David G. Healy

LYNDON LADOUCHE:

What this indicates, that the President is very close to a

total breakdown, a total mental breakdown, and he's so close,

that we have to say, between now, Wednesday, and next Tuesday,

when the election, or will be completed, actually, on the

following day, on Wednesday, that during this period, we're at a

time, where the rate of degeneration of this President's mental

condition, is so rapid, and accelerating at such a rate, that we

don't know he's going to make it, to the Tuesday election. Which

means that, the Vice President, has now got to do some very

serious rethinking, of his resistance to the 25th Amendment,

section 4, option.

This guy is, obviously, on the verge of a total nervous

breakdown...

Obama makes a dumb joke and from this the octogenarian crank concludes Obama is "obviously, on the verge of a total nervous breakdown"!? Sounds like a case of projection. I imagine this is one of the 'predictions' his followers will conveniently forget when they go on about his abilities to predict the future.

this election cycle the TEA Pah-tay is stealing most of the old fools thunder -- he's got to go way out there to get any attention at all...

...

I would ask what her supporters are so afraid of?

...

Barb :-)

And some would ask: what the preservers of City of Dallas-Dealey Plaza assassination history, not to mention film-photo record of same, fear so much?

It's not a debate - it's a massacre. You are just parroting Jack's claims without even understanding them, since you have little to no knowledge of the subject matter, and Jack's claim (since he refused to stand up for his own work) were demolished with ease.

Jim, you are just pulling your normal routine: bluster and accuse others, avoiding at all times actually getting into a solid debate. That image was a great example. Jack uses an image without permission, and the photographer tells us that you don't have permission to use it. Apart from the fact Jack couldn't tell the difference between quad bike tracks on a beach and LRV tracks on the lunar surface, all you had to do was contact the photographer and ask permission to use it. Your arrogance wouldn't permit you to stoop so low as to actually ask someone, though, would it? Instead more bluster, more complaints, no substance.

Go away Jim - you are a waste of my time.

Got yourself caught in a buzzsaw, eh champ? Suck-it-up!

Gary Mack may be signed up on this forum but he is not a member because he has never made a post

Its like getting married and not consummating it

He is to scared to post and have to defend himself in a public forum

When was the last time Reymond made a post...or even visited?

oh geez, you whining again? Simply put, Zapruder film authenticity has been challenged. Prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder currently stored at NARA is what you profess--the original 8mm in-camera film shot in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63! No opinion laddie, PROVE it!

Just curious...exactly what will satisfy you as "proof"?

change the subject, eh?

A collection of professional, credentialed (film-image) composing experts (industry verified) versed in and/or experienced in 1964 optical film printing equipment and image composing TECHNIQUES whom collectively shall put the alleged, currently housed, NARA, in-camera original Zapruder film through forensic testing... Roland Zavada-KODAK would surely have a seat at the table.

Anything short of that reflects simple opinion, both yours, mine and Zavada's when it comes to image composing)... Frankly, I can handle a determination by such a group that the Z-film was found to be *an in-camera original*. Ya see, even that determination does not change what has been determined through an already government investigation of the assassination: conspiracy. And that makes for a long day, years in-fact defending the WCR, doesn't it?

Gary Mack may be signed up on this forum but he is not a member because he has never made a post

Its like getting married and not consummating it

He is to scared to post and have to defend himself in a public forum

When was the last time Reymond made a post...or even visited?

oh geez, you whining again? Simply put, Zapruder film authenticity has been challenged. Prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder currently stored at NARA is what you profess--the original 8mm in-camera film shot in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63! No opinion laddie, PROVE it!

see what I mean?

see what you mean? Might be nice if you learned to use the "quote" function... you assume most know who you're responding to, they don't!

"I am severely cautious, especially given his takes on 9/11 and his position in the 9-11 truth movement."

Since Fetzer is the foremost authority on 911,

Jack

Sorry Jack, that's not even a matter of opinion. 19 out of 20 who voted Fetzer out of the 9/11 organisation do not agree. I doubt this would have had anything to do with them considering him "the foremost authority..". I strongly believe it was quite the opposite. There's no way to get around that, Fetzer was thrown out. Period.

oh-my! you'll never make it as a comic, either..... Judyth really has you running in circles doesn't she!

...

