David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
HI GARY POO I SEE YOU LOGGED ON BELOW BILL GOOD POST MAY I ASK IF IT IS KNOWN IF GARY IS TO BE IN THIS NEW SO CALLED HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY OR IS INVOLVED IN ANYWAY..ENQUIRING MINDS WOULD LIKE TO KNOW...GARY YOUR HERE YOU HAVE THE FLOOR POST A REPLY AS I AM SURE OF COURSE YOU WILL STRAIGHTEN ME OUT AND HAVE A NONE POSTED BY YOU REPLY...B
Gary tells me that he has nothing to do with this production, other than try to compare it to Oliver Stone's "JFK," and to make sure that its not him, but others who call it the Hitler Channel, and to try to confuse what is clearly two distinct classes of film - historical documentary and fictional drama.
BK
bunk.... I suppose none of the 11/22/63 era assassination DP films and/or photos are going to show up if a documentary about JFK. The museum is involved.
-
Lamson appears to be a logical buffoon. He has no concept of a "prima facie" proof. He shifts the burden and refuses to admit any argument has force. What I can't understand is how someone who has so little to offer should spend endless hours here in what appears to be an attempt to infuse his life with meaning.
Sheesh Jim, there you go parroting the failed work of White without even knowing if it is true. Check out the little proof of concept work I posted for Jack, that shows why the wheels have fallen off of the bandwagon you have climbed aboard.
Maybe next time you should actually check the works you champion to see if they are actually true before parroting them. It might save you face in the future. On second thought...
Now about that "internal ruler" and the 6 inch shorter Oswald...ROFLMAO! Prima facia...what a hoot!
Your "faked backyard photos" claim is going up in flames!
LMFAO..... see you're still dancing mightly.... Your gonna be busy for the next 10 years...
-
Message from Gary Mack:
I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow?
Gary Mack
Response to Message from Gary Mack.
Gary, the difference between Oliver Stone's JFK and Joel Surnow's History Channel Documentary is that Stone was making a major motion picture for entertainment purposes, a fictional account of an historical event that acknowledges using composite characters and made up dialog. Sometimes such fiction is closer to the truth than documented histories.
Joel Surnow is supposed to be making a documentary film about the Kennedy White House, but Ted Sorrensen, who has read parts of the script, says that the conversations in the film that he was party to never happened.
And since Kennedy secretly taped the conversations in the Oval Office, the ExCom meetings and his phone conversations, the transcripts of these tapes are accurate dialog so there is no need to make up conversatons - it's all right there and in the public domain and free to use, as they were used in the film "13 Days" about the Cuban Missile Crisis,
Surnow can distort JFK history, make up dialog that was never spoken and spin the story any way he wants, but he can't call it a documental history.
That's why it's okay for Oliver Stone to distort history to get at a greater cinematic truth, while it's not okay for Surnow to distort history and falsely claim its the documented truth when it's clearly not.
Bill Kelly
ABSOLUTELY, BILL!!!!! Excellent.
Jack
Note from Gary Mack:
The show is NOT a documentary but the Hitler Channel is now doing a DRAMATIZATION, which gives them the liberty to dramatize whatever they want.
BK
dramatization, now its an WCR disnfo trick, eh? The trolls are getting boring...
-
-
I think that Dr Fetzer may adopt cozening ways to make people believe his argument. It seems to be a tactic often used by some people of his ilk.
and an aussie fly-boy with way too much time on his hands can develop a decent philosophical argument these day's? LMFAO!
-
I have just tried to visit the Fort Benning website.
I got the following message:
"The security certificate presented by this website was not issued by a trusted certificate authority."
perhaps its been hacked?
-
Or simply jabber away on JFK assassination boards?
Read the title of the forum and then this and then think.
amazing, Andy.... perhaps you can tell us why the JFK assassination (Zapruder film controversy specific) outstrips all other topics here on the Ed Forum (including "education" threads) 5+:1? Think about what, guy? The forum numbers, they don't lie do they?
Then perhaps you'll tell us your publishing experience concerning the JFK assassination? Not one of those "conspiracy naysayers are ya?
-
I have long thought we have been far too lenient with Jack White. The trouble is any restorative action will just feed his persecution fantasy yet further and we will then embark on another rollercoaster ride of innuendo and abuse from his cheerleaders on this forum..... as a friend of mine commented recently regarding my feelings of despair about this forum 'hope dies last'
I tend to agree. Jack considers himself above the average poster and not subject to the rules of the Forum, and many members here support that illusion. To reign him him in just invites more babble. I think the advice from someone else tends to be correct: "Just ignore him for the white noise he is".
