David G. Healy

And for the English speakers amongst us??? settle down there Andy, you have enough to deal with considering ya can't even fix that shank in your golf shot -- so how can you understand the conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States? Sheeeesh laddie!

for those nutter-trolls that have a very difficult time wrapping their minds around simple conspiracy: Jack has given you all reason for life. After all, why else would those chase Jack all over the net trashing his comments and results of his studies, then dogging him everywhere he turns? (in severely couched terms of course...) The nutter-xxxxx family of naysayers has a serious PR, uncorrectable problem, time and evidence. The best shot the nutter-trolls have is to rally false bravado and diversion then hope for the best.... Methinks Jack understands he's an easy mark for anti-conspiracy fools, everywhere. Yet, he persists.... Sounds like a believer and a patriot to me. Unlike those both IN (which I find ludicrious) and out of uniform one finds hiding on the sidelines here.... Forgive this CTer for coming to a conclusion, it's simple minded enough that even the truest nutter-trolls can comprehend, ya see (and here's a simple question for them to answer): where do any of these latter-day nutter-trolls appear in public voicing their concerns concerning Jack Whites findings? Surely media outlets somewhere would listen to them. Yet the best they can do is the Education Forum and xxxxx the internet? No videotape presentations, no university/college public appearances debating these issues.... no television program discussion, what's with these folks, camera shy? Ya see folks, nutter-trolls KNOW they can't defeat the steamroller called common sense-evidence AND time, so character assassination is all that's left (well, a liberal amount of newsgroup disinfo too). Comparing DP and the Ed Forum, reminds me of the COPA/Lancer debate of yore? So, simply sniff out those individuals most criticized by the prevailing nutter-xxxxx internet windbags, they usually send nutter-trolls agog. Checkout those internet boards depending on donations rather than advertising -- that's ALWAYS a good place to start... p.s. ya guys need to grow up, I doubt there is anyone, more criticized on JFK assassination related internet boards than Jack White, well, Gary Mack ranks right up there -- and also imagine, both those guys were JFK assassination research partners at one time.... (it's a conspiracy I tell ya). Best to save contempt for the alt.conspiracy.jfk board, elite nutter-trolls get thrashed there on a regular basis, including that notorious internet nutter-xxxxx composite David Von Pein.... The place is also known for uncovering longtime thought CT's (through newsgroup debate) that aren't really CTer's... yet, they to soldier on to this day living ultimate lone nut lie[/b].

I hope they don't use blanks. Well, according to many JFK and Hugh Grant do have ..uh..much in common. yep, and right-wing nutter-trolls sit with envy and toy with computer monitors and OTHER things.... boring! Hang in there, help is on the way!

Andy, You really need to stay off the golf courses for a bit -- at least till you get that shank shot that's now hooking fixed. Wow! If you can show me a shank 'that hooks' then we really might have discovered a magic bullet welcome to Dallas, Andy! ALL things are possible

Andy, You really need to stay off the golf courses for a bit -- at least till you get that shank shot that's now hooking fixed. Wow!

I suspect registration attendance is down this year for a number of reasons (lack of interest for one), especially considering out-of-towners.... LANCER might want to put a few active investigator-researchers especially those that aren't intimidated by lone nut-trolls, on their 2009 speaker agenda. Especially if they have media presence.... So how? By paying them to participate of course and that is GREAT. Dr. Mantik and Jim Di will draw.... (COPA will also benefit having those two being in the Dallas neighborhood). The LAST thing you want in a longstanding conference of this type is to have no one other than locals show up.... When it comes to investigating US political assassinations (and consiracy), COPA will be the last organization standing (including self-serving museums).... and for damn good reasons. KUTGW, Bill Kelly! DHealy

David Von Pein aka Dave Reitzes will NOT be happy to hear that! LMAO!

above sounds like declarative statements instead of thoughts.... just a point!

