David G. Healy

dimbo, How many frames is a "film" comprised of? I've read all the pertinent parts of Horne's mess. He is a hack who does not have the first clue what he is talking about when it comes to the photographic process. He must be you hero. Hell you could do this stuff at any film school, whats the problem? All the alterationists say this is a slam dunk...so whats the probkem? hey craigster, it appears all wannabe, cyber-photo hacks are tiring, attempting to disprove Z-film alteration possibilities... perk up son -- take in a movie or two, see what Hollyweird arteeeests are capable of..... I doubt you've read Fielding's 1965: The Art of Special Effects Cinematography. Get a grip son!

for starters, the film is Kodachrome II 8 mm safety film (nearly everyone agrees on that) -- from that starting point everything concerning the Z-film is open for debate. You might want to get/read The Great Zapruder Film HOAX.... and keep in mind, Jim Fetzer is/was the editor of the TGZFH book, as well as Murder in Dealey Plaza, AND Assassination Science...

The Craigster Lamson has always gotten away with nonsense hereabouts -- The lone nut shills need him here!

suck-it-up son.... you been cruising the edges of the Zapruder Film controversy like all good little lone nutters, for a few years now. Jump in the water is fine -- as in tell us something other than normal lone nutter nonsense Francoise mon cherie..... lmao!

I get it, levity: Oh yea, costella and this work is true sillyness. And there is a mindless horde of sheeple ct's who have not checked his works following blindly along, like MONK! SOS for sure. BYW, just how did YOU confirm the work done by costella? DO you even understand his parallax argument? DO you understand ANY of this at all? Are you even relevant? Nope! you're whining again Craigster (boring).... can't get traction can ya there son? Science gets ya everytime!

IMO, your work was not representative of the issue being debated. Your work demonstrated parallax, which is precisely what John said could not account for the anomaly. I think you are talking about apples and oranges. Whereas you come from a vested position that the Zapruder film is authentic, I do not. Oh sheesh, thats exactly what I'm talking about. This is over your head. Costella says it can't be parallax, its impossible. I've proven it IS possible and in fact is EXPECTED. You or Costella can try and refute my work anytime. I've given you the process so you can test it yourself. And I have so much more of that to come...really sweet stuff Costella says it is lack of pincushion in the extant film but as I've once again shown that cannot be what is happening because the objects in question are positioned in the lens image circle in such a manner that they will not be materially effected by pincushion. Again you can prove my work wrong. So dr john has it wrong about parallax, and he has it wrong about pincushion. And he's going to have it even more wrong when it comes to rotational parallax because it can be shown that when you REMOVE the rotational parallax by rotating the camera on the lens entrance pupil axis, the post flopping is eliminated. It's just the final nail in the coffin of what he has called the best proof of alteration ever. Now it's just going to be the best costella blunder ever. Monumental! Forget rain sensors, Costella will forever be remembered as the phd in physics who could not understand simple photographic parallax. How sweet it is. So listen monk. I have posted the work. Stick your handwaving bullnit back in the drawer. It's meaningless and only makes you look afraid. Refute the work, or accept it..or not. But your words no longer carry any weight. You are gonna need to bring real work to the game if you want to play... oh-wee, are you one of those "he who whines longest, and loudest wins the KODAK Brownie?" For a lone nut that had this case all sewed up in 1964, you sure spend a mega amount of time protecting and defending a photographic record that has been forever tarnished. Neo-defenders of Dealey Plaza photographic record need to lighten up. Breathe fresh air, buy The Great Zapruder Film HOAX.... cures all your anxiety... no need to play in your sandbox any longer Craigster...

there you go AGAIN Lampoon, living in that photog fantasy world of yours..... LMFAO! Carry on!

ROTFLMFAO.... Perhaps the 6th Floor Museum is seeding the project!

Dean, Of course you are correct. We can not and should not dismiss someone in entirety because of one inaccuracy. The case is far to complex for that! Best to you my friend! (and I am still waiting on that article!) Mike complex? What's so complex about intitial FBI/SS findings 3-shots 3-hits?