'tis what happens guys, especially when foreigners get embroiled in colony affairs, including the assassination of one of its presidents...
btw, Evan were you invited to join this group of intrepid, old line JFK assassination researchers? I don't recall seeing your name on the JFK assassination invite list? You have to offer what again?
Have you Evan (for that matter Andy) penned, or participated in any formal investigation concerning the assassination of JFK? Or simply jabber away on JFK assassination boards?
Get-a-grip dude! You're far outclassed here...
Things are that busy for Aussie aviators these day's, eh? To much white-noise time on your hands? LMFAO!
-
...
As far as the Parkland witnesses, outside of Clark, only a handful of them got a real look at the wound. For the others it was a brief glimpse lasting but a second or two at a wound surrounded by blood and brain-soaked hair on a patient lying on his back in critical condition. They had a job to do, and staring at the head wound wasn't it.
...
WOW! Obvious you've never spent time in any ER, Pat! Especially when a gunshot victim arrives...
-
Lee intoned:
"There is a sense of "right and wrong", black and white thinking that most members suffer from"
Well, Lee...that is to be preferred in JFK studies. If I recall, in Stone's JFK movie, the Garrison
character said something like "we're through the looking glass here, folks, where black is white
and white is black!"
If you have studied the case and have not reached the point where BLACK IS BLACK AND WHITE
IS WHITE, then you have not acquired the proper sense of RIGHT AND WRONG to be pontificating to
others about it.
Black and white thinking and a sense of right and wrong are NECESSARY in THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.
That you abhor it tells more about you than about us.
Jack
Jack
You have taken one of my sentences, just one of many, and twisted and mangled it to fit your narrow view of the world and your narrow view of the English language.
And you have done this whilst "pontificating" about my "pontificating." Do you even know what this word means?
Lee
never fear there Lee'O, appears ole Kathy has your thinly, disguised back..... but please, continue pontificating -- a not so new, lone nut, defect of character... we've seen it before - we'll see it again...
Dave
It has to be said that I haven't a clue what the jibberish you've written means. Is there a Healyism translation guide that accompanies your posts?
How am I a "lone-nut" if I believe individuals in the U.S. Government planned the assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire any weapons that day? Will the translation guide help me solve this riddle of your mind?
Lee
please, sell the nutter-xxxxx trivia elsewhere, willya? The WCR shills are out in force, AGAIN... it does appear John D. is buying...
and while your at it, Lee'O... help us understand how the government planned the assassination of JFK! Can you wrap your mind around your boast, enlighten the public?
Start a new thread, lets hear all about it!
-
The flooring is perpendicular to the brick wall. In the snipers nest it's oblique. Was it uniformely oblique across the sixth floor? If not, are there photos that may determine the floor this is on?
flooring in the TSBD was being ripped up and replaced at the time of the assassination... GMack should be able to tell you what floors and when...
-
Lee intoned:
"There is a sense of "right and wrong", black and white thinking that most members suffer from"
Well, Lee...that is to be preferred in JFK studies. If I recall, in Stone's JFK movie, the Garrison
character said something like "we're through the looking glass here, folks, where black is white
and white is black!"
If you have studied the case and have not reached the point where BLACK IS BLACK AND WHITE
IS WHITE, then you have not acquired the proper sense of RIGHT AND WRONG to be pontificating to
others about it.
Black and white thinking and a sense of right and wrong are NECESSARY in THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.
That you abhor it tells more about you than about us.
Jack
Jack
You have taken one of my sentences, just one of many, and twisted and mangled it to fit your narrow view of the world and your narrow view of the English language.
And you have done this whilst "pontificating" about my "pontificating." Do you even know what this word means?
Lee
never fear there Lee'O, appears ole Kathy has your thinly, disguised back..... but please, continue pontificating -- a not so new, lone nut, defect of character... we've seen it before - we'll see it again...
-
The Cancellare photo above is a blatant composite, as the shadow thrown by the figure at (viewer's) left on the south curb of Elm does not align with the direction of the shadows thrown by the various figures on the north curb (foreground). The shadow cast by the former is from a later portion of the day, or some other day.
Unless, of course, we are to believe that there were two suns at work above Dealey Plaza that day!
