David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
...
After ten years I have now completed my autobiography. It took awhile since I have been practicing law for about one quarter of the life of the American judicial system. The book is Dancing With Bullies and is, I believe, the best thing I have written. For more information please contact me by email at mlane@marklane.com.
...
Mark Lane
Glad to hear it, Mark! When is it on bookshelves?
David Healy
-
Greg,
Fascinating. Leaving this "absurdity", in order to rush in to join Fetzer/Judyth instead?
Mike,
I can only say that I am too, glad you're stickin' around.
Thanks.
Mr. Viklund,
My pleasure Sir.
Yes I was not lost on his departing this conversation because of its absurdity to return to the Fetzer/Judyth thread. Now that is funny!
At any rate as I said before I consider myself in good company!
Best to you Sir,
Mike
Sgt Mikey, is that you? Any more ego lifting shooting escapades? LMFAO! Only YOU could draw me back here, son. Only YOU! Now this thread is a circus..... carry on! Where is Bill Miller when you need him.
-
Still unanswered is why ALL of Peter's posts here have been deleted.This was done in such away that all the threads he started, along with all the posts by other members on them have been rabbit holed as well. This is an justifiable erasure of a significant part of the forum's history.
I assume that Andy Walker will eventually explain why he did this.
John,
Spartacus is a great, GREAT research asset. Concerning JFK assassination research? The Ed Forum has ceased functioning in that realm, becoming nothing more than a glorified rah-rah JFK Lancer....
Frankly I doubt anyone really cares what motivates Andrew, I doubt he even knows himself, maybe it's all got to do with a nine iron?
Seeya later, John.... Keep Spartacus up and running!
I resign my membership on this forum..... and Dolva, get to a meeting, ya need it hon ya make a horrible waterboy for Len! LMFAO!
David Healy
03.14.2010
-
To all,
A few of my friends have alerted me that Maggie Hansen/Magda Hassan or whatever her name is has mentioned my name on the DPF a couple of times
in the thread about Peter Lemkin's removal.
Therefore, I am now going to mention some important points concerning the issue since Maggie/Magda carefully edited them out in her post. (Surprise surprise!!).
1. It was Peter who contacted me about the recent problems he was having on the Education Forum, not the other way around.
2. It was Peter who apologized to me (in his emails dated 10.03.2010 and 11.03.2010), repeatedly, about the email he sent me several months ago that read "cyber sex" in the subject line.
3. He was also the one who emailed me and told me that the message in question was meant to be a joke, and he did that not after he sent it to me but after the issue was brought up here on the EF by Jack White.
4. It was also Peter himself who asked me to contact the admins and tell them there had been a misunderstanding.
5. The claim that he was removed because of a complaint I made months ago is ridiculous. If that were the case, he would have been removed long ago.
Having said that, the people (either here or on the DPF) who have been desperately hunting down a scapegoat can look elsewhere and stop bothering me. Or better, mind their own business.
Edited to add : I also sent a copy of this message to Maggie/Magda and asked her to post it on the DPF for me. I'm not keeping my hopes high, though.
frankly if your not posting concerning JFK Conspiracy matters, perhaps you'll tell us WHY we should care what you think or mention?
-
Get your jollies somewhere else
what ya need John is another drink.... when your honest and READY, we'll be there, help is all around the world.....
-
The administrators (Andy and John S.) and moderators (Kathy, John G., Stephen, Antii, Gary, Evan, Don) receive a great number of complaints about member’s postings. Some mornings when I get up I get a message that my mailbox is full because there have been so many complaints overnight. We have tried to deal with these complaints as fairly as possible but we are constantly accused of bias. These complaints in themselves are often abusive and it has taken a great deal of persuasion on my part to stop them from resigning from what is a thankless task. In fact, it has been argued that the moderation system is itself a conspiracy. It has also been claimed that the majority of the administrators and moderators are anti-conspiracy theorists. This is not true, although the majority of moderators do not see everything as a conspiracy. The reason that these people were selected as moderators is that they were always polite to people they disagree with. However, to those who appear to be only able to argue their case by being abusive, they consider all other members, as being “anti-conspiracy”.
Evan had the idea that if we made one of these aggressive members as a moderator, they would see what it is like to be on the receiving end of this abuse. It might even convince them that the administrator and moderators were not part of a conspiracy. Evan suggested Peter Lemkin as a moderator. This was a brave suggestion as Evan had been a regular victim of Peter’s abusive behaviour. I foolishly thought this was a good idea. So did most of the other moderators. However, right from the beginning Andy predicted that it would end in tears. Although we realised it was a risky decision, on a majority vote, he was elected as a moderator.
It appeared to work at first but after a few weeks we began to get complaints about what Peter was saying to other members by PM. Peter was also breaking forum rules by questioning the motives of individual posters. This was usually targeted against new members who told me that they were now reluctant to post. Battle hardened members such as Len Colby can take the flack but new members cannot. They were also confused by the fact that it was a “moderator” who was behaving that way.
Andy took the view that Peter should be removed as a moderator. However, I argued that he should be given another chance. I informed Peter that we were going to take a vote on removing him as a moderator. I and I expect other moderators, now received a succession of abusive emails from Peter. This included threats of legal action against us for spreading rumours about him being guilty of sexually harassing a female member of the forum. In fact, it was Jack White, one of Peter’s supporters, who first mentioned this on the forum. Peter also threatened to remove all the posts he had posted on the forum. Peter also threatened to persuade members to leave the Education Forum and join the Deep Politics Forum. At this point I began to wonder if this is what this has been about all along. Andy also drew our attention to what Peter was saying about individual moderators on the Deep Politics Forum.
