David G. Healy

my assessment too... computer graphics animation

Excellent GIF, but they do not depict the same image. I do not know what that means. Jack I still have an open mind Jim I re-evaluate the evidence as it presents itself. Jack I will check the providence of the FBI image Here is something else to look at in the mean time. so... did Abe Zapruder shoot the Zapruder film? What's the consensus and any DP film-photo proof? Proof, as in positively identifying Abe on that DP pedestal -- other than he said, she said.... real proof!

AMEN! A fact that Paul May and David Von Pein won't touch...

huh? At this very moment Fred Thompson is out there selling *reverse mortgages* (on television-cable). To seniors yet! I doubt you'd see Ventura selling that kind of financial clap-trap...

I see, thanks B..... David

Bernice... the link I posted is to Doug Horne's recent blog entry (last week)... David

from Judyth to the "other" film... you're really into the JFK assassination aren't ya there buddy-boy? ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! What we need here are lone nuts that are a bit more "opaque"...

many thanks for posting this Doug Horne update, Bill Kelly....

see the link below: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/5665.html Gary Mack: any comment, please?

Dave, perhaps you don't understand movie-making 101. A feature film BASED on a true story is not a documentary. Stone acknowledged this from the get-go. He changed names, he merged characters, he created conversations that never happened, he presented events that did happen out of order. The Beverly Oliver character in the movie is not even named Beverly Oliver. Stone added her character and others, most notably Mr. X, into the story so he could present an OVERVIEW of the claims regarding a conspiracy. That was the purpose of his film--an OVERVIEW of claims regarding a conspiracy. That was why he cited Marrs' Crossfire as a source, and not just Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins. Garrison's book was just his VEHICLE for discussing the claims presented in other books. If you read the published script, in fact, you'll see something you won't find elsewhere...FOOTNOTES. HUNDREDS of them. You see, while it's true that the film itself is, as Stone says, a counter-myth to the myth created by the Warren Commission, his film was not unlike the Warren Commission's report in that it was based on the statements and testimony of real people, and NOT made up from whole cloth, as so many like to claim. So, while one can criticize the way Stone, and for that matter Garrison, put the evidence together, the charge that they invented the evidence is just not true. you just blew Von Pein out-of-the-water...

1. Yet there is no evidence that what Holland says it true. There is nothing to support it. 2. Lee Bowers only says that he felt something had happened there. He was not certain of what happened. As for the people in the cars, is there any evidence that this was sinister? 3. Is there any evidence that this ever happened? Or is Smith being as presumptuous as you are Jimmy? 4. This one always gives me a laugh. You do realize that the TSBD is behind them, yes? 5. That may have been? What the hell is that? It may have been a transistor radio, or any number of other things. People were running all over the place. Only you Jimmy would consider this evidence. 6. Id love to see the source of that report. I can destroy it in 30 seconds. 7. Well here is a two fold doosey just for you. One I do not believe that wound exists. I believe the wound was to the side of the head. However even if it did exist, this would well have been an entrance of a full metal jacket bullet. 8. Ahhhhh Finally something we partially agree on. Those notions were BS. However, I fear you are in woefully over your depth if you really believe that the backward motion we see is justification of a shot from the front. But I will be happy to educate you. We know that a bullet only transfers .1 to .3% of its energy to the target. This is generally less than 10 ft lbs of force in a transiting shot. The human punch is 110 ft lbs on average. So in order for a transiting bullet to transfer the same amount of force as a punch: Lets take the Carcano as an example: As we can see the impact energy at 90 yards is 1328 ft-lbs since we are passing through skull we should use the higher end at .3% So 1328*.003= 3.98 ft-lbs of energy to the target, and a human punch on average is 110 Ft. Lbs. With the above considered how many Ft-Lbs of energy would a transiting bullet have to strike with in order to transfer 110ft-lbs to the target? 37,000*.003=111Ft.-Lbs. How would we achieve this? An 800 grain .50 cal BMG has an energy of 14,895 ft-lbs at the muzzle. So lets grab 2 of those for a total of 29790 ft-lbs which leaves us 7210 ft-Lbs. 7.62x51 nato (.308) is 175 grains and 2627 ft.-lbs at the muzzle. so lets grab 2 of those and we are up to 35,044 ft lbs We still need another 1956 ft lbs......hmmmm..... how about the .45 acp in 230 grains as it has a muzzle energy of 352 ft lbs so lets grab 5 of those we are now at 36,804 ft lbs. damn still short......by......196 ft lbs! so lets go back shopping and get...... 1 32 grain .22 cal with 191 ft lbs of energy We are still short by 5 ft lbs, so I suppose we could shoot with a carcano as well which adds another 3.98 ft lbs.... So in order to hit a target with enough transiting shots to equal a human punch we need to hit them with: 2-.50 cals 2-.308cals 5-.45 acp's 1-.22 cal and a carcano all at the same time. really now......... Oh yes and your "frangible bullet idea"? "Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger weapons." 9. This is comical. From what I have read, almost every single doctor who worked on JFK agree that the photos, and xrays are authentic, and resemble what they saw. I was not aware that Horne was a wound ballistics expert. 10. An Embalmer? Now thats rich. I think first you better settle the issues you have with the medical professionals. 11. No frangible bullet: See number 8. 12. Well then by all means, show me this material on the trunk. 13. Man you really are behind the times huh? There is nothing of substance in any of your items here Jimmy. ahh, you ARE nervous, son. btw, your frangible bullet expert, "Such bullets and the breakup products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays." He ever show an x-ray depicting frangible bullet breakup example? Or do we have to take your word for what he said? Ya post a lot of mumbo jumbo above, can you cite any of the above or are you just another lone nut noise maker, Sgt Mikey? Just curious