Jim, Any time you would like to debate ballistics with me, just let me know. You think O'Reily made you look like a moron, you have not seen anything yet. Mike That is one of the most moronic ballistic writings I have ever read. I should have known who the author was. By the way Jim, writing an idiotic paper does not constitute a debate with me on ballistics, what it does is shows your ignorance of the subject matter. Quick response.... what is you know re: case ballisitcs that the FBI/ DPD don't? Neither could with reasonable certainty place the MC in LHO's hands, nor that he fired a .38 that afternoon? Who needs ballistics debate? PROOF! Sounds ike disinfo nonsense....

a great idea, however, I doubt an 'exclusive' thread would get off the ground.... lest-wise it didn't get approved when I requested one concerning Roland Zavada and his freshly minted, new and approved Zavada Report (which was never released, wonder why?). I'd break the photos down to time periods (your call) then post 3-4 in a single thread, a new thread every other day. No comment from you, just a simple caption for each photo.... those that care to comment can so, in that particular (3-4 image) thread. Obviously you can comment in a separate thread... Great idea, Jack.... David

Has nothing to do with "evidence"... it appears (at least to me) the above questions are irrelevant. What does Lee Harvey Oswald or Harvey Lee(sic) Oswald boffing Judyth Baker have to do with JFK being assassinated? Why should I (or a Judge) care who he was sleeping with? Unless of course it was J. Edna Hoover.

I've really missed arguing with you for the past few years, Todd! Remember the good ol' days on the JFK Forum? Alright, I lied, I haven't missed it at all. Anyway, IMO, Jack was being a little facetious about part of his analysis--the part that you took literally. I still say, either scenario is possible...and one isn't more non-sensical than the other using the same standard that you used. Jack’s use of all caps in his “Jean Hill is shown in the Zfilm NOT LOOKING AT JFK “, strongly suggests that he was in no way, shape or form trying to be facetious. And FYI, these aren’t “scenarios” - they’re observations – and rather simple ones at that. Jean Hill either IS or IS NOT looking at JFK in the Zapruder film and I submit that anyone can clearly see that she iIS in those first few Z film frames in which she appears. As for your little imaginary Jean Hill thought process re her supposed tortured decision on whether or not to look at JFK and her boyfriend, you’re clearly ignorant of the fact that Jean Hill is on record as stating she was there to see her boyfriend as well as JFK. So you’ve “really missed arguing with (me) for the past few years”? Wait – by your own admission you lied - you “haven’t missed it at all”. Well, given the caliber of your arguments as seen above I can see why. And guess what? I’ve not missed it either! But unlike you, I don’t have to lie about that. finally found your way out of WENDY'S, eh Toddster? Of course you don't have to lie..... rotflmfao!

finally, something you've said makes sense..... (so, is whining part of your law practice?) A newbie has it all figured out? carry on! Dr. Thompson, is this Len Colby replacement? LMAO!

Now *that* is a demonstrable truth, Mike! Funny thing about facts ... those who have them, use them. And aren't the least bit shy about whipping them out. Those who don't have them ... Bests, Barb :-) NOW we know why, trolls and provocateur's we're asked to leave JFKResearch. Must be the aversion to research, research that flies in the face of the WCR exhibits, testimony, films, photos.... Research of the unpopular variety..... No one that I've encountered, after all these years, are scared of facts! Alleged facts, now that's a different story. WCR facts and factoids? Pfffffht!

A possible lone nut reality, Sgt Mike... Dr. Jim Fetzer publishes books (at least 25 by my count -- and they SELL), he does national radio talk shows (plenty of them), has his OWN internet syndicated radio talk show (tri-weekly?), he does seminars all across the country, puts on JFK assassination related symposiums, participated in national-cable talk shows, supports (more than verbal, I suspect monetary terms, as in donations) various conspiracy related internet forums, etc, etc, ETC..... And what or who do the WCR-lone nutters have challenging him? Not much, and certainly no one with any, read it again ANYONE with credibility to challenge him and back it up! The lone nut contingent and the preservers of DP 11/22-24/63 history on this forum and other internet venues simply can't gather any public WCR support, nor do they have hope in mustering any traction concerning same.... Trotting out Dr. Josiah Thompson, Gary Mack (and his PM machine), Len Colby, Craigster Lamson and the remaining Gang 8 -- which I suspect Steve Roy (aka David Blackburst ?) is now part of, simply need to get PUBLIC, as in get in front of the cameras.... Dr. Jim Fetzer is PUBLIC! So, in short, what I see here is more (of the same) lone nut whining, whiners full of envy because Dr. Jim Fetzer is making things happen. Forcing an otherwise thought of dead issue? Assembling old/new facts (as he and Judyth see them), presenting evidence as his findings dictate... Controversial? Yep! ! ! But hey, so was Zapruder Film alteration years ago. My question is, why are folks so upset? Perhaps they don't want to be on the receiving end of any future Dr. Jim Fetzer's JFK assassination related pet-project looksees, eh?

The chapter by Mantik was written before O'Donnell's dementia had become common knowledge, and is therefore out-dated. Any discussion of Knudsen that fails to mention that the only support for his taking pictures came from O'Donnell, who was subsequently proved to be a serial xxxx, is hopelessly flawed. It's like accepting Nixon's claim "I am not a crook" without noting all the reasons we know it isn't true. bah.... Speer thinks he smells fame and fortune, wants to become the king faruk of case medical evidence.... gotta tell ya, watching this is sometimes better than watching high school mud wrestling.... This isn't selling CD's Pat.... you don't have the right credentials, nor the proper letters after your name! Chill dude!

