David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
It would be a serious mistake to underestimate McAdams, or any other prominent LN, for that matter. Like the Warren Commission, they are right about an awful lot. There IS a lot of crud in CT-land.
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...
-
Absolutely brilliant.
Or how about his saying that Markham really was not such a screwball since Tippit may have been moving his lips after he was shot.
When in fact, Tippit died instantly.
The thing about McAdams is that he actually uses stuff people post at alt.conspiracy as information. Which is crazy. Since that forum is peopled with the equivalent of Holocaust Deniers.
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...
-
In a CBS film currently posted at the NARA website, Mary Moorman is interviewed and says that she had stepped into the street to take her famous polaroid.
The link: http://www.archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.50248
The time: at 30 minutes.
The bottom line: In this 1964 filmed interview, an account broadcast on the evening that the Warren Report was published, Mary Moorman says she “stepped out into the street” to take her Polaroid photo, and that she stood there, focusing her camera for “quite a few seconds, since I wanted to be sure that they were looking at me.”
“. . .stepp[ing] out into the street. . “ and “focusing” the camera for “quite a few seconds” is seriously inconsistent with the known parameters of the Zapruder film.
This 1964 filmed interview—currently being shown at the NARA website—is completely consistent with the detailed report I made immediately after spending an hour or more speaking with Moorman on November 29, 1971 in Dallas.
FURTHER DISCUSSION:
The question of whether the President’s limo stopped during the shooting has been debated. If the car stopped, then the Zapruder film (among others) has been altered.
A related question is whether Moorman stepped out into the street to take her picture. If she did, the notion that the film alteration simply amounted to “editing out” a car stop can be discarded. Because if Mary Moorman stepped out into the street, a far more elaborate alteration took place. The technology existed to do this type of editing/fabrication. The question is: was it used?
THE CAR STOP:
For many years, I have believed that the car stopped momentarily, during the shooting, because in November, 1971, I interviewed witnesses who said that it did.
In November, 1971, I went to Dallas (along with a friend, Bill Corrigan) specifically to interview witnesses who were standing close to the car, and to see what they would say about a car stop. I interviewed Mary Moorman—and several other witnesses—who said the President’s car stopped during the shooting. These witnesses were Bill and Gayle Newman, John Chism, Jack Franzen and Mary Moorman. With one exception, these interviews were taped.
Moorman’s husband, at the time, was forceful in his insistence that I not record the interview. But I made notes at the time, and immediately afterwards, wrote an interview report for the file.
Here’s what Moorman told me that night, re the speed of the President’s limo—all phrased in the context of how she wanted to get the best picture possible of the President.
QUOTING FROM MY INTERVIEW REPORT:
It was moving “very very slowly.” So slowly that she could frame the President in her viewfinder. “It was almost as if he was posing.”
I believe she said that the car stopped momentarily. But she emphasized the fact that she (or Jean [Hill]) yelled out, “Hey look here” or some such thing.
That’s when JFK looked over, and she (Moorman) was able to frame him in view finder as if he were posing.
That’s how slow it was moving.
Bill Corrigan: She thought it might stop and he was going to pose; that was the impression Moorman [had] It stopped momentarily (to let the agent [Clint Hill] on); and this stop [i.e. that stop] was after the head shot. UNQUOTE
TONIGHT'S DISCOVERY (6/29/11):
Tonight, I was looking for something at the National Archives website, and noticed that they have posted there the CBS network broadcast from the night the Warren Report was released in September, 1964. Walter Cronkite (and Dan Rather) narrate; and many of the interviews (all apparently, circa 1964) are done by Eddie Barker.
It soon became evident that Mary Moorman was going to appear on this program, and so I set up a recorder to accurately record what she said.
Moorman doesn’t address the issue of whether the car stopped, but what she DOES say addresses something that is equally important: whether she was standing on the grass, when she took the picture, or whether she stepped out into the street.
If Mary Moorman stepped out into the street to take the picture, then any Zapruder film alteration was much more elaborate, than many have supposed.
WHAT MOORMAN SAYS IN THIS FILMED INTERVIEW: “I stepped out into the street.”
Here’s what Mary Moorman says, on camera, at 30 minutes into the CBS film, now being shown at the U.S. National Archives website:
30:05 “I stepped out into the street; So, I took the camera and aimed it [and] focused it.