Despite these emails I did not change my views on whether Peter should remain as moderator. The majority agreed with me. However, these abusive emails continued. So did the attacks on the Deep Politics Forum including the description of us being a “slime-pit”. I therefore decided to call for another vote on Peter as a moderator. This time, only Evan, Don and myself voted for him to stay.
This triggered off more abusive emails from Peter. Even though I voted for him to stay as a moderator, I was also on the receiving end of numerous threats. You can imagine what the moderators who voted on his removal received. Peter is also threatening the Forum administrators with legal action. This appears to cover several issues but it did include postings about the claims of sexual harassment.
Tim Gratz threatened legal action against the Forum a few years ago. As a result he was also denied posting rights. The same thing will happen to anyone else who threatens me with legal action.
There was a case recently of a Forum owner who was successfully sued for a large sum of money after a member had posted comments about another member’s sex life. The judge pointed out that the Forum owner lost the case because they did not delete the offensive post when the member first made the complaint. Therefore, we have no choice but to delete all those threads where these accusations have been made.
I know Peter’s friends will be very upset by him being removed as a moderator. As a friend they will not have been on the receiving end of his abusive emails. However, this is the democratic decision that has been made and there will be no turning back. If you don’t like it, you are free to join Peter on his Deep Politics Forum.
Response to the arbitrary action taken here (while JS was absent) has been articulated elsewhere on this board (IF, those responses still exist) better than I ever could, for sure --
His friends? What's do they have to do with the current issue? Why make his "friends" a focal point?
I'm a bit surprised John, I expected a more leftist, enlightening response from you... so-be-it!
Further, we all understand moderators come, they'll go. For a whole host of reasons. In this instance, it sounds and appears to me, a decision was made (by one EF grand elder) to rid itself of one of its more controversial, and conspiracy oriented moderators. He and a few mod's wanted to correct an earlier mod assignment mistake.
An allegation was made via email, concerning same specific mod. The stage was set. when EF action was taken the inevitable backlash occurred. Almost immediately thereafter it was THEN determined, through EF back channel e-mails that that same moderators alleged major sin was now a 'misunderstanding'... oh-my!
The foolish reaction(s) displayed by one biased EF director, a few mod's, and of course the resident trolls --- sigh..... bad, bad PR... worthy only of the 6th Floor Mausoleum...
If the Ed Forum wishes to distance itself from JFK assassination/conspiracy subject matter, it should do well in searching out qualified WCR supporters, and for those WCR supporters that are present here, you've been upstaged. perhaps that's why they're so quiet.... bad, BAD PR, John. This issue has nothing to do with said mod's "friends", this has much to do with Ed Forum educational credibility...
Peace....
David Healy
-
What happened to the Lemkin threads? I can understand them being closed but making them invisible with only fuel his sense of victimization and inevitably lead to paranoid accusations something is being covered up. In any case an announcement should have been made.
I tend to agree, Len. IF Peter asked they be taken down, however, I can understand why his request was granted. Just a thought.
And WHAT request is that Mr. Speer? And, "Just a thought"? Surely you can be a little less opaque, eh? GAWD!
-
The simpletons would have you believe Mark Lane is a man who believes in men from outer space, or something like that that would make you think he is not to be believed....because they had to discredit him. Nothing could be further from the truth. This man, Mark Lane has done more for the case than anyone in my opinion.
They had to discredit him. It is now going to be my five year project or more that that is just a bunch a baloney, and in fact, this man Mark Lane, had to be discredited because he is, in fact in my opinion the most important "first generation" researcher in the JFK case.
correct, Peter! ! ! And, there isn't a lone nut disinfo agent -or- simple minded xxxxx that isn't (or wouldn't be) terriifed at the idea of debating case facts with him. Mark Lane has no peer re this case...
-
Well done, Rich.... peace brother.
David Healy
-
english a second language for ya, there Wild Bill? What can you fathom out of the term "Doug Horne"s 5 volume set"? It all comes down to faith there Wild Bill, in your case faith in the WCR.... we understand why it's so difficult to defend it! FAITH is your only excuse!
Is that it, David? For some reason I have the feeling you haven't read what you've referenced any more than you have read any of my post over the years which clearly show that I disagreed with the Warren Commission findings. In fact, I think from reading your responses over the years that you probably haven't read much of anything on the JFK assassination unless it was scribbled on the wall next to a urinal in a drunk tank.
Bill Miller
So we meet again. That was quite an intelligent and helpful reply, Bill. I suppose you're especially proud of the maturity you displayed in the part of your post where you mention a "urinal" -- a very class act.
I thought you had to have a biographical page here?
Ever the guard dog I see...have you forgotten your are not in OZ..er...the JFKresearch forum anymore?
IN any case it appears in the rush to be the Sergeant at Arms once again your must have missed this...
"I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographic record and the witnesses statements and testimonies. I have studied the case for over 25 years and I have received the Mary Ferrell Award presented for the discovery of new evidence in the JFK assassination murder case."
actually Craigster, I like "Bill Miller: hunter of YETI", better (now THAT is OZ)..... bet it has a nice ring around the halls of the 6th floor mausoleum too....
-
Richard Stolley is apparently still alive, living and writing in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
JFK assassination: The man behind the film
Abraham Zapruder's home move has generated countless conspiracy theories. But who was he?