funnier than watching a WENDY'S franchise going in across the street from your artery clogging KFC? Amazing!

If thats all you have to offer Steve please do disregard my posts. I dont think I would even notice. no sweat, you won't be making the nutter varsity anytime soon... <lone nut boring>

it's a shame JFK was murdered, dies in a very public way, sitting next to his wife... yet you say its a shame Garrison discussion is so polarized? Little righteous indignation goes a long way here, me thinks. Creating intellectual POV's concerning investigation of this case is, to me not only futile, but a complete waste of time... and certainly does NOT do justice to history... this is murder, plain and simple... plain old detective work, that's the ticket!

we understand your lone nut confusion... a simple statement will clear this up for you and other lone nuts (and trolls), "perhaps now you can fathom the cancer that has infected this country since 1963..." and, you'll notice Harold was the only 'professional' investigator (with appropriate credentials and understood how governmental investigations went) of the bunch above. Having discussed a few issue of this case with Harold, I can say, he may of been a tad jealous and frustrated with Jim Garrison who basked in the lime-light, later, not to mention Stone (a highly decorated Vietnam veteran-101st Airborne, Screaming Eagles) who, as you know, at the drop of a hat could raise millions for ANY of his film project(s)... and Harold after all, had to self-publish his books? You can figure it out, yes? Closest we have these day's to Harold, probably Jimmy Di... today's lone nut nightmare, as your interest displays... Carry on Sgt Mikey.

Gee, what a surprise. Fact is, of course, that NO AMOUNT of evidence would EVER convince you that Oswald was on the Sixth Floor of TSBD at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. Face it. DAVID, I REALLY AM OPEN TO PERSUASION. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CAN'T FACE THE FACTS THAT OSWALD WAS ELSEWHERE IN THE BUILDING AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF EVENTS, WAS ON THE SECOND FLOOR WITH A COP AND GIVEN A BYE BY TRULY, WHILE SOMEONE ELSE WAS EYEBALLED IN THE SIXTH FLOOR SNIPER'S WINDOW BY MS. MONEYHAM. WHO WAS THAT GUY IF NOT OSWALD OR THE SNIPER? Have you seen Jean Davison's work on Euins' "bald spot" testimony? YES, I HAVE, AND DON'T BELIEVE EUINS SAID PATTERN BALD, AS SHE NOTES OSWALD WAS A LITTLE SHORT ON THE SIDE, BUT HE SAID BALD SPOT ON TOP, A VERY SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTE AS SOLID AS A TATTOO. It's yet another case of conspiracy theorists looking at an apple and seeing an apricot. Davison's work on this matter indicates that Euins was describing a person with a receding hairline JUST LIKE OSWALD'S. Check the aaj forum for more details (from sometime in early or mid 2010). AND ITS NOT APPLES AND APRICOTS. IT'S GUILT OR NOT GUILT, AND IF NOT GUILTY, THEN WHO IS THE GUILTY ONE? I COULD ACCEPT OSWALD BEING THE LONE ASSASSIN, IF THE EVIDENCE WOULD SO INDICATE, BUT THEN, BEING SOMEONE TRAINED IN THE CRAFTS OF INTELLIGENCE, A FORMER DEFECTOR TO USSR, A MEMBER OF THE TARGETED FPCC, A VISITOR TO THE RUSSIAN AND CUBAN EMBASSIES IN MEXICO CITY, THE SUBJECT OF MULTIPLE IMPERSONATIONS, YOUR ASSASSIN FITS THE PROFILE OF A COVERT OPERATOR, AND WAS NOT THE DERANGED, LONE NUT AS YOU TRY TO PORTRAY HIM. WHETHER THE PREPACKAGED PATSY OR THE LONE ASSASSIN, WHAT HAPPENED THERE WAS A CAREFULLY PLANNED AND EXECUTED COVERT OPERATION, AND NOT THE RANDOM, MEANINGLESS ACT OF A NUT CASE. BILL KELLY Excellent post Bill Kelly... Therein lies a huge problem that lone nut trolls have (and have had for 40+ years), especially with those who COULD and WOULD accept Oswald as guilty IF case facts and evidence (as understood today (04-03-2011) pointed directly to LHO. REASONABLE DOUBT with the WCR? Of course there is!