It is true that Doug is a member of the Education Forum. However, he told me a few months ago that he was not willing to debate his critics on the forum and would rather use his blog to communicate his views on the subject. As Bill points out, he is not the first member to stop posting when they come under attack. Judyth Baker falls into that category. She, like Gary Mack, prefer others to do their posting for them. The advantage of this approach is that they are not seen to avoid answering questions of their story/work. This is also true of a blog. However, I should point out that of the list Bill provides, Dick Russell, Bill Turner, Peter Dale Scott, have never avoided answering their critics on the forum. However, he is right to say that some researchers have been unwilling to deal with their critics on the forum. What tends to happen is that they use the Forum to publicize their work, and then leave when they face hostile questioning. That of course, is their right. At the same time, it does influence my opinion on their research. It is one of the reasons that I rate Larry Hancock’s book, Someone Would Have Talked, so highly. He spent several months on this forum answering questions on his book. Not once did he resort to abuse of his critics. Larry came across as someone who was completely confident about what he had written. If he had made a mistake, he was willing to admit it. I therefore think Doug has made a mistake in not using the Forum to answer his critics. He is also wrong about the importance of forums such as this one. He states on his blog: "I don’t usually bother to even read, much less respond to, the many “nattering nabobs of negativism” who attempt to inflate their egos by posting negative attacks on internet chat rooms---sites that are usually only read by a few hundred people on the entire planet." The Education Forum gets a million visitors a month. Individual threads are read by thousands of people. Don’t take my word for it, just look at the “page views” column. The Education Forum is also highly ranked by Google. If you do a search for a JFK assassination reference you will invariable find the forum listed in Google searches. That is why writers use this forum to publicize their work. That is why Doug used the Forum to promote his book. However, he is not so keen on the Forum when it offers a platform for his critics. It seems that eventually everybody falls out with me over my insistence that everybody has the right to free speech. By the way I have no strong opinions on the subject of the validity of the Zapruder Film. I do not have the time to assess all the available evidence. However, I have been influenced to a certain extent by the way people discuss the subject. I suspect that is true of others who read the threads on the “photographic evidence”. When one member begins abusing another member, I always assume they must have a very poor case to argue. John, Thanks for your continued effort here and at the Spartacus website.... However, concerning your above, in the truest of Irish fashion: Hey, screw the critics! Especially if you're a subject matter specialist. If any self-professed "critic" (and frankly, I hate to be a bearer of bad news, but near 1/2 of the participants in/on JFK assassination related internet forums/chatrooms are provocateurs) takes umbrage with what an author writes (and said material was NOT presented for peer review) and that same author decides he/she chooses not to debate their copyright material, then self-imposed CRTICS have a REAL problem! I suggest they get of their lazy rearends, do their own subject matter research, write their own 5 volume series, find a publisher (or self publish) print, sell, then commence convincing the public that the initial author is wrong. In the free-flowing internet forum community, with THIS particular subject matter, it's a sure receipt to drives reputable authors away... case in point, where's Mark Lane? Now there's a guy who dismantled one and all discussing-debating JFK assassination subject matter. Is a Mark Lane type going to spend endless hours answering the same damn questions over and over and over, when the material was covered in the book(s)? Nonesense Answer Ed Forum critics? Hey, I suspect 50% of the folks on this forum are posting under aliases, so why answer ghosts, eh? Take care, John Simkin. David Healy

Yes you are correct, the photo analysis of Jack White has no equal, it is perhaps some of the worst ever foisted upon mankind. His lack of the most basic of photographic skills is legendary. Thanks so much for making the point. indeed, you ARE nervous.... so here's the deal guy, the entire, ENTIRE film, photo and x-ray record regarding the JFK assassination is suspect... the damage is done. The best out of your camp is attack the proposer (with no hope of a headline) ya need the big picture, the 25th floor overview, what's the matter with you? Your move... You claim you're a professional photog, a job that requires much creativity (at least that's what they say). Being in the field for many a year I really know better. Yet, I've seen not one bit of creativity on your part when it comes to research concerning this case.... An ever-recurring echo that of someone reading the 1964 WCR, as published. Droning on and on and ON -- where's the creativity? So get creative, sans the fall of shadows in case related photographs, no one really cares -- be bold, tell us what Shaneyfelt had going through his mind the 5 hours preceding his presentation to the full Warren Commission Feb 1964. (Whose briefing boards did he use?) You may start a thread covering this subject matter, anytime you like.... however like everything else **lone-nut** I wouldn't expect creative thought supporting the WCR anytime soon. Also, I suspect Dr. John Costella would wipe the floor with you, debating such things as optics, lens spec's and the physics of light. I doubt he'd bother, nor would I even go, even for free.... So let's not shred this thread, Redd Foxx will not be happy.... Where's Wild Bill Miller when I need him... someone get the 6th floor on the phone, see if he's busy! I have 3,000 questions....