Richard B. Stolley | For The New Mexican
Posted: Saturday, November 22, 2008 - 11/23/08
Richard B. Stolley
http://www.santafe.com/articles/author/richard-b-stolley/
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local News/23-Zapruder
Forty-five years ago Saturday, he took what is probably the most famous home movie in history . Almost anyone who was alive on Nov. 22, 1963, remembers exactly where he or she was when first hearing about the event his film captured in such grisly detail.
Yet today Abraham Zapruder has returned to the obscurity from which he was catapulted with six seconds of 8 mm film documenting from start to bloody finish the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
On the anniversary of that tragedy, the ferocious debate over who shot the president and why shows few signs of abating. So it is interesting to consider the Dallas businessman, then 58, who in many ways is responsible for igniting the controversy over the possibility of a plot to murder the president. Without the Zapruder film, the conspiracy theorists would have precious little to work with.
He was born in Russia, educated at a Hebrew school and came to New York with his mother and sister when he was a teenager. His father had preceded them. A brother started the trip but, as Zapruder described it much later, was pulled off the train and killed by anti-Jewish thugs. Zapruder says he was spared himself because he had blond hair.
He landed a job in the garment district as a pattern cutter, worked up to head of crew and was lured to Dallas in 1941 as production chief of a dress factory there. With a partner, he ultimately started his own line, Jennifer Juniors, the name borrowed from the movie star, Jennifer Jones.
It was a thriving business, $2 million gross, and Mr. Z, as everyone called him, was a stern but popular boss. On most work days, he and Erwin Schwartz, the son of his original partner, wandered over to Sanger's Department Store in the afternoon for a banana split or ice cream soda. Mr. Z rarely got mad, but when he did — at Erwin or a worker or a salesman — he would walk across the street and sit on a park bench until he cooled down.
Zapruder was perhaps 5 feet, 9 inches, a trifle plump, bespectacled, balding and a fastidious dresser who favored white shirts and bow ties. A sociable man, he loved telling stories, sometimes in a Jewish dialect that would be considered politically incorrect today — tales about Russia, New York, business, whatever, while he puffed on a cigar (and drank sparingly). Schwartz suspected that his partner may have made up some of the stories, "but I enjoyed them and I believed them."
Late in life, Zapruder took up golf, and he and Schwartz waged putting contests on the office rug. At stake was a $1 bet. Zapruder played the piano fairly well, mostly light classics, and sang, as his lawyer Sam Passman recalled, "badly." He and his wife, Lillian, had a son and a daughter, and Zapruder loved to shoot home movies of them and later on, of his grandchildren, his friends, his employees. He was a real 8 mm buff.
It was natural, then, for him to take his camera to nearby Dealy Plaza that November morning for a memento of the president he had voted for, and greatly admired as someone who "had gotten the country on the right track."
That day changed him forever, his friends say. "Just remember that we've only seen the film," one of them pointed out. "He saw the actual murder." For a while Zapruder had nightmares, jerking awake when his sleeping eye came upon frame 313, the tiny speck of film that records the horrifying head wound. He wept while testifying before the Warren Commission that investigated the assassination. "I'm sorry," he told the commission. "I'm ashamed of myself really, but I couldn't help it." His wife, Lillian, acknowledged, "He was extremely emotional about the whole thing."
He became an unwilling celebrity. As many as 10 sacks of mail arrived daily, addressed simply to "Abraham Zapruder, Dallas, Texas." Some letters called him a fool for contributing $25,000 to the family of the Dallas police officer killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. That amount was the first of six annual payments from LIFE Magazine, which had bought the film the day after the assassination (and in 1975 returned it to the Zapruder family for $1). When he and his wife traveled, the Zapruder name was sometimes recognized on hotel registers. He hated the notoriety.
He had little use for the army of conspiracy theorists the assassination spawned. After agreeing to see an early conspiracy author, Mark Lane, who wrote Rush to Judgment, one of the first anti-Warren Report books, Zapruder got so upset over Lane's questions that he asked the writer to leave his office. Until Zapruder's death from cancer in 1970, he believed, as did the Warren Report, that Kennedy was murdered by "a crackpot, a nut" — in short by Oswald acting alone.
Although a shrewd businessman, he recoiled from being seen as profiting from the president's death. He asked LIFE to keep the amount it paid him confidential. In 1999, his name was splashed on front pages again when the federal government agreed to pay his family $16 million for possession of the fragile piece of film. It is fair to speculate on how Zapruder himself might have reacted to such a payoff.
In return for a new camera, Zapruder gave his historic camera to Bell & Howell, which donated it to the National Archives. But he rarely used the new one in the final years of his life. Mr. Z's enthusiasm for home movies ended on Nov. 22, 1963.
Richard B. Stolley, senior editorial adviser at Time Inc., was the LIFE reporter who obtained the Zapruder film for his magazine in 1963, 45 years ago today. He now lives in Santa Fe with his wife, Lise Hilboldt, and son.
Stolley was appointed to the job on February 1, 1993, upon his retirement as Editorial Director, the second highest editorial management position in the company. From June 1995 to March 1996, he also held a dual job as Executive Producer of Extra, a Time Warner daily syndicated television show.
He was the editor of three photographic histories: the best-selling LIFE: Our Century in Pictures, in October 1999, a companion volume, LIFE: Century of Change, America in Pictures in 1900-2000, in October 2000, and the best-selling LIFE: World War 2, in October 2001, all published by Little, Brown. In 2002, Stolley wrote the text for Sinatra: An Intimate Portrait of a Very Good Year, published by Stewart, Tabori and Chang.
