David G. Healy

Being degraded from 'Glennie' to Viklund - now that's got to be personal? better than head cheerleader for Judyth

Couldn't agree withyou more, Pat. I think we need people like McAdams around to help us separate the wheat from the chaff. --Thomas unfortunately, for the WHO's and the WHY's of the case -- Well, .john types clutter up the place and leave much to be desired...

mcadams board is alt.assassination.jfk (the lone nut bastion on the USENET), .john fled from alt.conspiracy.jfk in 1997 or 1998 -- Your info is a bit askew Jim, there are no holocaust deniers posting on ACJ. Least not to my knowledge, that's after 12 years of involvement...

No I don't care who you are that is just plain funny! So tell us David, was the model 80A placed ON TOP OF HER HEAD so she could take her image? you don't dance well, hon.... especially when a NYT best selling author comments, you walk right into the middle of a right-hook. Not a way to win a debate nor further the lone nut, WCR cause... however, please carry on. Enlightening... Thanks David Lifton for posting this....

Need a napkin for the foam?? little short in KODAK processing experience side, eh Clyde? Figures you can't answer simple questions and cite. Carry on. Oh davie, YOU have any KODAK processing experience? In any case IF yo learn to read you will see I made NO mention to the correctness of ANY of Johns claims, He can do that for himself... IF you learn to read I was simply commenting on the fact John had the alterationists all stirred up, and here you go proving my point...again. Thanks. eh, 50 years next year, that count? My goodness, even a relative worked processing film at Kodak, Palo Alto, Ca. circa. mid 60's thru all of the 70's. Please, there's no need to apologize for excuses, we know what they are -- we hear them, endlessly.

c'mon Pat, first, you have to get realistic about the realities of big-time production. The script is complete, it's called The Warren Commission Report--DONE, except the initial HBO production re-write... then they can think about a shooting script... Perhaps you'd be better served addressing the question towards David Von Pein, hoping of course, for a 10,000 word or less response...

If we do it right? Which is shorthand for protect the lie, or shall we advance toward the truth-- what is your point of departure Tom Hanks? Just curious...

Some guy named John McAdams... pure unknown, did a hell of a job!

Need a napkin for the foam?? little short in KODAK processing experience side, eh Clyde? Figures you can't answer simple questions and cite. Carry on.

Now you have gone and done it John, you have the "alterationists" foaming at the mouth..... relax Clyde.... after all we've been at this a wee-bit longer than you.... perhaps you can tell us when automated film processing companies ala KODAK find the time to remove overexposed double 8mm film frames, after the film has been split and both A&B sides assembled end to end. Documentation and a cite might help... I'm sure Roland Zavada will give you a response, he'd know or know a source! You too can advance the non-film alteration theory....

good enough for you, okay.... I prefer to see documentation that **ANY** film processor of the day REMOVED overexposed frames... how and when would they do that. Especially when the film process is automated... C'mon John you can do better than that!

David are you Vince Bugliosi?

great piece, Bill. David Healy

As the old country song goes: "Two out of three ain't bad" Sounds like he gets part of it right-----the new definitive should be head shots. Correct! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There were two shots in close succession that hit JFK's head. Correct! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And it definitely took more than one gun. Quite Incorrect! 1.8 to 1.9 seconds is more than sufficient time to operate the Carcano, acquire the target, and complete the third/last/final shot sequence. (Which by the was IS NOT the Z313 impact). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevertheless, a 66.6% rating still equates to a "failing grade". Tom Purvis only disagreement with the above, Tom: it wasn't Oswald doing the shooting. Hope all is well down your direction... David Healy

For one Mike, "Industry on Parade" http://www.americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d4507.htm NBC 1950-1960 (not a relatively short run, this series was very popular)

Bill, Is the evaluation (quoted above) that you offered an expert opinion? I understand that you are a pilot, but did your training and/or experience ever include making such critical judgments as cited above? Do you have the necessary qualifications to determine what you wrote is true, conclusively, or is this simply a "layman's" opinion? I know a lot of pilots. I know of none who would rely upon that training and experience in order to justify the above opinion. Greg, When it comes to someone having the same opinion that you do - layman or otherwise, just like yourself - you are there in an instant supporting opinions. When it comes to a thread - like the one started by Phelps regarding the Z-authenticity - you are likewise very quick to question several peoples' behavior and conclusions. But when it comes to questioning Fetzer, the supreme bully around here, and his conclusions - which are indeed questioned by many researchers, your silence is amazing. How is that, Greg? and yes, we also know your feelings about Fetzer and his relationship to "Judyth", so we're attune to your bias towards anything relevant and curious about Judyth and LHO, so chill dude. The Aussie flyboys in this thread are having a tough go for the moment... a poster has been recruited, a pilot come-racecar driver whose got this 9-11 thing down, so let's watch the dog and pony show, eh?