Jack, What happened? First you post a complaint that Mr Armstrong wanted to join, but was having some problem in doing so (though if I recall, a solution was quickly arranged?) Next you said you would forward alleged errors to Mr Armstrong for his response, and now you are saying he wants nothing to do with this forum; is not interested in answering questions or defending his work, and that you will attempt to do that yourself? Apart from anything else, there is a false dichotomy in operation in these threads: If X is wrong, Y must be right, when in fact both may be right, just as both may be wrong. I think Mr Armstrong needs to do what he originally said he wanted to do. This exit from wanting to join and defend his work makes it look like he has no backbone; and worse; no answers. there you go.... This Armstron guy doesn't need to sell books, they're all SOLD! Frankly, based on Ed Forum's past track record with authors that have joined.... I'd probably tell the forum to buzz off, too! That's the beauty of a sold out, self publishing author -- *if you don't like it, write your own book and prove me wrong*!

While I am not a fan of Horne's book, I would agree that Costella's review read more like a rant, a rant I can relate to, by the way. We await your rant Pat. At least it will be on topic. Let's see - WTF Rant #1 - no index. WTF Rant #2 - Vague table of contents. WTF Rant #3 - Horne doesn't mention Costella's work WTF Rant #4 - Horne "reeks" of military intelligence and is G-Man WTF Rant #5 - Horne doesn't include the entire McMahon interview WTF Rant #6 - IARRB is an extension of the WC coverup. there are sure ways to enter "SHOW BUSINESS", and from what I've seen here in Dr. John's review, this NOT a good way! Either for Dr. John or Pat Speer/Spear... So has Dr. John's review got us one step closer to closing the case? Certainly not. In fact, has the boffing of Judyth saga, which a month ago reached the over saturation stage, has that moved us one step closer to closing the case, and if so, HOW? Again, nor will Dr. John's review of Doug Horne's Volume IV... After reading it 3 times, RANT does come to mind.... The Zapruder film alteration/non-alteration fiasco is a canard. Until the alleged in-camera original has undergone forensic film testing, the alteration argument holds little import, hence a waste of serious researchers time. Here's a dose of reality: can anyone, posting to this board, prove to me what generation (in-camera original or otherwise) Z-film was used to create the MPI, newly minted version of the Z-film? And PROVE it. The same for damn near every other Dealey Plaza, case related, alleged, in-camera original negative or positive film-photo. The preservers of Dealey Plaza film-photo history want to continue the debate for 20 more years, it leads no where but to the turnstiles of the 6th Floor Museum.... So, what I am hearing is simply bent EGO'S! Same nonsense of I've had to deal with for 38 years in the media, and friends it's a complete waste of time. Especially here where there no real money involved... So welcome to the REAL WHACKY world of Zapruder film show bizmart. A case for conspiracy in the murder of JFK (for those that forgot), rests on medical evidence (IMHO). What to do about that, is up to others.... Doug Horne has made his mark, and frankly, most others speculate, that's S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-E and O-P-I-N-E as do I. I applaud him... a seminal work.... seminal work much the same as Dr. John Costella's 2003 UofMinn presentation, incredible, and his follow-up webpages dismantling of the the naysayer Gang of Eight and countering every parry thrown his way, a masterful feat. And Jack White's many year odyssey into assassination related film-photos, he has no equal -- he spurred others on when interest waned. And Dr. Jim Fetzer for organizing, publishing and distributing an incredible series of JFK assassination related works. but..... The torch is passing, perhaps it's time for some of us to move out of the way (perhaps we've become the focus of the case, just the way the WCR supporters want it), and let momentum carry the day.... Thanks Bill Kelly for your sober response to Dr. John's review.... I agree with you 100%. And thank you Doug Horne....great job! No sense pulling any punches..... David Healy

Here it is. It is a review of Chapter 14 only; that is the only chapter which I felt qualified to comment on. John ROFLMAO! www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm sitdown hon, you know your place....

http://www.assassinationscience.com/HorneReview.pdf Thanks Michael, I also got it from Ed Tree Frog. Now how about Costella? BK from what I've heard don't expect it (Costella's review) to be a ringing endorsement.... and, to the best of my knowledge it's not published yet....

nervous?