Stolley has been a reporter, writer, bureau chief, senior editor and managing editor at Time Inc. since 1953. He worked for 19 years on the weekly Life magazine and rose to assistant managing editor. During his career there, he served as chief of four bureaus in the U.S. and Europe. Most memorable among the stories he covered was the death of President John F. Kennedy during which Stolley discovered and obtained for Life the famous Zapruder film of the assassination.
Stolley was the editor in charge of the final issue, "The Year in Pictures 1972," after Life announced it was suspending publication in December of that year.
In 1973 Stolley became the founding managing editor of People, joining the magazine in its planning stages, and remained in that position for eight years. People began publication in March 1974 with a circulation of one million and became profitable after an unprecedented 18 months. Described as the most successful magazine in publishing history, People now has a weekly circulation of 3,600,000.
In 1982 Stolley moved over to the managing editorship of the monthly Life. During the next three years, Life won two National Magazine Awards, the first in 1983 for general excellence among magazines with a circulation of more than one million and the second in 1985 for photography.
In 1987-88 Stolley's assignment was director of special projects with responsibility for coordinating creative ideas among the magazine, books and video divisions of Time Inc. He became Editorial Director on January 1, 1989.
In 1996, Stolley was named to the American Society of Magazine Editors newly inaugurated Hall of Fame, which cited his founding of People with these words: "In pioneering personality-driven journalism, he left an indelible mark on the entire magazine industry by creating a form and format that just about every other magazine editor has drawn from and adapted."
In 1997, Stolley received the Henry Johnson Fisher Award for Lifetime Achievement in magazines, the most prestigious award the industry bestows, from the Magazine Publishers of America. Later that same year, he was among the first group of Northwestern University-educated journalists named by the Medill School of Journalism to its new Hall of Achievement.
Stolley has written articles for People, Life, Real Simple, Sports Illustrated, Fortune, Money, Entertainment Weekly, Esquire, New York, Columbia, Vanity Fair and The New York Times. He was the editor of the book PEOPLE Celebrates People: The Best of 20 Unforgettable Years, published in 1994, and again in 1996 in a revised edition. He also wrote the introductions to A Hollywood Farewell: The Death and Funeral of Marilyn Monroe, by Leigh A. Wiener, published in 1990, and to LIFE: Man in Space: An Illustrated History from Sputnik to Columbia, published in 2003, and the foreword to LIFE: Platinum Anniversary Collection, 70 Years of Extraordinary Photography..
He was born October 3, 1928 in Pekin, Illinois, and while in high school, he worked for two years as sports editor of the Pekin Daily Times. He served two years in the Navy after World War II aboard the light cruiser U.S.S. Dayton. In 1952 he received a bachelor's degree from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, and one year later, a master's degree. During two summers while in college, he reported and wrote for the Peekskill, NY, Evening Star. After graduation, he worked briefly for the Chicago Sun-Times, then became a reporter for Life.
Stolley is past president of the Overseas Press Club and of the American Society of Magazine Editors, a member of the boards of the National Parkinson Foundation in Miami, FL, and the Lensic Performing Arts Center in Santa Fe, NM. In 2004, he was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws by Hartwick College in Oneonta, NY, in 1975 an honorary Doctor of Laws by Villa Maria College in Erie, PA, and in 1994 the Alumni Medal from Northwestern University.
word-for-word.... I'd say the article was more about Stolley than Zapruder!
-
Bill,
I was sent this post by Pat Speer from the Lancer Forum, where he is attacking Doug Horne. Since you and I are both
staunch supporters of Doug--whose work, in my view, represents a turning point in JFK assassination research by virtue
of his standing as a member of the ARRB and the thorough, detailed and meticulous character of his research--yet Pat is
attacking him there. His doubting of Sandra Spencer's memory because it was thirty years old is about as ridiculous an
objection as I have encountered. David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., for example, in his chapter on the medical evidence in
MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), also points out that Spencer could be so certain that these were not the photos she
had processed because they were on the wrong kind of paper, which she had not used. On page 241, Mantik explains
that Spencer had brought to her deposition a JFK photograph that had been developed ten days before his death. By
comparing the identifying marks on this photo to the autopsy photos, she was able to conclude that she had developed
none of extant autopsy photos. That would appear to be definitive evidence. Yet Speer dismisses it as mere "silliness"!
He also attacks Horne for being a "Liftonite". Whatever he may mean by that, I have discerned a fierce independence
of thought in Doug Horne. He is no body's disciple, including not Lifton's. I would observe that, while I differ from him
(Lifton) on several key points, including his belief that all of the shots were fired from the same direction, when I read
his BEST EVIDENCE (1980), I learned more about the case than I had from any other source. I am likewise skpetical
that Greer shot JFK but, since the issue is out there, I also regarded it as important enough to include in my four-and-
a-half hour documentary, "JFK: The Assassiation, the Cover-Up, and Beyond" (1994), which I have recently converted
into a DVD. I presented the evidence in its support and also explained why I do not believe it is necessary for Greer to
have shot JFK to account for all the wounds. Pat might as well dismiss me as a "Liftonite" for having such high regard
for Lifton's research, much of which--including the casket switch and the surgery to the head--has been borne out by
Doug Horne's research. There is an excess of silliness here, but none of it comes from Lifton, Horne, Mantik, or me.
Jim
86580, RE: Boswell's ARRB Skull
Posted by Pat Speer, Wed Dec-31-69 06:00 PM
Saundra Spencer torpedoes my ship? Classic. I am a relative newbie to the case. As a result, I had no ship prior to my reading ALL the HSCA and ARRB medical interviews, including O'Donnell, Knudsen, Spencer, etc. I didn't reject Spencer's silliness out of my seeing her as a threat, but out of putting her statements in their proper context.