I've saved you the trouble and possible future embarrassment by completing a VPA for you. Please feel free to complete one for yourself to check my work.
You will notice the shadows all trace back to a single point, showing the light that created them had the same origin.
I would suggest in the strongest possible manner you find another approach. Even some dedicated professionals get all messed up when dealing with shadows as recorded by a camera. It is NOT intuitive. Lots more than meets the eye so to speak.
You are off to a terrible start and it only figures to get worse with every posting you make.
There, I've done my public service. Now do as you please.
you gotta be kidding me? ROTFLMFAO ya know if I was looking to hire a photog, pointed to your website, I'd be asking for client recommendations, those whom I could verify and contact...
(looks like Len Colby work..... )
-
Just one thing Josiah, when you say vertical dimension do you mean a horizontal line along a vertical or a vertical line along a horizontal?
Todd said years ago that he took a look through their transit and that it was fairly close as as the horizontal (left and right) axis went but was off in terms of the vertical (up and down) axis. I hope Todd might give us his own account.
Josiah Thompson
You might want to get an opinion from Stewart Galanor. He was there and was dubious
about the experiment. He looked thru the transit after Mantik found the line of sight. He
suggested a very minor adjustment. David made the adjustment, and Stewart agreed
about the lineup. Vaughan came over and wanted to look, although none of us knew
who he was. He looked without any comment to any of us. Any comments from him will
be a dozen years late.
Jack.
Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true.
I had met both you and Dr. Mantik some years previously. I had never met Fetzer. I had met Galanor earlier in the week.
I talked to you, Dr. Mantik and Fetzer, in that order. I did not talk to Galanor who during the experiment was wandering around the south-most lane of Elm Street trying to direct traffic out of that lane.
My conversations with both you and Fetzer were rather brief.
You and I specifically talked about the Moorman blow-up you were using for the pedestal line-up. I specifically asked you why it had a brown, sepia like color tone to it. You more-or-less blew me off.
Fetzer was rather stand-offish and confrontational, for some reason not discussing the experiment but rather demanding to know what I did for a living and where I worked.
Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.
I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.
Todd
How in the world could you WRITE UP THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT??????? You were not ANY part of participating in it.
You were a bystander. Nobody but 3 of us, plus Stewart Galanor, who asked to come along, even were aware of
what we were doing. WHAT WERE YOU EVEN DOING THERE? WHO TOLD YOU ABOUT IT? It was being done confidentially.
Who tipped you off so that you could be a bystander. Why are you injecting yourself as a PARTICIPANT?
As I recall, I rented the transit at Home Depot on Saturday and met Mantik and Fetzer in the plaza ON SUNDAY MORNING
WHEN THE PLAZA WOULD BE DESERTED. Fetzer and Mantik had talked to Galanor in the hotel and allowed him to come
along. The plaza was almost deserted. Mantik and Fetzer devised the experiment. I took lots of photos. A small crowd
gathered to watch us. You say you ware part of that crowd, but I was not aware of anyone there that I knew. Just
how did you know to come there and were there others with you, and who were they?
I ask again...how did you know we were there, and how could you "write up the experiment" of which you knew nothing?????
now this is getting interesting, Todd?
What's interesting, David, is how bad Jack's memory of all of this is, and how little your posts contribute to the discussion.
considering the "heaveyweights of lone nut persuasion" that post here (you, our very own WENDY'S nutter-poster included), the level of nutter argument on this forum is positively atrocious... The level of inept lone nut posts here, stunning... it's almost like Dr. Thompson drags himself out of retirement, then continually tries to prop you xxxxx guys up.... yet, none of you can get a simple, cogent argument underway. So, what happened to the nutter-xxxxx varsity? Kinda like a Laurel & Hardy slapstick comedy filmed at 18.3 fps, now that too is up for debate what with a "windup" camera and all!
btw... one Ben Holmes (at acj the uncensored USENET/Google forum) is still (3 years now) waiting for you, Todd Vaughan, to dig some evidence out of that mysterious file place you store your, LMFAO, JFK research findings [sic]....
as you were! -
Just one thing Josiah, when you say vertical dimension do you mean a horizontal line along a vertical or a vertical line along a horizontal?
Todd said years ago that he took a look through their transit and that it was fairly close as as the horizontal (left and right) axis went but was off in terms of the vertical (up and down) axis. I hope Todd might give us his own account.