And stood there and looked through it [for] quite a few seconds, since I wanted to be sure that they were looking at me.
And uh, I followed it, for, oh, so many seconds, and then I did take the picture. (30:27)
I’m not making this post to start a debate as to whether the car stopped. Personally, I am sure that it did, because I interviewed the witnesses in November, 1971, who were right there. They did not know what the Zapruder film showed, because this was many years before the film became available.
I’m making this post to point out something that is, in a way, a far more serious question: whether Moorman was –or was not—standing in the street.
In this interview, filmed by Eddie Barker in 1964—some 47 years ago—Moorman plainly states exactly that: that she was standing in the street: “I stepped out into the street” she said. Obviously, this is a more reliable record than what she said a month ago.
Furthermore, Mary’s description of what happened next (i.e., AFTER she “stepped out into the street”) makes plain that, from her position in the street, she took quite a few seconds to aim the camera, and focus it. And this, by itself, indicates how slow the limo was going, and how many more seconds the assassination took, than is officially acknowledged.
Again, in Moorman's words: “And stood there and looked through it [for] quite a few seconds, since I wanted to be sure that they (JFK and Jackie—dsl) were looking at me.
And continuing: “And uh, I followed it, for, oh, so many seconds, and then I did take the picture.”
When Moorman gave this interview, she had no idea that what she was saying would undercut the authenticity of the Zapruder film, because the Z film not only shows no car stop, it does not show Moorman standing in the street, but rather up on the grass.
However, in terms of how she methodically went about taking JFK's picture, this is completely consistent with what Mary Moorman told me when I spent well over an hour with her in her home in November, 1971.
AGAIN, QUOTING FROM MY NOTES:
It was moving “very very slowly.” So slowly that she could frame the President in her viewfinder. “It was almost as if he was posing. . . “
She emphasized the fact that she (or Jean [Hill]) yelled out, “Hey look here” or some such thing.
That’s when JFK looked over, and she (Moorman) was able to frame him in view finder as if he were posing.
That’s how slow it was moving. UNQUOTE
A car moving at 15 mph is akin to a runner doing a 4 minute mile.
Even if one reduces the speed down to 10 mph, its still a very fast clip, and does not fit the description of the event that Moorman is describing.
I find it ironic that the National Archives is showing a film, at its website, that carries an account of a key witness (Moorman) which, if true, by itself establishes that the Zapruder film is a fake.
I do hope that NARA permits this CBS film to remain posted, so that other students of the Kennedy case can see this interview, listen to what Moorman says, take another look at the Zapruder film (which clearly shows Moorman standing on the grass) and judge for themselves.
I have attached to this post a single "frame grab" from this 1964 interview.
DSL
6/29/11 4:50 AM PDT
Los Angeles, CA
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....
-
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....
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.
-
... Does anyone know who's working on the script? If we can figure out who to talk to, perhaps we can develop a dialogue.
...
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...
-
Quote from the Dallas Morning News (June 24, 2011):
...
“A lot of conspiracy types are going to be upset. If we do it right, it’ll be perhaps one of the most controversial things that has ever been on TV.”
...
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...
-
I haven't seen "The Kennedys", Lee. I had heard it was pure junk, so I deliberately avoided it.
Who played Oswald?
Some guy named John McAdams... pure unknown, did a hell of a job!
-
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....
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.
-
Chris, there was only one frame excised from the version I studied. If you are looking at a version with 8 frames excised they are excised for some other reason.
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....
-
Based on my own rather careful study of the Towner film the splice is of a probably typical film development method of excising over-exposed photos.
There is a sharp rise of the intensity of reflected sunlight off the chrome before the excised frame and a sharp drop after with the immediately pre and post frames indicating a peak at the ( or rather likely peaking just before or after the start of the exposure of the missing frame ) missing frame. I think that's the simplest explanation and it's good enough for me.
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!
-
"...some very limited sectioning [of JFK's brain] was done..." -- Page 383 of Reclaiming History
And Page 544 of the WR confirms this. Right there in the autopsy report, which DiEugenio will always ignore.
Also: Via Dr. Humes' ARRB testimony:
Question -- "Were any sections taken at all from the brain?"
Dr. Humes -- "Not at that time. Some place else I showed you, the report you showed, we did take certain sections a day or two later, whatever it was, from the location--we didn't divide the brain like we often do. You know, we often make a so-called bread loaf-type incision. Some people do it fore and aft. Some people do it different ways. But we didn't do that with this brain, because the next thing you know George Burkley wanted it. We might have gone on to do that, but when he came and said that they wanted the brain, fine, you know. I'm not going to argue about it."