I mean, can you imagine anything as SILLY as taking the statements of a photo developer over THIRTY years after he or she had developed some photos, and using their recollections of these photos as the basis for assuming there was a second set of photos developed? Because, for me, that's right up there with the silliest things I've ever heard.
There's something you need to understand. Horne was a Liftonite. The people the ARRB questioned, and the questions they were asked, were the fulfillment of Horne's quest to prove Lifton's theories true. Jeremy Gunn, who was, in fact, Horne's boss, allowed this to take place, but came away convinced most of the ARRB's witnesses were too old, and that the events had taken place too long before, for anyone to draw much from their statements. He approached the case with an open mind, and came away unconvinced.
Not so Horne. Having failed to win much of anyone over, and having been attacked by Bugliosi in his book, Horne decided to align the erratic statements and testimony of the ARRB witnesses to SELL a GRAND UNIFIED CONSPIRACY theory whereby Greer shoots Kennedy AND shots were fired from the knoll, whereby the Zapruder film is faked, and so are the autopsy photos, etc.
To do this, he props up the recollections of some senior citizens as utterly reliable, and others as questionable due to their giving in to pressure, etc. It's a circus ride, with him at the controls.
Now, for me, his failure to admit that, oh yeah, Joe O'Donnell was not just erratic in his ARRB interview, but later proven to have been utterly unreliable and suffering from dementia at the time of the interview, is a near fatal error, the equivalent of Garrison's putting a delusional man on the stand to testify against Clay Shaw.
But feel free to defend this "over-sight" if you like. Only ask yourself this--would you defend Vincent Bugliosi's forgetting to mention that, oh yeah, one of his key witnesses, let's say Helen Markham, was later shown to have been suffering from dementia at the time she said she saw Oswald kill Tippit? I'm betting you would not.
Doug Horne IARRB - Chapter 15
Secret Service Agents Viewed President Kennedy as a Dangerous Communist Appeaser,
Who Was ‘Soft on Communism’
As discussed in detail in Chapter 7, Secret Service agent Elmer Moore unburdened himself to University of Washington graduate student James Gochenaur in May of 1970, and in doing so revealed that many of the Secret Service agents sworn to protect President Kennedy had strong feelings of disloyalty toward him because they disagreed with, and were frightened by, his foreign policy initiatives. (Moore was not only the Secret Service agent who briefed the Parkland treating physicians in December of 1963 about the results published in the Bethesda autopsy report, and who ‘leaned on’ Dr. Malcolm Perry prior to that (in late November of 1963) to get him to stop describing the wound seen in the President’s throat as an entry wound, but he also interviewed Jack Ruby in jail in December of 1963, and furthermore, Arlen Specter revealed at Cyril Wecht’s conference in Pittsburgh in 2003 that Elmer Moore was also the agent who surreptitiously showed him an alleged autopsy photo of JFK’s back wound during the Warren Commission’s re-enactment of the assassination in Dallas, in the late Spring of 1964.38) Moore began his law enforcement career in 1939 and then served briefly with the Coast Guard before joining the Secret Service in 1942. Most members of the Secret Service, like Elmer Moore, either held local law enforcement jobs before joining the Secret Service, or were prior-enlisted members of the Armed Forces.
James Gochenaur provided information on Secret Service agent Elmer Moore to the Church Committee—specifically to Subcommittee Chair Senator Richard Schweiker—in the summer of 1975, and submitted to a tape recorded interview with HSCA staff member Howard Gilbert on May 10, 1977, from which a transcript was produced by the HSCA staff. The relevant portions of that long HSCA telephone interview relevant to Secret Service attitudes about President Kennedy’s foreign policy are reproduced below:
Gilbert: OK. Now, what did your conversations with him [Moore] pertain to?
Gochenaur: Ah, basically, him venting his anger at Kennedy, and ah—
Gilbert: What was the anger based on? Did he say?
Gochenaur: Well, he said he was a traitor. [author’s emphasis]
Gilbert: He said Kennedy was a traitor?
Gochenaur: Yeah.
Gilbert: This is what Elmer Moore said?
Gochenaur: Right.
Gilbert: Now, why [did] he say—how did he explain that? What did he mean?
Gochenaur: Well, he prefaced it by saying that, ah, well, he said, you know, no matter how
strange things get here, we’ve got it better than they do. But he was giving everything
away to them. That’s what he was saying. [author’s emphasis]
Gilbert: He was saying Kennedy was giving things away?
Gochenaur: Yeah, to the Russians. OK? [author’s emphasis]
Gilbert: All right.
Gochenaur: And, ah, he said, ah, he says: “It’s a shame that people have to die, but you know, maybe it was a good thing. A lot of people thought he was a traitor and sometimes I think that, too.” [emphasis added]
Gochenaur then went on to recount how Moore had then confessed to badgering Dr. Perry into silence about the entry wound in President Kennedy’s neck, and had admitted that the Secret Service agents investigating JFK’s assassination had been told they had to investigate the case in accordance with instructions, or they would “get their heads cut off.” Moore denied all of this to the Church Committee in August of 1975, but significantly, did admit to meeting with Gochenaur three or four times, to purchase surveillance photographs of protestors. Clearly, the two men did have a relationship in 1970 which might have been conducive to Moore unburdening himself. I have always found Gochenaur’s story persuasive, and credible.
seems that Pat Spear/Speer has been trying to usurp David Lifton and his authority for at least the past 7 years.... D. Horne's 5 volume set (recently released) just adds to Pat's *none evidence insider* frustration...to the best of my knowledge Spear has not made headway with his particular brand of naysay flavor, not here, not JFKReasearch, not aaj and certainly not acj, there's only one place left to go, and that's LANCER---land of the none-film/photo alteration crowd, where many lone nuts pose as CTer's....