Josiah Thompson
You might want to get an opinion from Stewart Galanor. He was there and was dubious
about the experiment. He looked thru the transit after Mantik found the line of sight. He
suggested a very minor adjustment. David made the adjustment, and Stewart agreed
about the lineup. Vaughan came over and wanted to look, although none of us knew
who he was. He looked without any comment to any of us. Any comments from him will
be a dozen years late.
Jack.
Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true.
I had met both you and Dr. Mantik some years previously. I had never met Fetzer. I had met Galanor earlier in the week.
I talked to you, Dr. Mantik and Fetzer, in that order. I did not talk to Galanor who during the experiment was wandering around the south-most lane of Elm Street trying to direct traffic out of that lane.
My conversations with both you and Fetzer were rather brief.
You and I specifically talked about the Moorman blow-up you were using for the pedestal line-up. I specifically asked you why it had a brown, sepia like color tone to it. You more-or-less blew me off.
Fetzer was rather stand-offish and confrontational, for some reason not discussing the experiment but rather demanding to know what I did for a living and where I worked.
Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.
I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.
Todd
How in the world could you WRITE UP THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT??????? You were not ANY part of participating in it.
You were a bystander. Nobody but 3 of us, plus Stewart Galanor, who asked to come along, even were aware of
what we were doing. WHAT WERE YOU EVEN DOING THERE? WHO TOLD YOU ABOUT IT? It was being done confidentially.
Who tipped you off so that you could be a bystander. Why are you injecting yourself as a PARTICIPANT?
As I recall, I rented the transit at Home Depot on Saturday and met Mantik and Fetzer in the plaza ON SUNDAY MORNING
WHEN THE PLAZA WOULD BE DESERTED. Fetzer and Mantik had talked to Galanor in the hotel and allowed him to come
along. The plaza was almost deserted. Mantik and Fetzer devised the experiment. I took lots of photos. A small crowd
gathered to watch us. You say you ware part of that crowd, but I was not aware of anyone there that I knew. Just
how did you know to come there and were there others with you, and who were they?
I ask again...how did you know we were there, and how could you "write up the experiment" of which you knew nothing?????
now this is getting interesting, Todd?
-
Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.
I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.
Todd
Years ago we were able to confirm exactly what Todd said.
David Mantik, always a gentleman, not only let Todd look through the eyepiece of their transit after it had been set up, he also took meticulous measurements. Being a gentleman, he sent me those measurements and they confirm exactly what Todd said.
Mantik’s measurements show that the line-of-sight they measured that day with the transit crossed the south curb of Elm Street at a height of 48.25 inches. This gave us something precise to work with. We went to Dealey Plaza, found Moorman’s approximate position and set up the camera on the curb exactly 48" above the top of the curb. Here is the resulting photograph:
It shows that when you do what they did you end up with a photo lining up the top left corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the window beyond. In other words, all they did was perform a stunt. As Todd pointed out, they made no allowance for the “gap” present in the Moorman photo but simply set up their transit as if there weren’t any gap.
What they did is as irrelevant as if the referees at the Superbowl set out to determine if a first down had been made by carefully measuring the width of the field at the point the last play ended. They pulled a PR stunt and have been advertizing it as “science” ever since. When people refer to “assassinated science” it is this sort of nonsense they are referring to.
Josiah Thompson
Your photo is totally wrong! You did not follow my instructions for finding the line of sight.
You lined up the CORNER of the pedestal with the CORNER of the window. Our experiment
has ALWAYS IGNORED THE CORNERS! Our experiment uses the EDGES of the pedestal
and window. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO COMPREHEND? I have NEVER said anything about
using the corners. I have always referred to a CROSS (+). The Moorman photo has the
GAP that is so precious to you, but the gap is irrelevant. It is of no use because it is not
a part of the CROSS. Why you persist in saying our experiment used the CORNERS I do
not know, BUT IT IS BLATANTLY FALSE! And you insist that GREAT PRECISION is required.
It is not. I have done the experiment dozens of times. You have not. The viewpoint can
be off by several inches AND IS STILL MUCH TOO LOW.
Jack.... they've no choice, they have to dance around this experiment of old... and many here are amazed this nonsense is coming from the guy that penned Six Seconds in Dallas... however it's entirely in keeping with the lone nut-xxxxx minions that populate this board....