The lone nuts aren't going to like this one.... "more than one gunman.... Bugliosi's flabby Reclaiming History..." tsk-tsk DH Amazon link directly below: http://www.amazon.com/dp/161614209X/ref=pe_113430_20117360_pd_re_dt_t2 a few reviews: "As a career physicist in the national security sector, G. Paul Chambers is a uniquely qualified guide to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Instead of theorizing or demonizing, he offers a fascinating defense of the scientific method through history and applies that method to the oft-distorted JFK forensic evidence. He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi's flabby Reclaiming History and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered. What remains, he reveals, is a body of scientific evidence about JFK's murder that is increasingly consistent, self-authenticating, verifiable, and definitive." --Jefferson Morley, author of Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA Polls consistently show that a huge majority of the American public doesn’t accept the basic conclusion of the Warren Report, that Lee Harvey Oswald was JFK’s sole assassin. So, one more book purporting to “demolish” that conclusion is unlikely to cause many ripples. Chambers seems to have more serious credentials than such debunkers as Mark Lane or Oliver Stone. He is a physicist and ballistics expert currently working as a contractor for NASA and who previously worked as a research physicist for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. Mercifully, Chambers does not indulge in wild conspiracy theories, although his rejection of the single-gunman theory inevitably leads to such conclusions. Rather, the core of his work claims to employ the scientific method to show why Oswald could not have fired all of the shots. As a trained specialist, his use of scientific data gives his assertions an aura of credibility that it may or may not deserve. This is often a riveting read as he sifts through the evidence, but many will find his conclusions unconvincing. --Jay Freeman "Head Shot presents a unique and fascinating correlation of history and science with the government's investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy. Warren Commission critics may disagree with the specifics of G. Paul Chambers's reconstruction of this tragic event, but everyone who rejects the 'sole assassin--single bullet theory' will better understand why JFK's murder was a conspiracy involving multiple shooters after reading this intellectually stimulating and highly erudite book." --Cyril H. Wecht, MD, JD, past president, American Academy of Forensic Sciences and past president, American College of Legal Medicine "As a career physicist in the national security sector, G. Paul Chambers is a uniquely qualified guide to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Instead of theorizing or demonizing, he offers a fascinating defense of the scientific method through history and applies that method to the oft-distorted JFK forensic evidence. He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi's flabby Reclaiming History and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered. What remains, he reveals, is a body of scientific evidence about JFK's murder that is increasingly consistent, self- authenticating, verifiable, and definitive." --Jefferson Morley, author of Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA "In Head Shot, G. Paul Chambers offers an original and scientifically credible account of the JFK assassination. He presents new material proving the existence of more than one assassin. It is an important contribution to the continuing controversy over this important event in American history." --Michael L. Kurtz, professor of history (ret.), Southeastern Louisiana University

Marilyn Sitzman...?

lonely Lenster? Need a bit of attention?

Coincidence no. 1-The TSBD was owned by D.H. Byrd a longtime friend of LBJ. This bldg. was not a Govt. Bldg. so, it is quite coincidental that the owner is connected to VP LBJ who is from the Austin area 200 miles away. Coincidence no. 2- Thousands of pages of testimony and exhibits, yet no mention of who D.H. Byrd is in the Warren Report's volumes. Coincidence no. 3- D. H. Byrd just happened to be out of the country on safari in Africa during the Assassination. Concidence no. 4-Byrd on the Board Of Directors of Ling-Temco just happens to receive huge early defense contracts in Vietnam in 64/65 era. Coincidence no. 5- Malcolm Wallace convicted of killing golf pro John Kinser in 1951, and represented by LBJ Lawyer John Cofer, then given a suspended sentence and set free due to the jurors getting threatening phone calls as reported by local newspaperman Bill Adler, Wallace just happens to work for Ling-Temco in Anaheim ca. a subsidiary of Byrd's main Dallas plant. Coincidence no. 6-a co-worker remembers Wallace was not at work 11-22-63 in Anaheim Ca. How convenient. Coincidence no.7 - Wallace's print was found in the sniper's nest, and id'd by Nathan Darby a man with roughly a half century of experience as a fingerprint examiner. According to Barr McClellan this print was also confirmed by members of Interpol, though I'd like to see some confirmation. Coincidence no. 8-D.H Byrd kept as a souvenir a window from the TSBD! What kind of macabre sick individual would do this? Does this sound like someone who could be involved in the Assassination? Coincidence No. 9-The Window Byrd kept was not at the sniper's nest! It was apparently the SW window, not the SE window. Now, everybody knew where the Sniper's nest was, so why would he take the wrong window? Coincidence no. 10-In the Men On the Sixth Floor, alleged witness Loy Factor says Wallace and LHO fired from the SW window! If true it shows Byrd knew which window. What I tend to believe now is no one shot from the sniper's nest. Someone stood there with a gun and the whole thing the nest-the mc, were props -Wallace and the LHO double fired from the opposite window, Wallace got his print there settng up LHO fake nest. LHO was on the first floor during the shooting. It had to be an inside job, no CIA/Mafia assassins could just waltz in at high noon not seen by anybody and escape without intimately knowing the Depository and getting help...Laz (interesting coincidences thanks to Lazuli777)