David are you Vince Bugliosi?
-
The young Irishman who took an astounding lead in the US Open had a similar lead at the Masters and blew it on the last day. If he continues to play well and wins, he won't be the youngest to have won the US Open. That honor goes to John McDermott, who won in 1911 at the age of 19.
McDermott’s Mashie –
A long lost hickory shaft golf club, once used by JohnMcDermott to win two US Opens, has recently surfaced, raising the eyebrows ofmemorabilia collectors and golf historians alike.
The mid-iron mashie, custom made in 1909 or 1910 by Andersonof Anstruther, Fife, Scotland,has McDermott’s name as well as the Anderson“cleekmark” – an arrow brand, embedded in the iron head.
The club was at one time consigned to Ed Waldron, who ownedthe Quality Golf Collectables store on Rt. #9 in Clermont, Cape May County. He wasacting as an agent for the club’s owner, Jerome “Jerry” Moskowitz, who wasinterested in selling it.
This unique and peculiar club escaped theft and apparentdestruction, the fate of the rest of McDermott’s clubs. The rest haven’t beenseen or heard from since April, 1949, when they were stolen from his sister’sautomobile, which temporarily ceased McDermott’s periodic play when he wasn’tbeing treated at the Norristown, Pa.hospital for a nervous breakdown.
The club’s owner is now retired to Florida,had placed the club on the market but did not sell it right away, althoughthere were a couple of interested parties. It’s value, actually dependent onwhat someone thinks it is worth and is willing to pay for it, has beenestimated at between $5,000 and $10,000, more than the average club from thatperiod because of its one-time famous owner as well as its unique history.
According to Moskowitz, “I fist met John McDermott atBeverly Hills Golf Club in June 1946.” Beverly Hills,in Upper Darby, a suburb of Philadelphia,is near the Norristown hospital where McDermott wastreated. Moskowitz said that when he was there the club was operated by TedBickel, Sr. and Bill Boyle was the pro.
“There was a slight man of about 55 years of age,” recallsMoskowitz, “who would sit on the porch with an old ‘stove-pipe’ leather bagwith about 9 or 10 wood shafted sticks.”
According to Moskowitz, “If we were a two or threesome, the pro would ask us totake the old man along. His name was John McDermott. We were asked not to upsetthe gentleman in any way as he was furloughed each summer from the Norristown State Mental Hospitalto his sisters in Upper Darby.”
“In his quite way,” Moskowitz continued, “he would relatehow he won the U.S. Open in 1911 and 1912. Of course, knowing he had mentalproblems, we assumed this was a person who had delusions of grandeur.”McDermott was very sick, having suffered a nervous breakdown in 1914. But hedidn’t have delusions of grandeur, and was indeed the first “native born”American to win the National championship, and to prove it wasn’t a quirk, hedid it back-to-back in 1911 and 1912.
After a series of setback that included surviving ashipwreck and stock market loses, as well as loses on the golf course, onHalloween night 1914 McDermott collapsed in the pro shop of the Atlantic CityCountry Club, where he was the golf professional.
McDermott continued to play over a makeshift six hole coursethey laid out over the Norristown hospital grounds, and he was often invited toplay at Atlantic City, Valley Forge and other nearby courses where his sistersAlice and Gertrude would take him when he was well enough. Besides playing withMoskowitz, McDermott also played with Tim DeBaufree at Valley Forge, HarryCooper at Atlantic City, and William “Zimmer” Platt and Walter Hagen atNorristown.
Moskawitz remembers, “I played many rounds with JohnMcDermott that summer. The elder, frail man had a beautiful swing and struckthe ball very well with his ancient golf clubs. I carried an old, wood-shaftedputter which I used in chipping from the fringe. John admired this Scottishclub and often borrowed it to putt in from the fringes. After playing once ortwice a week for a few months, I put the club in his bag and told him it was mygift to him. He got excited and insisted I have one of his own clubs inreturn.”
Moskowitz said McDermott then put the mid-iron in his bagsaying, “this is the club I used to win two U.S. Opens. I want you to have it.