It really must be simple. Bill Miller not theory either.... how we made the BIG buckeroos -- just click on the url, take you right there. That simple enough for wannabe Photoshop guru's ROTFLMFAO!

http://maccreate.com/featured/improving-im...w-and-highlight get yourself an Apple, laddie! Simple as ABC.

rewriting WEBSTER'S eh? Hey Len you've been nailed, acceptance is the key.... carry on.... Where's Wild Bill Millah when you need him!

Mark, at that time the gun market was literally flooded with Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, the wholesalers were shipping them out to outlets like Klein's by the thousands. I belive its at least possible that with bulk selling of that size the outlets were sent a mixture of both shortened and unshortened rifles. The vast majority would have been the shortened inaccurate type certainly, but at least a few 'lucky' outlets would have received some of the accurate unshortened type. If this was the case then because of the bad name Mannlicher-Carcano rifles had, somewhat unfairly, acquired plus the fact that Klein's had got them so cheaply it just wouldn't have been economically viable to separate the good from the bad. If I'm right, and I admit its only a reasoned guess, Klein's would have advertised them all as 91/24 type because of advertising standard's. Which means of course that the rifle Oswald received from Klein's and the rifle found on the sixth floor could be one and the same. As to if Oswald actually fired that rifle at the President or not isn't really relevant to this post. Any thoughts? Disagreement's are welcome. As for the other points raised by the 'youtube' video maker I belive the guy's 100% correct. I myself have pointed out on several post's that "the recovery of the rifle was filmed by Tom Alyea of WFAA-TV, and his footage shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano." and how did one determine that the MC found on the 6th floor was fired on Nov 22nd 1963?

Fetzer gets published, simple as that -- nutter-trolls can't, they languish in the dark recesses of their minds hurling disinfo nuggets on whatever board allows them to post (including this board).... End of Story!

FAIL? You're still here putting up a less than feeble fight aren't ya? Tinkster, Mack and Co., too.... The credibility of the alleged in-camera Z-film is in question, so just who is it that's hiding? See below: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html everything you need to know right at the above url. 6 years and all we hear is whining, ya can't debunk Z-film alteration, wonder why?

$20 bucks and 6th Floor Museum pays the shipping fee?

methinks you Evan need to review what is known re updated information concerning 9/11 rather than what you WANT to believe.... Fetzer has more solid ground under him than you, Len or Craigster when it comes to this topic.... All your dancing won't change that... Come on David, Fetzer publishes the crap by Costella that is completely thrashed here: www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm He can't deal honestly with the truth. Why should we expect him to deal with 9/11 any differently? Once a snake, always a snake. tsk-tsk heard it all before Craig.... ya simply can't find a Ph.D in Physics (optics or any other category for that matter) to back up lone nut contentions. Ya got three (3) of them contributing to TGZFH, and YOU can't find one to support you in 6 years? C'mon Guy! What are they paying you for?

methinks you Evan need to review what is known re updated information concerning 9/11 rather than what you WANT to believe.... Fetzer has more solid ground under him than you, Len or Craigster when it comes to this topic.... All your dancing won't change that...

Can anyone point out the "lies and distortions" about Van Jones? His own recorded words taken IN CONTEXT were what brought him down. And what not have "white folks riot in the streets"? It's been a standard rallying call from BLACK american for years.... And Hitler...sheesh the left spent 8 years calling Bush Hitler, have they forgotten so soon? first time I've heard any liberal calling George dashrub, Hitler! Moron, idiot, brainless -- yes, but Hitler? Nah! Of course I've heard the reich-wing call Obama Hitler say 4-500 times over the past 6 months.... You still wandering in the dark out there laddie? You nutter-trolls need a few new scripts, there Craigster!

only hope for .john is to get Jim DiEugenio mad...