-
At the risk of incurring yet more snide remarks from the usual sources, I suggest that both these conspiracy theories were aired here on this forum. I haven't even scraped the bottom of the barrel, either. Try reading some of Ms Maura's posts...
So what? By what form of logic do you equate what you scrap off the bottom
of the barrel with the hard evidence of 2+ shooters in the JFK assassination?
You're guilty of academic malpractice here, Prof. Tribe.
Sadly for you and your silly website, it is unimpeachable that there was a fold of fabric large enough to obsure JFKJ's jacket collar in Betzner. You fail at intellectual honesty...
This one is above your pay-grade, son. Take a seat and watch.
-
William, The use of more than three fontstyles in a presentation makes the reading of it more difficult. I thinkyou've got about 7 there. I'm sure you're saying something worth hearing, but that sort of formatting is a visual asault of sorts. I as no doubt others tend to speed read and have limited time, to also have to figure out which bits are your and what ponts you are trying to make,...... it's just a fundamental in textual information dissemination.
John,
You're here 24/7, so I, and others I suspect, figure you have plenty of time (speed read or not).... so sort it out - or simply don't follow the Kelly threads.... if you've been following Bill Kelly's work, you'll of noticed what he's doing... perhaps you need to go back to basic JFK 101 & the WCR (and what it lacks).
Ya want the mod job, just ask. Probably why Wild Bill Miller is back.... ROTFLMFAO!
-
Is Redd Foxx in-the-house, I say? Man, the ARRP and the HSCA document release certainly has the trolls running in all direction.... methinks the latest nutter-xxxxx whining is a run for cover from Doug Horne"s 5 volume set...
David, can you offer any 'references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that you made' or are you going to bless everyone with yet another say nothing asinine response?
Bill Miller
english a second language for ya, there Wild Bill? What can you fathom out of the term "Doug Horne"s 5 volume set"? It all comes down to faith there Wild Bill, in your case faith in the WCR.... we understand why it's so difficult to defend it! FAITH is your only excuse!
-
As for Paine why if he were part of some plot to frame LHO he didn't know was in the blanket,it would have been a lot more damning if he'd said the opposite or even claimed to have opened the blanket and seen it.
Sure would Len. However, not entirely in line with a "pacifist" ideology though is it? Seeing a rifle that apparently belongs to some strange bloke your Missus has just met, and putting it in the garage where your kids are going to be running around?
In his Warren Commission testimony he said he didn't know Lee owned a rifle. In a 1993 interview he said he did.
I don't know about you but I don't know many "pacifists" who work for military warfare organizations and who let their kids live in a house with a rifle belonging to a former defector who stayed most weekends. This is a story you couldn't make up. It begs belief...
Do you know of why a person would suggest in their Warren Commission testimony that they didn't look to see what was in the blanket because the guy who it belonged to had a right to privacy but then starts reading the same guys private letters, that Ruth is scurrying away and "copying"? You put the full picture together Len and your version of events scatter to the winds...
Lee you're thinking like a Brit in 2010, in Texas in 1963 owning a rifle was totally normal, still is. They were normally used for hunting animals not people. A hand gun probably would have created more of a stir.
"I don't know many "pacifists" who work for military warfare organizations"
Did he ever describe himself as a "pacifist"?
Bell Helicopter was not exactly a "military warfare organizations" they were a company that sold some of its production to the DoD. Should all people who consider themselves pacifists and work for GM quit their jobs because the company makes Humvees?
In any case people are contradictory look at all the evangelical ministers who are guilty of the sin they rail against
"Do you know of why a person would suggest in their Warren Commission testimony that they didn't look to see what was in the blanket because the guy who it belonged to had a right to privacy but then starts reading the same guys private letters, that Ruth is scurrying away and "copying"?"
Did the Paines do this before or after the assassination?
Check out his 1993 Frontline Anniversary Special interview to see whether he lied about knowing Lee Harvey Oswald owned a rifle or not. Just further conflicting testimony to further muddy the waters and get people arguing over this point and that point.I'm not sure what your theory is do you think LHO really had a rifle and Paine knew it or that there never was a mysterious blanket wrapped object in the garage? Please provide the excerpt from Frontline where he said he knew LHO had one. You're rationales make little sense. IF Paine was part of some plot to frame Oswald the most logical thing for him to say to the WC and press in 1963 - 4 was that he saw rifle w/ scope that matched the one found in the TSDB amongst the "lone nut's" thing shortly before the assassination.
EDIT - Formatting error fixed
Len
This thread is supposed to be about whether the backyard photographs are genuine, right?
Thinking like a Brit in 2010 has nothing to do with it. As an aside, my wife is a Texan so I'm well clued into the culture. I spend most summers there.
The fact remains, Michael Paine stated in his WC testimony that he was "opposed to violence" - I believe that pretty much defines a pacifist. WC HII p. 411.
He also claimed to not want to look at what was in the blanket because he didn't want to infringe on Oswald's rights to privacy. WC HII p. 415
But earlier in his testimony he states he was infringing on LHO's rights to privacy by reading the letter, supposedly sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington, that Ruth had shanghaied and copied. WC HII p. 406-407
The letter was taken, copied and read a week or two prior to the assassination (November 8th, 9th, 10th according to Michael Paine).