And remember nearly ALL these guys stopped doing research years ago (if in fact, they did ANY)... and then along came Oliver Stones' JFK and about 100 books (with more film, documentaries, and books to come). This board is the last place the WCR wingnut-preservers of the Dealey Plaza Film/Photo History are mounting a defense.
-
Just one thing Josiah, when you say vertical dimension do you mean a horizontal line along a vertical or a vertical line along a horizontal?
Todd said years ago that he took a look through their transit and that it was fairly close as as the horizontal (left and right) axis went but was off in terms of the vertical (up and down) axis. I hope Todd might give us his own account.
Josiah Thompson
You might want to get an opinion from Stewart Galanor. He was there and was dubious
about the experiment. He looked thru the transit after Mantik found the line of sight. He
suggested a very minor adjustment. David made the adjustment, and Stewart agreed
about the lineup. Vaughan came over and wanted to look, although none of us knew
who he was. He looked without any comment to any of us. Any comments from him will
be a dozen years late.
Jack.
Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true.
I had met both you and Dr. Mantik some years previously. I had never met Fetzer. I had met Galanor earlier in the week.
I talked to you, Dr. Mantik and Fetzer, in that order. I did not talk to Galanor who during the experiment was wandering around the south-most lane of Elm Street trying to direct traffic out of that lane.
My conversations with both you and Fetzer were rather brief.
You and I specifically talked about the Moorman blow-up you were using for the pedestal line-up. I specifically asked you why it had a brown, sepia like color tone to it. You more-or-less blew me off.
Fetzer was rather stand-offish and confrontational, for some reason not discussing the experiment but rather demanding to know what I did for a living and where I worked.
Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.
I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.
Todd
I will talk to anyone. I did not know you and do not recall ever meeting you, so you cannot say my statements
are untrue. You may have remembered meeting me, but I do not recall having ever met you. As a researcher,
I meet hundreds of researchers and other people, and my memory is not prodigious enough to recall each one
of them by name. You can say I did not recognize you, which is true, but you cannot say my account is untrue
because I did not recognize you.
I do not recall the print having "a brown sepia like color". It was an 8.5x11 sheet of white paper with the Moorman
image printed on it on my b&w printer, and then mounted on a piece of white cardboard. So it has to be you stating
an untruth about a sepia image.
I do not recall "blowing anyone off". Fetzer, Mantik and I were busy. I was taking photos. I do not recall you
or anyone else approaching me. A small crowd had gathered about 20 feet to the south to watch us, but I had
NO interaction with ANY of them and did not recognize anyone I knew. If that amounts to "blowing you off", that
is your interpretation. I do not recall ANYONE asking me ANY questions. You are presenting a false picture
of what was happening. If Mantik recognized you and invited you to look in the transit I was not aware of it, but
it may have happened. I was only aware of him asking Galanor. I gave Galanor the Moorman image at his
request.
So your statement:
"Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true."
IS IN ITSELF SIMPLY NOT TRUE! I do not know why you are interjecting this false claim.
I was busy. If I "blew you off" it was because you were interrupting what I was doing. I did not know you from
Adam. Sorry if that deflates your ego. I have no memory of anyone even saying anything to me, and did not
find out till much later that you were even present.
I think you should specify what was not true about the experiment, or withdraw your FALSE CLAIM.
Jack
Jack,
Allow me to spell it out for you as clearly as I possibly can.
What I am saying is not true is your claim that I “looked without any comment to any of us” and that “Any comments from him will be a dozen years late.”
The fact is that after looking through the transit I spoke with Dr. Mantik about the alignment being very close horizontally but off vertically because it did not account for the gap. After that I also talked to both you and Fetzer.
Therefore, your claim that I “looked without any comment to any of us” and that “Any comments from him will be a dozen years late.” is completely false.
Is that clear enough for you?
Todd
you WCR pristine evidence type, lone nut guys are taking a pasting not only here, but other web forums as well... ya made your stand, lost so live with it and move on... stipend time is coming to a close.... all your lone nut hopes and dreams are in Bugliosi/Hanks/HBO hands.... not an enviable position, I must say. Especially with Oliver Stone pondering in the wings. O-U-C-H
-
...and I might add, a kind man whose sole mission in life is a passion for truth.
I searched for some words, then realized I couldn't say it any better than Jack White just did.
What complete BS I can’t think of a less appropriate word to describe Peter than “kind” or a member who less deserves being so described. More than any other member he makes unprovoked personal attacks on other members. Their sin is disagreeing with his POV, not infrequently he labels them some variant of Nazi (SS, brownshirt, kapo etc).
my goodness, Redd Foxx won't be happy with THAT response....