According to the Arrow brand of Anderson of Austruther, thearrow pointed to the toe of the iron, indicates the club was made between 1908and 1910. It was restored by Robert Junz (co-founder of the GCS,1995) and authenticated by professionals. Although the club is for sale andindividual collectors have expressed interest in it, the club should not beprivately owned, but should be placed on public display as a museum piece.
William Kelly
great piece, Bill.
David Healy
-
Sounds like he gets part of it right-----the new definitive should be head shots.
There were two shots in close succession that hit JFK's head.
And it definitely took more than one gun.
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
-
Some of the best TV shows had relatively short runs and are largely forgotten today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1960s_American_television_series
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)
-
If they weren't sitting in fire then they most likely wouldn't have been singed. I can imagine bit of the tail being blown backwards a bit as the air inside the fuselage compressed and started to blow away the tail, especially as the tail would have also started to come apart from the rapid deceleration as the plane began to crumple as it entered the wall of the Pentagon. Unsurprisingly, it would have been a bit like a bomb going off.
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...?
-
Fetzer's beliefs are impervious.
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)
-
Well, lets just do a little practical example. We'll let you do the math, just to see if you can. So far, all I see from your side is hand waving trying to pretend science.
In place of a head, lets use a nice turkey with about the same mass as a human head, and fill it with a medium like silicon RTV and let it setup. It isn't a perfect model for a head, as the internal skull pressure containment factors won't happen from a turkey body, but the energy and velocity transfer effects will happen. Lets lay it on a smooth oiled stainless steel table and shoot it with a hollow point hunting bullet so the bullet will deliver maximum kinetic energy exchange and not exit the turkey body.
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.
The simple physics equations tell there must be near instantaneous conservation of energy as the bullet impacts and delivers its forward kinetic energy to the turkey body on the table. So, one drags out the nice simple equation of 1/2 M V^2 for the kinetic energy going in from the bullet and then one can calculate the instantaneous velocity of the bullet with turkey body in combination moving in the same direction. In free space the turkey body will be seen to move along across the table with a velocity that is only damped by friction with the table.
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....
So, on the oiled surface table the hollow point bullet will impact the turkey body and it will them move down range and fall off the table due to low frictional resistance. Resistance plays a big role in how quickly the velocity transfer would be reduced by friction. With no friction the turkey body would go on for miles down range, if it were to happen in space. It is the principle of all mass reaction systems in space, and this is a mass reaction system. Works on land too, but you have to be inclusive of frictional effects. But for an oiled table it would go far enough to slide off the table.
In the case for JFK the velocity damping is carried out by his being alive and muscles tensed for the first shot, and dead for the second shot. JFK's head moves forward several inches due to the 1st from the rear shot. For the 2nd shot his is essentially dead, and the second shot will start off a similar velocity toward the rear and will be aided by gravity and perhaps some limo acclerations. But that same 1st shot type motion will be more accentuated for the 2nd and continue due to gravity. Stand a broom handle up and shoot it with anything and it will fall over, most of the 2nd shot effects is just him falling over to the side. JFK's limp body offered little resistance to damping for the second shot. So, the movement from the 2nd bullet's initial velocity transfer took a lot of travel to retard the velocity.
That you don't know this most simple factors of physics tells me that you perhaps need to go find a local university that has a physics department and sign up for classes or pay one of them to tutor you for these type energy and velocity transfer effects, and include that all important frictional factor effect that is essential toward how far the initial velocity transfer effect travels. Friction effects are everything for this mass reaction type analysis, and you have admitting being totally vapid of those essential elements for the analysis.
So far, you have done a lot of nonsense hand waving and the technical analysis is so poor that your vapidity on velocity transfer at impact and velocity damping effects are nonexistant. That simply isn't science, nor can I conclude you have any expertise per your being lacking of those essential methods of simple physics.
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....
-
So anyone who makes the claim that there is a second head shot is left with 2 choices:
1) To contend the Z film is altered, something no expert has ever claimed...
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.....
-
On the Moderators' thread Tom wrote:
Made most recent post on thread titled, The "other" film? invisible.:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17595&pid=226697&st=105entry226697
In the future, please post your request for a response from another member without adding an accusatory barb. You may intend for this addition to merely be a benign challenge, so please word it as if that is all it is.
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.
No member is obligated to post a reply. If you disagree, report a post and request a moderator review. A rare set of circumstances might arise where moderators agree that you are due a response from another member.I think most members would not support a compulsory posting policy, as routine practice.