Quit babbling and deal with this simple fact Pat, the fold of fabric on JFK's back is, for the most part, TO THE LEFT of the centerline of his back. How do we know this? The simple fact that the top edge of this fold is in sunlight and we can see the SHADOW LINE created by JFK's. neck FALL OVER the top of this fold. UNIMPEACHABLE. Everything else you and your band of friends are pushing is simply caca. Here is the shadow that is cast by JFK's neck and falls over the shirt collar, over the jacket collar, over the jacket back, down into the fabric fold, back up again and finally crossing over the top of the fold. Note that this is EXACTLY how the unbending of light, shadow and angle of incidence DEMANDS the shadows fall in Croft....and imagine that...they do! The unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence trump all of your mindless handwaving. Thats how the real world works Pat, If the top edge of fold is in sunlight, it is to the left of the centerline of JFK,s back. If we can see the shadow that is cast by JFK's neck, that shadow MUST be at or near the center line of JFK's back. WHy? because of the unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Amazing how this worls, don't you think? Lets look at a diagram of the sun in relation to JFK's body as seen in Croft and see if the theory matches reality. Gee, the theory and reality match perfectly..imagine that. Yo and your friends need to get over it Pat, because you screwed up BIGTIME. The fold of fabric seen in Croft is just that, a fold of fabric and the bulk of it is LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back. That is unimpeachable One simple little shadow. Amazing don't you think? This simple little shadow throws a major monkey wrench into the world of JFK CT's. Why? Because it proves in an unimpeachable manner that there was at least three inches of fabric folded on JFK's back at Betzner. You can't say the jacket fell, because thats not true. If you want to discredit the single bullet theory you must now account for this three plus inches of fabric as seen in Betzner. I don't give a hoot about the rest of the argument. I deal in the photos and what they say. The photos say in an unimpeachable fashion that there was three plus inches of fabric folded on JFK's back in Betzner and that this fold for the most part was left of the centerline of JFK's back in Croft. Simple, sweet, concise and backed by the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Trumps the heck out of your ignorant handwaving..... ahem... please comment on Speer's comment in post #55 this thread.... Time for you to get on the same page.... btw, who does your graphics, they stink?