When was that bullxxxx article printed, Bernice? ...

control yourself, xxxxx.... this is not ACJ

The old channel is gone thanks to the CIA-backed lone nut cases. It took them 3 years to do it, but they got it done. My response is to create a new channel that will be better by dealing exclusively with the assassination. I am adding some of the old videos and some new ones to boot. If anyone has any favorites, please let me know and I'll try to do those first. Compilation videos will take longer as I will have to search through the sources and piece them together.

Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/JFK63Conspiracy

Gil, could you go into detail on how CIA-back lone nut cases knocked off your You Tube channel? Were they constantly making complaints about copyright violations? I have links to lots of great JFK You Tube links that no longer work because either the user took it down or it was a copyright violation.

perhaps David Von Pein will comment regarding your question... As the most prolific internet poster (Von Pein) of commentary and disinfo, not to mention YouTube JFK related videos -- just how he escaped alphabet type agency scrutiny should be interesting...

So Oswald, perhaps like serial killer Ted Bundy, had to be able to hide his psychosis pretty good in order to fool pretty much everybody who knew him.

Darn right.

Isn't this obvious, Bill?

And isn't it also obvious that Lee Oswald probably would not be boasting about shooting at General Edwin Walker to every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street corner (or at Ruth Paine's house, in which Mrs. Paine was allowing the wife of the nutcase who shot at General Walker to live free of charge)?

And his wife, who knew about the Walker shooting, didn't think he was totally out of his mind, or she wouldn't have let him visit.

What makes you think this, Bill?

I'm pretty sure there were times when Marina thought her husband was, indeed, off his rocker. The night of April 10, 1963, was no doubt one such occasion. And March 31, 1963, was another, when Marina took the backyard photos of her strange hubby:

"I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business--it was man's business." -- Marina Oswald

And that Oswald was a homicidal maniac was quite a surprise to Special Agent Hosty, who was involved in the investigation of the Walker shooting and Oswald's security case as a returning defector AT THE SAME TIME, but didn't put two and two together.

Maybe Jim Hosty of the FBI should have put two and together together. But, then too, hindsight is almost always 20/20, isn't it?

And since two suspects were seen leaving the scene of the Walker shooting, then it must also be assumed that he had an accomplice, which is not in lock step with the Lone Nut case scenario that you embrace.

There's no proof that the people seen getting into a car by one of Walker's neighbors on 4/10/63 had anything whatsoever to do with the Walker shooting. But it's fun to think they were involved, isn't it Bill?

And how did he get the rifle to the scene [of the Walker shooting] -- on the bus? Hidden in a raincoat? Let's try to imagine how he did that.

Conspiracy theorists love to focus the bulk of their attention on impossible-to-answer questions like the one above, instead of focusing on the provable facts--such as Lee Harvey Oswald's known participation in the Walker shooting.

It's the same way regarding certain aspects of the JFK case too -- e.g., conspiracists always want an answer to things that they know can never be answered (otherwise their questions WOULD have been answered by now), such as:

How did Oswald manage to sneak the paper and tape out of the Book Depository Building without Troy West seeing him?

Or:

How did Oswald get the paper bag to Irving? Was it folded up inside his jacket? Or was he hiding it in his cheeks, disguised as a big hunk of chewing tobacco?

Or:

Why is it that only two measly prints of Oswald's were found on the paper bag (CE142) after the assassination? (Even though the conspiracy theorists who ask that last question should probably already know that a person doesn't always have to leave distinguishable fingerprints on an object even when a person handles that object extensively--especially when the object is paper. Paper items very often do not have observable fingerprints on them after being handled.)

But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?

It's fun to speculate, isn't it Bill?

Dave,

I despise Conspiracy Theorists more than you do, especially those who try to say that Oswald the Pawn was being used by Castro, the Cubans, Mafia or renegade CIA.

I am not focusing the bulk of my attention on impossible to answer questions that conspiracy theorists love to ask, but rather am asking rather simple questions that I believe can be answered, like how did Oswald, if he shot a Walker using the same rifle, get that rifle to the scene of the Walker shooting and out of there afterwards?

And if it wasn't him with the other guy leaving the scene, who were those guys?

And if Oswald did do it alone, we should be able to answer these questions because we know he did them.

And if he did the Walker shooting, how come the assassination of the President is so different? Rather than the stalker, Oswald becomes the deer stander?