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)
-
my comments: dgh: highlighted in BOLD each comment ending with ****
The following is presented for whatever it may be worth.
The Brass Armadillo, where Mary Ann Moorman’s interview took place on May 24, is only about half an hour from where I live, so I went down there for the webcast.
dgh: thank you for taking the time John to attend and more importantly, do a little followup. A few questions if you please. Why this webcast in the first place? Any comment regarding that? Is the Moorman 5 photo for sale? Perhaps to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the assassination (why its not called 50 years since that tragic event, I'll never know)?
And, to the best of my knowledge, the 6th Floor Museum is the caretaker of the Moorman Photo today, correct?
David Lifton has a few words concerning this same subject matter in A Pig's Blanket (Great Zapruder Film HOAX, edited by Dr. Jim Fetzer) concerning one on-location video session with Mary Moorman (for a History Channel presentation a few years back with Coach Gary Mack present in Dealey Plaza, during that interview****
By now the interview has been posted to the iantique website, so I won’t belabor any of that. But I did get to talk with Mrs. Moorman for a few minutes afterward.
First, though, I should point out I’ve never been interested in where she was standing when she took her famous photo, so my questions about that were probably not too incisive.
dgh: based on what I see below, you did a damn good job with your "probably not too incisive." ***
During the webcast, Moorman told Gary Stover that she stepped into the street twice, to take pictures of two motorcycle cops in the motorcade, both of whom she knew. Stover then asked if she stepped into the street for her famous photo. My scribbled notes have her replying, “I’m pretty sure I stepped back just on the very edge of the curb to get on the grass.”
dgh: "I'm pretty sure I stepped back...?" Conflicting (over time) eye witness comments, a TV documentary program producers worst nightmare, or, the Moorman5 street/grass debate: a canard used to cover something else up, perhaps problems with the Zapruder Film? ****
I thought that was a little ambiguous. She stepped back before or after taking the picture? Stepped back after taking one of the cop photos? So after the webcast, I asked her about this explicitly. She answered that she took the picture from the curb, adding that between the presidential limo and the motorcycle cops there wasn’t a lot of room in the street. It wasn’t safe.
dgh: safe? "IF"there was a shot from the Grassy Knoll, Mary Moorman was in a field of fire, she could of been shot and killed herself... I suspect, her "It wasn't safe" comment, had nothing to do the limo coming down Elm Street.****
One of the themes of the May 24 interview, it seemed to me, was discrediting Jean Hill. I know many find her a problematic witness. I don’t have a strong opinion about her. Haven’t read The Last Dissenting Witness.
dgh:I suspect the unspoken theme of the May 24th interview is: the Moorman5 will be for sale or up for bid, in the very near future! And this was pure hucksterism... ****
I was especially interested in comparing the Hill and Moorman accounts of being taken to that press room by Jim Featherstone. In particular, I wanted to ask her about Jean Hill’s statement, which I’d just re-read in the WC volumes.
I’d scrawled an abridged version into my notes, which I read to Mrs. Moorman. Jean Hill is telling the WC about her encounter with a man she took to be a Secret Service agent. “They keep saying three shots,” she testified telling this man. “I said, I know I heard more…he said, ‘Mrs. Hill, we heard more shots too, but we have three wounds and we have three bullets, three shots is all that we are willing to say right now.’” [WC vol. 6, pp. 220-21.]
Moorman told me she had no recollection of this exchange. But she acknowledged the scene was very chaotic. She could have missed it.
dgh: of course she didn't have recollection of the exchange. Probably not in that days script! BTW, was a representative of 6th Floor Museum present for the 24th festivities? Was any background established during this so-called "interview" as to Ms. Moorman's current living situation, physical, medical etc?
I SEE ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE AS TO WHY MS. MOORMAN WAS PLACED IN FRONT OF A CAMERA on the 24th, PERIOD. Did she say why she consented to the interview that day (May 24th 2011)? SHAMEFUL!
Thanks again for your attendance, John. My questions if you will... -- David Healy ****
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
*******************************
Equally important is her observation on May 24 that the limo slowed almost to a stop right after the fusillade.
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
-
...
In the Bronson slide (above), I've been wondering recently who the two women in black dresses are who are located to the left (east) of the Newman family? Anybody know?
why not start a new thread? Moorman, age 78 is the topic here....
John McAdams
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
better than head cheerleader for Judyth