Once again showing your lack of knowledge. You talk a fair game to those who know no better, but when you refer to energy and velocity transfer, your giving yourself away. Energy is consumed Mr. Phelp, momentum is transferred, and velocity, or the change in this velocity is the result. Are you kidding me? Come on Mr. Phelps. Really now? I find it amusing you seem to be using a principle of conservation of momentum, and referring to it as energy. You really need to rely more on education than wikipedia.... Then step up to the plate, and use the real world numbers, and show the calculations that prove me wrong, just as I asked in my initial post. I believe you have seen what I claim, now let see your work to refute it. Thus far the only hand waving and Bsing has come from you. SO should I expect a reply soon that even resembles the idea that you know what you are talking about? you're dancing Sgt. Mikey....

Several experts have claimed exactly that, Mike. To name just one, for example, there is Dr. Roderick Ryan, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, majoring in cinema/communications. He is a retired scientist from KODAK, where he worked from 1947 until 1986 in several engineering and executive positions, including regional director of engineering services--motion picture division. His entire career has been devoted to motion picture film technology. He received numerous awards and recognitions during his career including, The Scientific & Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1982. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. -- among many other commendations and recognitions. In other words, he is an expert. See Bloody Treason pages 154 -160 (TWYMAN) for more details on Dr. Ryans credentials and his conclusions, one of which is his opinion that the "blobs" had been "painted in". -- Not easy to summarily dismiss coming from one of his expertise, no? Greg, Hope you have been well! I would have to read more on this before commenting. Initially I would expect to see such epic news in the New York Times.... I mean from a historical stand point, an expert coming forward to claim the z film is altered would be epic, would you not agree? nice dodge Sgt. Mikey.....

Tom, we all have our biases and I think you have let yours effect your judgment, compare your action in this case with ones where members posted obscene language. You did not make the posts invisible or even edit out the ‘four-letter word’ but rather made posts on the threads asking the authors to edit their posts. Why not apply the same solution in my case or merely edit out the offending part? And in Greg’s 1st response to my question he was very hostile calling my question a “pathetic, ill advised, distracting, no-count, out of context, ruminating, blovatious…meandering, mindless inquiry” and told me to “Go piss up a rope” but apparently you did not think that warranted admonition, editing or being made invisible. False dichotomy fallacy, while I agree there shouldn’t be a rule obliging a member to answer a question, I don’t see how the rule prohibit one member asking another to elaborate on theirs claims especially in light of the forums rules. For example: - The “Revised Forum Rules” stipulate, “Wherever possible - especially if an issue or point being made is being disputed - members should attempt to give references or document source material. This will provide assistance to those carry out academic research into the subject matter” - asking someone to explain the circumstances in which they claim to have witnessed something is not much different from asking them to “give references”, especially since the revised rules require compliance with “The Spirit of the Law” - The rules also prohibit “posting a single provocative statement (or, commonly, a URL to a controversial website) and then never posting again in that thread” how different is that from posting a claim regarding “an issue or point [that] is being disputed” and “never” elaborating “in that thread”? In other words Greg’s refusal to reply is a violation of “the spirit” if not the letter of the rules, thus he is not compelled to answer but I am with in my rights in asking. Also note that the "revised" rules have yet to be posted in this section. As for the thread about Jim DiEugenio which you made invisible, he clearly made a false claim about Todd and he refused to admit error, when shown to wrong. I know from personal experience he is in the habit of criticizing or mocking other members based on his own mischaracterization of their claims. ah, come on... in about 25 years the WCR will make a resurgence, till that time continue to give it your best shot, Len. (pssst, many of my posts are invisible, that's the thanks you get when you're one of the original Ed Forum invitees)

If you listen closely to her interview, her statements are far more damaging to the "official" story than they are to conspiracy theories, beyond the one holding that she was in the street and that this proves the Z-film was fake. 1. She says she heard shots AFTER the head shot. 2. She says the last shots were bunched together. If either of these statements are true, it means the story pushed by most contemporary historians--not to mention most single-assassin theorists--is nonsense. Look on the sunny side...LOL ******************************* the above needs to be followed up on too! (emphasis added in quote: mine) Thanks again to John Klein for providing the above information. see this thread post #59

why not start a new thread? Moorman, age 78 is the topic here....