And why not listen to Volkmar Schmitdt? Isn't what he has to say about the Walker shooting relevant to motive?

And why not speculate on what Mr. Bishop wanted to meet with Oswald about?

I am not questioning whether Oswald committed the assassintaion alone, I am accepting that as an assumption in this game.

You don't like to play The Great Game?

So - rather than the spontanious act of a madman who was handed the opportunity, as you describe the situation when the Pawn takes out the King, in the Walker situation we have an Oswald who goes to the scene and takes photos BEFORE he even orders the rifle. And since he is working at J/C/S six days a week, the CIA chronology assumes that Oswald took these photos on a Sunday, and he also kept a blue notebook ostensibly with Walker's schedule and newsclips and bus time tables and what else could he have written down? He then burns these notes and flushes it down the toilet. In any case, he photos the scene, stalks his prey and takes copius notes that he dutifully destroys later, and has a still unidentified accomplace, and leaves the scene in a car.

Not at all like the spontanious opportunity presented to him with JFK.

Then we have Herr Volkmar Schmidt, who met Oswald at the same party that was set up for him to meet the Paines.

Besides Dr. Herzog, whose reports on Oswald's sanity were challenged by Oswald's brother Robert, and others, Schmidt is the only other person who actually claims to have recognized the psychologically disturbed homicidal maniac in Oswald BEFORE the assassination. In an hours long conversation with him at the party Schmidt says he utilized psychosematic techniques on Oswald that were taught to him by a German doctor who was involved in the Valkyrie plot to kill Hitler. And he even talked about this plot, asking Oswald if he thought that it was moral to assassinate a man like Hitler, and he gave General Walker as an example. Did Schmidt plant the seed in Oswald's mind that Walker should be assassinated? Schmidt told me he thought so, and even felt guilty about it every time he rode past the TSBD or thought about the assassination.

http://jfkcountercou...-interview.html

So now we have a homicidal maniac with a rifle on the Presidential motorcade route, and Hosty, who investigated the Walker shooting and was responsible for keeping tabs on the redefector, knows that Oswald is working at the TSBD, as Mrs. Paine told him, but neither Paine nor Hosty recognize Oswald's psychosis or consider him dangerous.

Which sets up the scenario for the King to be led into jeopardy because the Pawn is not recognized for what he really is.

And then the situation begs the question - What did "Mr. Bishop" - aka David Atlee Phillips, tell Oswald the Pawn when they met that afternoon in August 1963 in the lobby of the Southland building in Dallas?

Phillips was then responsible for monitoring the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City and the pro-Castro Cuban organization Fair Play for Cuba Committee, so it is reasonable to assume they discussed The Pawn's street agitation on behalf of the FPCC in New Orleans or perhaps his upcoming visit to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City.

But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?

Dave,

Can't you think about the assassination without mentioning conspiracy theorists?

Do you have to try to imagine what they would say and then apply it to everybody?

I thought you wanted to do what CTs won't do, and look seriously at the Walker shooting to see how it gives an insight into the mind and motivations of the psycho killer Pawn?

So the only thing in common between the Walker shooting and the Kennedy assassination is that the Pawn missed Walker and Walker lived, and the same weapon was used, and left at the scene (?) and the use of ammunition ostensibly acquired from the same source that has yet to be identified.

Other than that, instead of Oswald the Pawn photographing the scene, stalking the prey, keeping a notebook of the operation and burning it, and then leaving town before being identified as a suspect, in the Kennedy case none of these things were done, and instead, the King moved into check square while the secret psycho killer waited paitently in his deer stand lair.

And the most significant aspect of this is not how the Pawn got there, but how the King was moved into the checkmate position.

What's a matter Dave, you don't want to play anymore?

BK

B-I-N-G-O ! x's 10

Relax, dude. Get over yourself. Your behavior is bordering on "harassment" me thinks.

that won't happen till Len raises Redd Foxx from the dead....

No, anyone can post... as long as they abide by the rules. Both you and Jim can still post. Duane can post under moderation. Steven Gaal can post.

I think your trouble is you dislike anyone pointing out your mistakes. For instance, as soon as John Dolva disagreed with your assessments, you became belligerent towards him. It's quite typical behaviour from you.

