Based on their comments I don't think Jeremy or John watched the documentary, why waste my time responding.

I fixed that post, Ron ... Jeremy here was advising you, about three claims you need to demonstrate..., the way the quote appears in my post, it was you that cited the three claims are necessary, this wasn't about you, sorry.

Its been fixed in my post...

On 4/23/2022 at 2:17 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

 

That's three claims you need to demonstrate, not merely assert.

[...]

 

who are you to demand that anyone needs to demonstrate any of the three claims?

On 4/18/2022 at 1:29 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

[...]

On 4/18/2022 at 1:29 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The earliest claim of alteration I'm aware of was in an article published in 1984, nearly 40 years ago. The craze seems to have taken off in the early 90s, when characters like Jack 'no planes hit the World Trade Center' White and James 'Sandy Hook was a false flag operation' Fetzer got involved.

[...]

craze? ? ? ahhh, ya might try doing some research on that date 1984, if fact, ya might ask David Lifton specifically. And a hell. of a book was written concerning same in 2003/4. I'll send you my autograph...

Re Jack White, I knew Jack, well. Owner of a Texas ad agency for years and years, knew more about a film darkroom the anyone who ever posted here, in fact, I believe he testified in a congressional hearing regarding Kennedy assassination film  imagery and lectured widely on the subject... your efforts to drag his name through the mud have been noted, again... About the only thing nutters have these days...

21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Here is my follow up article on the debate.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/cleaning-up-after-my-debate-with-buzzanco

nice piece of follow-up work... 

On 4/18/2022 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Cohen said:

More evidence that David Healy has no clue what he's talking about. I do not believe in the "lone nut, 1964 WCR conclusion," and have said so here on this forum multiple times.

so you are sensitive because no one believes you? -- hey, wear it with pride -- they simply don't make nutters like they use to...