-
And any others continually involved in the ONGOING and NEVER ENDING debate. You are ruining the forum. The spirit of debate and forwarding of new ideas from that debate is important but is that what is going on here? I fully understand that it is up to me to avoid the threads of these "debates" that I do not care for but they just keep cropping up and spreading. Like Cancer. I can not be the only person who feels this way. Not everyone on the forum is a "researcher". Although I have read many, many books about the conspiracy that killed JFK, I (and others like me I suspect) have much to learn still. I rely on the forum for new information and ideas about the case. I think that what is happening with the film/photography crowd is no longer moving towards new ideas and learning, if it ever was.
concerning the Zapruder film and issues that surround it, what your seeing Justin is simple minded, lone nut-xxxxx reaction to NEW ideas. Quite frankly, all the nutter-trolls EVER do is overreact to new ideas... it is NOT in their vested interests to entertain new ideas, thus disagreeing with the 1964 Warren Commission Report. They can't intelligently dispute with any degree of certainty, the new ideas, they're simply left with attacking the presenter of the new messenge(s).
Honestly most CTer's look at possible Zapruder film alteration as just another WCR fabrication-lie brick in the road...
-
Another study of the missing windows in the Moorman Polaroid.
Jack
LOL! Close enough, now thats funny. You need to show the exact left edge of Zapruders clothing...I don't see where you did that. Did I miss something?
what's funny is this, Jack. I'd be telling the trolls this: read it and weep dudes, if you dosagree get the latest version of the alleged original, provide its provenance, post it here --then, we'll take it from there....What you lone nut trolls need to do is some original research.... in short, get off your lazy rearends and show us your BEEF!
So Craig, ya got yourself a small stable of wannabes these days, so put the trolls to work, get the original photos and films get them up here....
Dude this is getting boring, that's spelled B-O-R-I-N-G Put that newbie caddie to work!
-
Bronson Crop.
thanks robin for reminding me...
this is the one in bronson where marilyn sitzmans legs look like elephant trunks and they did not she had very good legs but not in the photo.....b 
I'd recognize old ABE Zapruder and Ms. Sitzman anywhere (not)! What we need here Jerry Logan is foundation! Can you provide same?
-
http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html
"Jack White first made a name for himself by trying to show that the famous photographs (e.g., Fig. 1) of accused Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle in his back yard had been falsified. Claiming, among other things, that he had found discrepancies between the measurements of that rifle taken from the photo, and other photographs of the rifle recovered from the Texas School Book Depository, White maintained that Oswald was holding a different rifle than the one believed to be used to shoot President Kennedy.
Unfortunately under examination before the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations White's evidence completely fell apart. He demonstrated almost no understanding of the mathematical and geometrical principles of photogrammetry. He admitted to having received no training in photogrammetry or the forensic analysis of photographs.
His embarrassment before Congress did not stop White from continuing his research on the Kennedy assassination, although his findings remain questionable. Some researchers into Kennedy's assassination consider White something of a crackpot. "
Jack, should you really be "calling out" anyone?
you know, if you look at the clouds in the sky you can see anything you want to see.
Hey, hey, hey Dugan....
You another of those trolls that haunt JFK boards or do you really have something to offer in way of case research? Wouldn't want to think you're just another lone nut wannabe's of 6th Floor persuasion.... Btw, ya gotta be original son, ya making your self look like, a hopeful, perhaps Craig Lamson will recognize ya, but don't hold out too much hope...
Cordially yours in research...
Redd Foxx
p.s. till you prove your JFK assassination research mettle, calling out anyone here is downright foolishness on your part..... Carry on...
-
The answer is most assuredly “yes,” provided one is prepared to interpret certain circumstantial evidence in a fashion that allows for that conclusion.
1. Why did Oswald go through the hassle of obtaining a phony early out from duty when he had so little time left to serve anyway?
I have long argued that the speediness of his exit from the Marine Corps, with the USMC’s apparent connivance, indicates Oswald’s hardship discharge was a spurious ruse. Either his command was unaccountably lenient toward Oswald, or he was remarkably prescient in knowing precisely which lies to tell in order to obtain the discharge.
For some clear but undetermined reason, it seemed imperative to have him arrive in the Soviet Union at the earliest possible opportunity. And an invisible hand - in a superior position in the bureaucratic food chain - facilitated the discharge by prevailing upon the USMC to dummy up the necessary rationale.