Of course. The proof has been on the table since 1963-1964. You just refuse to accept the obvious, honey lamb. wishful thinking, conjecture AND a solo eyewitness account (with documented eyesight problems no-less) OBVIOUS proof? Since 1964? The WCR? Grow up hon! Have to do much better than that!

I'm heartbroken. ... do you have "proof" LHO was at the 6th floor, TSBD window Nov 22nd 1963 1230PM? Let's start there hon.

Thanks for posting this review, John. David Healy

Glad to see you can't live without my wackiness, Lee boy. You're even compelled to enter my wacky world when you're with your family, at the Gallery, or "on the Tube". You must be a glutton for punishment. And you must also love being bored to death, eh? What a strange little man. You see how your brain is fried? You think I come on here just to see what crap you're spouting? I come to see primarily what the intelligent members are discussing - and then once I'm through learning stuff I check out your nonsense. All whilst sitting outside Westminster Abbey... If you can't buy Kentucky Fried Chicken at Westminster Abbey, DVP will have no clue as to what, or where the place is....

Yeah, I could follow your hilarious lead-in act, entitled: "I Think Everything's Fake In The JFK Murder Case". I doubt that the crowd could laugh any more after listening to your hysterical act, however. one can always tell when you're in the evade and split mode..... carry on!

The light greyish looking area being hit by sunlight on Kennedy's leftward tilted head, and seen in frames Z372 through to Z375, is the area from where the flap originated, and as is clearly seen in the frames provided by Robin, is on the side of his head, NOT the back. ... ya need glasses, dude! No glasses required at this end, dude, just non delusional common sense. an this alteration of Zapruder Film frame means what hon? Ya think everyone around here buys your nonsense? LMFAO!

The light greyish looking area being hit by sunlight on Kennedy's leftward tilted head, and seen in frames Z372 through to Z375, is the area from where the flap originated, and as is clearly seen in the frames provided by Robin, is on the side of his head, NOT the back. ... ya need glasses, dude!

Very nice work Robin... although I doubt preservers of the 1963 historical, Dealey Plaza film photo record will pay much attention... not in their best interests...

That strip along the left edge is "edge print" which tells the type of film it is along with other identifying data. That was exposed on the film at the factory before being shipped out for sale. During exposure in the user's camera, anything spilling onto that edge from the scene being filmed becomes a double-exposure with the edge print. There's no "behind" when you double-expose film. The light falling on the film is cumulative, whether it's in the normal image area or in the edge print area. A double-exposure is the same no matter where it happens on a piece of film. The images are mixed together. Only an exposure to almost white or fully white would keep any other image from possibly appearing. In other words, if enough light from any exposure blows out all further ability to show detail, no other exposures will create an image - the film has accepted all the light it can for that spot on the film. Each exposure makes the spot on the film whiter/lighter until it can't change any more. There are some slight oddities in the way the edge print appears on that film compared to the few thousand feet of 8mm Kodachrome film I own going back in time much before 1963. Possibly the most important one is that none of my Kodachrome film (which was developed by Kodak, of course, and most if not all in Dallas) has any edge print from processing to show the plant location (such as "D" for Dallas as Zavada claims was done). I hope that helps clear some of this up for you. ----------------------------------------------------- Greg, let me know if I can add anything more. I haven't rec'd any email notices of replies here on the forum before even though I tried to set my preferences to send them. I asked Roland Zavada a few years back if KODAK could manufacture double 8mm film with NO edge data. His answer, YES.