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo! You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really? As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better... Craig, the disinformation you peddle is that my intellectual honesty is questionable, and that peopls those reading my webpage should DOUBT everything Geeze Pat, if your mom and her girl scouts are as inept as you are when to comes to matters photographic, no doubt they would stuff it up as badly as you did with Croft. I'm not having an argument with you Pat, just keeping you honest, if that's possible. You see you screwed the pooch big time with your oh so ignorant notion tha that the bunch is Croft was his RIGHT SHOULDER! Never mind that the unbending laws of light, shadow and geometry show you are simply full of caca. And what is the response by patspeer.com to the news that that they got it all wrong as shown by unimpeachalbe proof? Does patspeer.com correct it's gross error? No... instead pastspeer.com continues to fill the internet with pure disinformation. And low and behold the owner of said site takes others to task for not telling the "truth" while he does the same himself. patspeer.com and it's author...intellectually honest? Not even close. Just another ct who can't deal with truth. As fo the FBI and the Secret Service? Don't have a clue nor do I care. I don't deal in speculation. "Recreations" are a fools errand. Now who's proven himself to be the disinformation peddler? You "don't care" whether or not the Secret Service or FBI deliberately faked a reenactment in order to deceive the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone, but fill this forum with attacks on my character because I have a different interpretation of the word "shoulder" than you do? Now, I would have thought the many times I've differed with my fellow CTs on issues like photo alteration and body alteration would have convinced you that, right or wrong, I'm trying to get at the truth of this thing, and don't deserve to be harassed in such a manner. But no, I dare think the Federal Government lied about something over 40 years ago...and that makes makes me fair game... P.S. thanks again for setting me straight on the frame rate/film speed issue. Exactly what "disinformation" have I offered? Oh yea, NONE! I've not studied the FBI, SS situation you mention. Since I don't have an opinion (and I don't do "opinions") and don't care, now I'm somehow peddling disinformation? Once again you prove your logic truly sucks. You don't get to have an "interpertation" when it comes to Croft. It's black and white. The unbendable laws of light, shadow and the angle of incidence of the sunlight in relation to JFK are not up for "interpretation". The proof is unimpeachable. Now eihter you have the intellectual honesty to deal with this unimpeachable fact or you don't. That Pat is what decides your character. You make your own bed... Question the government all you wish. I have no problem with that at all. But when you make a serious error and fail to correct it, you get what you get. Craig, use a dictionary. Learn the meaning of words. You haven't been arguing that I am mistaken on one of a thousand arguments on my webpage. You have been calling my interpretation of Kennedy's shoulder "disinformation". Here is the common understanding of the meaning of this word. "Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is synonymous with and sometimes called Black propaganda." Yea, and since you are unwilling to alter your false statements about the fold of fabric on JFK's Jacket in Croft and since your error has been pointed out numerous times, you are deliberately spreading this false information. End of story. You are saying that I am deliberately lying on a minor point on a webpage involving years of research, the vast majority of which is irrefutable, in order to deceive people. Well, to deceive people about what, exactly? Well, since my point is on a chapter about the single-bullet theory, it would seem you are suggesting that the single-bullet theory would be supportable without my making this point, which is positively LUDICROUS. (You, in fact, refuse to argue in its favor.) You are also suggesting that EVERYTHING I say or write is questionable because I am as yet unswayed by your arcane argument that some barely discernible shadow line proves Kennedy's clothing was bunched to a significant degree. I have asked you if this bunching is to the extent it could lift the bullet hole on JFK's jacket and shirt in line with a trajectory from the sniper's nest. You have indicated you are unconcerned with that. If I recall, I have also asked you if you could re-produce this photo to demonstrate your point. You say that would be pointless. Essentially, you are stomping your feet on a minor point and saying that anyone who doesn't believe you is a disinformationist. It's not a "minor" point. The evidence provided in Croft is unimpeachable. There is a large fold of fabric TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back. The laws of light, shadow and the angle of incidence of the sun in relation to JFK in Croft prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. That you consider this unimpreachable evidence "arcane" speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty or rather lack thereof. When we move past Croft and on to Betzner we find the same fold obscuring JFK's jacket collar. This too is unimpeachable due to the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Given the jacket collar is at least 1.25 inches tall, this fold of fabric including returns equals at least 3 inches of fabric. Again unimpeachable. So where does THREE INCHES plus of folded fabric on JFK's back in Betzner leave your argument that the PROVEN fabric bunch on JFK's back in both Croft and Betzner is ...how did you put it..."a Bunch of baloney". Oh yes, it leaves your argument IN THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY. This is exactly the kind of behavior people have come to expect from those you frequently criticize. Well Pat since you, like most CT's can't seem to deal with unimpeachable fact that destroys a theory in which you are well vested, this deserves to be exposed to the light of day. Sorry if it ruffles your feathers. Which is why I suggested that you, if anyone, is the disinformationist. I mean, to take one point on which I may be mistaken and extrapolate from this that I am a deliberate xxxx out to deceive people into questioning the single-bullet theory, when there are dozens of far more relevant points that positively put it in the trash can, is deceptive, to say the least. There was at least THREE inches of fabric folded on JFK's back in Betzner. For this I have provided unimpeachable proof using the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. I've even providede experimental, empirical evidence to back it up. So now, given your listed defination of disinformation, you claim I an a disinformationalist. Amazing. Not only is your intellectual honesty in question your logic is as well. You need to learn the first rule of holes Pat. As far as Croft, you don't even understand the context of my argument the bunch of clothing is on the shoulder. It had previously been argued by John Hunt that the bunch of clothing was significant. He had used the photo in the upper left corner of this slide to sell this. No, I understand your failed and very silly argument completely. You however seem ill-equipped to understand why your argument is pure caca. BTW, Hunt is correct. http://www.patspeer.com/coatdoublecheck.jpg The black line suggested that the clothing stuck straight out from Kennedy's back, and that one could measure this amount of clothing, and that this amount was enough to bring the bullet hole on the jacket in line with the trajectory from the sniper's nest. A look at the color Croft, however, convinced me otherwise. It is 100% clear to me the photo is taken at an angle to JFK's back and that it is not in profile. It is 100% clear to me that the "bunch" appearing to stick straight out in Hunt's photo, is a much smaller "bunch" on Kennedy's back and his right shoulder seen at an angle. And here you fail. The large portion of the fold as seen in Croft is to the LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back as proven by the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. You simply can't refute this unimpeachable fact with your continued, and ignorant handwaving. Never mind that once we get to Betzner it has been proven this fabric bunch is THREE plus inches of fabric! So again what does three inches of PROVEN fabric fold do to your claims If you want to re-create this photo and demonstrate your belief the clothing sticks straight out from the back, and that this lifts the bullet hole location on the clothing in line with a shot from the sniper's nest exiting Kennedy's throat, fire away. I've provided proof of concept images that support my work, can YOU say the same? You can't? Amazing...just handwaving for Pat. But, until that point, we'll have to agree to disagree. You can pretend to "disagree" untill the cows come home, but it will not change the fact that your work is provably wrong and you refuse acknowlege this fact. I really don't know what you have posted on the rest of your website but if its anything like the drool you have posted about the jacket bunch.... FWIW, even though your attack on me is totally misguided, I wouldn't stoop so low as to suggest that you "fill the internet with pure disinformation." I mean, where do you get this stuff? The David Von Pein playbook? Misguided? You knowing post false information and somehow pointing out his fact is misguided? Amazing. Tell us Pat, exactly what is it you are claiming to do in regards to the record in the JFK case? appears most here (with the exception I suspect of new member and Josiah Thompson water carrier Jer Logan), are getting upset with you there son.... apparently they're FINALLY getting onto your game... well, there's always that alter ego Shutterbun at alt.conspiracy.jfk fame, that alias of late seems to be getting its rearend kicked too, imagine that.... sigh, so many aliases, so few nutter-trolls left and so little time.... Carry on!