As WC documents disclose, LHO’s choice of Helsinki as an entrance point coincided almost precisely with the CIA’s own concurrent “discovery” that the Soviet consul there had unique discretion in granting entry visas without lengthy bureaucratic delays. Either he was remarkably prescient, or - again - we see an otherwise invisible hand directing Oswald toward a goal, via the path of least resistance.
When the Soviets failed to greet Oswald warmly as a genuine defector, he visited Consul Snyder under the pretext of wishing to renounce his citizenship. That it was a ruse designed for the consumption of the eavesdropping Soviets is indicated by two factors: first, that he loudly proclaimed his intention to betray US military secrets to the Soviets, an act against his own self-interest that served no purpose but to invite closer Soviet interest in him; and, second, that he failed to effect such renunciation when Snyder advised him to come back to do so, which Oswald did not.
It is possible this Moscow Embassy charade served a third purpose, unknown perhaps even to Oswald, who seems to have been following a script written by others.
Let us hypothesize, as many have already done over the past five decades, that the downing of Francis Gary Powers’ U2 overflight - launched in direct violation of Eisenhower’s own prohibition - was designed to sabotage the Peace Summit between Ike and Nikita, which is precisely what transpired as a result.
Yet the Soviets had no known means of accessing the necessary technical information regarding the U2's capabilities in order to shoot it down, and no means of shooting it down if the plane was flying at maximum altitude..
If the plot was designed to scuttle the Summit, then the parties responsible for that plot had only one true option. They need sabotage the U2 to ensure that it could be shot down at something lower than maximum altitude. They could do this with little fear of their plot being exposed, for the pilot would never survive being hit, and if he somehow miraculously did, all U2 pilots were ordered to kill themselves (with the means thoughtfully provided them) rather than allow being captured. The plotter(s) had every assurance that the only meaningful witness would not survive. (Powers did survive, and failed to commit suicide as instructed.)
But in order for said plot to succeed, the plotter(s) also needed a superficially viable - albeit entirely false - narrative of how the Soviets managed to achieve the missile accuracy to bring down a stealth flight at 100,000 feet.
Enter Comrade Oswald, stage left, loudly announcing his intention to provide the Soviets with every military secret he had learned during his Marine Corps tenure at Atsugi’s CIA-operated U2 base.
It is imperative to note that the plans for the Peace Summit had been made when LHO suddenly sought a discharge for which he was ineligible, and applied for a passport by stating an intent to travel to countries that would have otherwise disqualified him for said passport. It is also instructive to note that Powers himself allowed that Oswald might have provided the Soviets with the intelligence necessary to down his flight.
2. Why did Oswald write to the Albert Schweitzer College from Moscow advising of a date of arrival?
Speculation: the arrival of said letter, irrespective of what it contained, was a signal of something, perhaps that he had arrived in Moscow or that the Soviets weren’t biting, or whatever. This is routine tradecraft disguised as something so mundane it wouldn’t raise a suspicious eyebrow among Soviets screening such outbound mail.
3. Why was Oswald not prosecuted for his threat to give the Soviets classified information?
And, for that matter, why was he never even debriefed by CIA upon repatriation, when the Agency had multiple programs to do just that? (Of course there is now ample evidence that he was, but that’s not the charade script that everybody stuck to at the time, was it?)
Anyone with the means to facilitate Oswald’s early USMC discharge and his easy entry into the Soviet Union presumably had sufficient sway to ensure that proxy agent Oswald wouldn’t be punished for having served his “patriotic” purpose.
Robert...
Great to see your posts again....
-
I can find no mention of Altgens disputing any of his photos in his Warren Commission testimony. But here's one interesting thing he DID say:
"The car never did stop. It was proceeding along in a slow pace and I stepped out in the curb area and made another picture as the Secret Service man stepped upon the rear step of the Presidential car and went to Mrs. Kennedy's aid."
how praytell does one "stepped upon" (onto) a vehicle traveling at 8-10MPH? Jump onto, dive onto, leap onto... yeah, but "STEP"?
this is the one in bronson where marilyn sitzmans legs look like elephant trunks and they did not she had very good legs but not in the photo.....b 
Abraham Zapruder and Jeanne LeGon
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Greg Burnham posts occasionally at JFKResearch, perhaps you'll address your question there?