Now more people are pointing out your glaring errors, and so you - again as usual - throw accusations at other people as an excuse for you to not face your critics or admit your errors.

translation: Lone Nuts and trolls spend too much time chasing after Jack White's JFK/NASA/9-11 photo research, after 20 years they're getting tired, give them a break....

Keep'em busy Jack!

focus Studley, this thread is about Posner.... ya can't divert attention from the drubbing you're taking on this board -- carry on!

David "Gird Them Loins" Healy....I love ya, man.

Who wouldn't love a guy who keeps calling you "Studley" and "hon"? (The "hon" thing gets a little creepy after the hundredth time, but you get used to Healy's oddball behavior after a while.)

Healy and Dean-o must be soulmates:

"You got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho."

To get it back on the "Posner" track:

http://Case--Closed.blogspot.com

I'm a diversion for ya Studley... you have a chance to breathe, deeply and slowly.....so please, focus hon! We need you around for that big 2013 HBO JFK gig.... don't want Jimmy Di wearing your sorry ass out before that big ta-do.... Actually Jim Di is dancing circles around you right now... ya simply need to understand the evidence hon, not simple minded parroting of it, as your handlers have taught you... We need you functioning at a reasonable level, after all, who is Dale Myers going to depend upon? (so don't worry about Tom Hanks and Vinnie daBugliosi) the weight of CONSPIRACY will finally wear those dudes out too!)

p.s. you trying to tell me what my middle name is? Are you that petty? Sound like those lone nut whiners on ACJ! ROTFLMFAO!

He [Gerald Posner] is also charming in his emails. He has told me several times that he intends to join the forum in a "few weeks" but he never does.

Reminds me of Mark Lane, who joined this forum on March 30, 2010, and made the following statement in his one and only post (to date) on March 31st, 2010, but has not followed up with so much as a single message since posting this:

"I will, of course, respond on this forum to questions or observations about Rush To Judgment, Plausible Denial and the fiction work of Vincent Bugliosi who apparently still believes that the world is flat." -- Mark Lane; 03/31/10

focus Studley, this thread is about Posner.... ya can't divert attention from the drubbing you're taking on this board -- carry on!

I would like to thank all who have contributed in a meaningful way to this thread. I would also like to thank all (you know who you are) who "chose to agitate" those who subsequently contributed in a meaningful way to this thread, but did so as a direct result of having been so agitated.

Don't you hate it Burnham, when you get your hat handed to you....like you did in this tread. One would think you might learn from your mistakes.....

Why not end this tread with this wonderful quote from Healy's hero, Dean Fielding:

“You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2 in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve."

What was the title of this tread again? Oh yea,

"Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate? No problem--not even in 1928!"

Burnham turned to dust again LOL!

With a vivid imagination like yours you might do well in the photo industry, son. A little schooling and training from the right pros you may make a decent entry level composing artist... but, we know where the likes of cyber-armchair warriors with too much time on their hands end up... LMFAO!

P.S. NASA does hire free-lance photogs, btw... all ya need is something of value to offer - best of luck to ya, you'll need it!

Good work, as usual, Chris.

Something I think is never considered is that the original film used in fabrication MAY have been

shot IN SLOW MOTION using 16mm, giving fabricators much more material to work with in manipulating

frames...i.e., 48 fps to reduce to 16 (or fudge it to 18.3).

Chris...have you ever considered that possibility?

Jack

Thanks Jack,

Yes, I brought up a similar thought in this topic a little while ago: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16374&view=findpost&p=201602

You probably just missed it.

Jerry has pointed out that the clapping speed of Apron Man and his friend appear to be quite rapid.

He wanted a larger view of them.

I am waiting to hear what his thoughts are.

chris

Jeez Chris - I don't know. I can get myself to clap that quickly but it's not very natural. And the action on Houston street looks very odd.

Maybe the speed of the passing cars on Houston or a motorcycle? What are your thoughts?

Best,

Jerry

Thanks for the stabilization! If Jack and I agree you know it's got to be true. Nice work.

Jerry,

I would expect to see more of this speed (discounting limo).

Probably a pinch faster, but not much.

What did I do?

Took out the blurry frames in the sequence (about 12 of them).

Reduced FPS to 6, in the movie.

Thoughts!!!!

thanks,

chris

http://98.155.4.83:8400/4D37D/6FPS.mov

This is terrific work, Chris. Many thanks for the effort. I'm sure we'll all learn more from it.