The Paine's are the two people, still alive, who have definitive answers that could change the present state of play concerning our knowledge of the assassination. I don't know what Michael Paine's role in all of this was Len. I'm sure he wanted as little exposure as possible after the event due to his heritage and ancestry. Ruth too. It certainly made sense from this point of view to not invite them to the HSCA or the ARRB. These two individuals were instrumental in setting Lee Harvey Oswald up and Michael Paine’s telephone conversation with Ruth on the afternoon of the assassination “…we both know who’s responsible” is a small window into the lives of these two incredible sinister people.
FACT: Paine claims to have seen the backyard photos in April 1963. http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/Paine.pdf
FACT: Paine claimed to have been shown them on the night of the assassination by the FBI - WC HIX p. 444
FACT: Fritz's typed report stated Oswald was shown one of the backyard photographs prior to them being "found"
FACT: There is no chain of evidence for the backyard photos per the Dallas Inventory Sheet
I doubt any pacifists’ work for GM Len. I'm sure pacifists represent a very small minority of the U.S. population. In answer to your question, I don’t believe for a second that a true pacifist would work for any company whose products resulted in the purposeful and calculated deaths, disfigurement and injury of other people. It is incongruous. You say that “…people are contradictory.” I think you mean that people are hypocrites. Ruth and Michael Paine are contradictory, hypocrites, and have information vital to cracking this case.
If there ever was a rifle in the Paine garage it certainly wasn't the MC found on the 6th Floor. But deep down I don't believe there ever was a rifle Len. I do know what was in the Paine's house - a shed-full of filing cabinets with names and information of anti and pro Castro groups and individuals.
I know my rationale doesn’t make sense; nothing in this case makes sense the way it should if Lee Oswald just got up one day and decided to go and shoot the president. Hoodwinking is a game that gets the best results when played by professionals. Where did that Minox camera go again?
very nice, Lee Farley -- VERY NICE
-
"People are supposed to document their claims on this forum."
Thanks Jack! LMAO -- Well, I guess I have a lot to learn by way of orientation here. But I guess I'll give everyhting the "sniff" test to be sure.
GO_SECURE
monk
Jack as (almost) always is simply confused. Just because he thinks he is above defending the bullxxxx he posts here he thinks he and his allies aren’t expected to but John indicated otherwise:
(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area.
PS - BILL KELLY
What exactly was the point of your post above?
Is Redd Foxx in-the-house, I say? Man, the ARRP and the HSCA document release certainly has the trolls running in all direction.... methinks the latest nutter-xxxxx whining is a run for cover from Doug Horne"s 5 volume set...
-
name='Bill Miller' post='185696' date='Mar 4 2010, 11:57 AM'] name='Jack White' post='185216' date='Mar 1 2010, 01:04 AM']An earlier study.
Jack - you cannot see the south side of the concrete wall from where Willis stood. The sunlit area with shade along its lower half is further down the fence line.
http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/item-det...m:2002.040.0007
Bill Miller
so, how is the 6th floor mausoleum job going?
Oh ... did I wake you up, David. Any comment about Jack's claim concerning Willis 5 or was that about the time you fell asleep? How about it David, can you see the south wall of the dog-leg??
Bill Miller
gee you studiously avoided my question, should I take that to mean, yeah it's going okay, but the money sucks? And to answer your question, no, I can't see the "dogleg" from my perspective I suspect YETI is standing in front of it. Go figure!
-
...
People are supposed to document their claims on this forum. Though you didn’t post them here others did and now you’re a member, the ball is in YOUR court not mine. You have yet to produce evidence the groups were CIA fronts OR that Zapruder was a member. DeMordishildt’s brother is irrelevant your claim regarded Zappy.
methinks you're getting all wrapped up in your own self-importance here, AGAIN.... Redd Foxx won't be happy, Len! (btw, since when is any poster here required to respond to lone nuts? Just curious.)
-
...
On January 27, the FBI began their examination of the film itself, using a second-generation copy. By January 30, FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt had assigned frame numbers to the individual frames of the film.
In summary, then, the camera speed was naturally assumed to be the factory setting of 16 fps until December 20, 1963 when the FBI reported it to be 18.3 fps. More detailed/precise speeds were known by February 3, 1964, and the individual frame numbers were assigned January 27-30, 1964.
...
Those NPIC notes with Z-frame numbers (as discussed in HOAX and Doug Hornes Volume IV), some say those notes were drawn up the weekend (Nov 23rd/24th) of the assassination.... Is there a cite for Shaneyfelt assigning Zapruder film frame numbers by Jan. 30th 1964?
Thanks Chris....
-
An earlier study.
Jack - you cannot see the south side of the concrete wall from where Willis stood. The sunlit area with shade along its lower half is further down the fence line.
http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/item-det...m:2002.040.0007
Bill Miller
so, how is the 6th floor mausoleum job going?
-
And you've been doing image composite work for HOW long? ROTFLMFAO! WOW, the longer you post on the subject the better this hassle gets....
Another very informative response, David ... I see your ability to speak and never say anything relevant has never left you.
Bill Miller
and you Wild Bill: "And you've been doing image composite work for HOW long? ROTFLMFAO! WOW, the longer you post on the subject the better this hassle gets...." Wouldn't want old lonesome Lamson getting lonely these days now would we?
-
So Mr. West and his associate Mr. B.? were hired to survey Dealey Plaza first by Life Mag, especially in regards to Z-film and then by the Warren Commission, but when the WC Report was published, they changed the figures?