Hey Greg, yes sir: chris is indeed, GOOD! Any nutters in this thread come up with anything of merit yet?

David

11 shots?! I think guys like DVP will get a big kick out of that idea.

Yes indeed. That's the first thing that struck me when reading that article about Adams.

His "11 shots" theory should be enough -- all by itself -- for reasonable people to dismiss Mr. Adams out of hand. Along with this silly comment as well:

"Adams suspects Milteer was definitely involved in President Kennedy's death, but he says Oswald absolutely was not."

When Vince Bugliosi struggles to make sense out of his Lone Nutterism, DVP struggles, mightly End of Story! <sigh>

...

Craig has a point when he challenges folk to SHOW how it was altered. Of course an inability to do this in no way negates the fact that it was altered.

...

Craigster has the answer, it's simple, read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Examples of possible 1963-64 film alteration scenarios is pretty clear. The possible techniques are decades, yes DECADES old...

You'd think the whining non film alteration crowd think that possible film alteration was meant to FOOL them? The current LHO di-it-all-by-his lonesome cyber crowd... LMFAO! Not even close... The Z-film is a linchpin, linchpin in proving LHO was the sole assassin in DP that day. Hence, no conspiracy.

The Z-film, if altered need only convince the Warren Commission of LHO complicity AND guilt in the murder, hence their 1964 (Warren Commission) conclusion/determination(s)....

IF done, brilliant.... BRILLIANT!

Greg:

DO you think the whole film was redone?

THat is, what is there is mostly special effects?

If a source altered even one Z-film frame (simple frame removal or matte work), WHY?

Until some entity/persons can give a full accounting of the whereabouts [day to day basis] of the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original from 11/22/1963 thru 03-01-1964 (and PROVE it, via documentation) it would appear some folks here are blowing smoke (as usual)...

So, for those non-alteration Z-film supporters, simply begin there. There will be those who will step the plate when the discussion merits film composite techniques... till then... ta-ta

Only paul (i don't know how a shadow works) rigby....

Still festering about that one, eh, Craigster? No wonder. What a complete crock that rendition of the sun's position over Dealey was. But I did like the shadow squiggles.

Taxi for the Craigster!

Festering? Hell pauly. YOU got it wrong and you don't even know WHY you failed. You are just another in a very long line of loony ct photo ignorants. This forum is filled to the brim with them....

To see the crock in all of this consult your bathroom mirror....

there you go again Studley.... I'm not impressed--lmao!

...

No, I just love watching paul (I don't know how a shadow works) rigby, stick his head up his butt.

He has done a wonderful job of it.

Thanks for the grins.

here's for another 'grin,' Hollyweird could care less where a shadow falls., especially when the ONLY audience for a film is the Warren Commission...

thanks for your futile defense of the indefensible, great for "grins"... carry on!

...

But, as a matter of fact, all experts and specialists who have tried to analyze the Zapruder film, WITH TOP-OF-THE-ART EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, have found NOTHING, absolutely no trace of alteration.

...

/François Carlier/

oh Francois, you silly goose you, you haven't an iota of (circa. 1963) technical film lab knowledge. Posting the above utter nonsense is an embarrassment to decent lone nut discussion concerning the subject. So sit down and watch Lamson get his due....

p.s. the alleged in-camera Zapruder film is SUSPECT suck-it-up, son.

As they say, hindsight is always 20/20, and all tragic events in the history of mankind can undoubtedly be subjected to the same kind of list that I have created below, which is an "If Only" list pertaining to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

"If Only" just one or two of the things on my list below had actually occurred, then not only would a whole lot of controversy have been avoided in the wake of JFK's murder, but the 35th President very likely would have lived to give his speech at the Dallas Trade Mart on Friday, November the 22nd. If Only....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Only

...

David Von Pein

August 2010

yuck-yuck... ever notice lone nuts can't deal with 'real' case evidence debate? The best they can do is IF ONLY! (Nutters simply quote the defunct Warren Commission Report, that's it? oh-my) Carry on hon!

McAdams is still censoring at his forum.

Wow.

And David Von Pein says he believes in Freedom of Speech on this forum, but it's okay for him to censor his own forum, especially when I call him a Disinformation Idiot.

I think McAdams and Dale Myers are due to check in here any time now.

They ought to keep Kathy really busy.

BK

LMAO! they need ALL the help they can get!