BK
As I understand what Tom Purvis writes, the TIME/LIFE survey came on 11/26/63; the Secret Service survey on 12/5/63; the "survey" of positons provided by the FBI on 2/7/64...and in the WCR, the cardboard "representation" of the survey was introduced as evidence, but the actual survey was not unsealed, IIRC, so the WC never got to see it...they only got to hear what FBI agent Shaneyfelt TOLD them was in the survey.
And the data block in the WC Report does NOT have the same figures as the one on the original SS survey of 12/5/63...although it putports to be a "copy" of the actual survey.
Hopefully, Tom will post and correct whatever misinterpretations I have made of his work.
In event that anyone cares, I am neither deceased nor even ill!
Merely that lightening took out our phone line and we do not have internet connection at the house.
Suprisingly, I actually get a lot more work done now, without the internet ability.
Currently on a library Computer.
For those who may have interest in facts, the "FIRST SHOT"/aka CE399 facts, began being published in the George County Times back in November of 2009.
One may be able to contact the newspaper and find old back issues, but it is unlikely.
George County Times
Lucedale, Mississippi
ATTN: Mr. Buddy Sellers.
As to the question!
1. The Time/Life survey work was done, as indicated, on 11/26/63.
Due to the "no-notice" of this requested work, Mr. West did not have a survey "Party Chief" available as his crews were already designated far in advance for other tasks.
He therefore contacted Breneman, who did part-time survey work for Mr. West, as well as others, and Breneman and others from Mr. West's office conducted the survey.
The Breneman work is highly inaccurate due to many reasons, but was apparantly sufficient to satisfy Time/Life.
As a result of inaccuracies in the actual survey, the survey plat also, by nature of the data, has inaccuracies in it as well.
Other than this work, Breneman was not employed for any of the other surveys which were performed strictly by Mr. West's crews and often with Mr. West's direct supervision.
2. The Secret Service Survey Plat (& re-enactment) which is dated 12/5/63 is in fact the culmination of survey work which was done on December 2, 3, & 4th, in which extremely accurate survey data as well as vertical control was carried into and utilized in the survey work.
This work produced information which was thereafter utilized in the FBI Survey Plat as well as the Warren Commission survey plat.
This survey plats the impact point of each of the three shots fired, and the second shot impact location/aka Z313 impact is only a foot or so away from the WC's plotting of the impact location.
And, as previoulsy indicated, the third shot impact is some 30-feet farther down Elm St., directly in front of where James Altgens was standing, approximately 5-feet prior to the second yellow curb stripe.
3. The FBI Survey Plat (& re-enactment) occurred on 2/7/64. Actually, very little survey work was done as this "scam" merely attempted to move the second/aka Z313 impact back up Elm St. a few feet to a point at which JBC is observed "reacting".
And, for those who have never observed the difference, there exists a big difference between "reacting" to having been hit by a shot, as opposed to "reacting" to being shot at.
Nevertheless, the FBI Survey Plat left the third/last/final impact location (down directly in front of James Altgens location) on their Survey Plat.
This survey plat is the one which they have attempted to palm off as being the SS Survey Plat which erroneously platted the second shot impact location, and which plat is seen in the WC documents as well as the Dallas Archives.
I have repeatedly informed that one should look down in the "legend" block and they will find in the revision block: 2/7/64.
Which, anyone who also took drafting and/or mechanical drawing, would understand the significance of.
4. Then, along came the WC, who made the first shot impact location (which was the same for the SS as well as FBI survey plat) disappear.
Then, due to other "magical" capabilities, they made the third/last/final shot impact location disappear.
Then, they accurately surveyed in the Z313/aka Second shot impact location which was less than 1-foot from where the SS had previously surveyed it in, and then gave us all "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".
5. And, in making the first shot location completely disappear, the WC altered their own survey data, and slightly shifted camera locations, and gave us their purportedly "accurate" re-enactment for the Z210 vicinity, while claiming that they did not even get these frames of the film and also neglected to publish these frames of the film.
6. Lastly, not to leave anything open to chance, on paperwork, they "moved" James Algens location back up Elm St. to a point at which he would have been standing somewhere between where the lamp post comes into view and Mary Moormen/Jean Hill are standing.
Then, Shaneyfelt informed us that there was nothing past Z334 worth seeing, which also just so happens to be just prior to James Altgens actually coming into view in the film.
Now, perhaps one can understand "Tom's saying".
"There is no Magic. However,
Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear"
Are we having fun yet?????????????
great to see you posting when possible, Tom! Hope all is well...
-
Jack White's work on the backyard photos was crucial, and is beyond dispute, imho.
Well Don. considering White based his works on a number of very faulty ideas, all the work created by these faulty ideas fail. How do you deal with that simple fact? Did you even try and confirm his work yourself or is it yet another case of belief on your part?
Here is one major principle where White fails. Anything based on resizing and then comparison gets tossed into the dustbin of ignorance. So whats left that has any value as a "proof'?
And you've been doing image composite work for HOW long? ROTFLMFAO! WOW, the longer you post on the subject the better this hassle gets....
Mark Lane Responds
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
There in lies your problem my-man... you think others will be persuaded by the missives they see posted here? Where have you been? Educational discourse? Well, if your looking for rational case evidence discussion, check other *research* forums. This board has always been infested with .john wannabes.... for the uninitiated: the lone NUTS, WCR/SBT/LHO did it all by his lonesome type of wannabes.
Now, I for one want to hear about Mr. Lane"s new book, if you don't mind. If I want to hear Mark Lane beat up Vinnie daBug Bugliosi, I'll move on over to Black Op Radio, find his pieces in the archives (of which there are more than a few). I even suspect Vincent knows he far outclassed with this guy Mark Lane... isn't that right David Von Pein [sic]?
DHealy