Typical paranoid conspiracy theorist drivel. It is clear to most people of any intellect that the Zapruder Film was not faked. Nobody has come remotely close to proving otherwise. What I find laughable is that, at one time, people like you believed the film to be genuine, because it suggested a shot from the front. When those who understood physics and ballistics pointed out that it demonstrates shots from behind, it became a fake. While I'm on the subject, proof of a second shooter on the grassy knoll is not proof of a conspiracy. There could have been two people operating independently. It's a remote possibilty, sure, but infinitely more likely than a fake Zapruder film! It is a common strategy amongst desperate conspiracy theorists to continually dredge up already debunked "studies" from the bottom of the cess pit. I'm just surprised that people bother responding to this utter nonsense. Paul. yes indeed while you're on the subject -- it's originality son.... nutter-trolls need originality, its the same old "whine", we've awaited the next generation nutter-xxxxx we haven't be disappointed .... Thanks for your input....

amazing how many things in this investigation were "misunderstood", including Dealey Plaza eye witnesses to the limo slowdown/stop... And here the entire FBI couldn't tell the difference between film speed from frame rate.... perhaps FBI-SA Shaneyfelt should of been consulted on this too. And to think the LHO/SBT shooting sequence depends on the Z-film frame rate (fps). What a lone nut farce.....! Worse than the 3 Stooges... amazing how many things in this "research" were "misunderstood"... And here the star "physicist" of the CT crowd can't understand basic physics nor the properties of light and shadow.... perhaps this "physicist" should have consulted a decent photographer.... And to think this "physicist" claims to have proven beyond a doubt the z film fake.... What a CT farce.....! Worse than the 3 Stooges... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm perhaps our star physicist and your attorney, Jer Logan can get together, review the alleged Z-film, compare college degrees and come to a conclusion, eh.... Then the ever present CT bomb, that no one knows whats on the original Zapruder in-camera all we see this day are copies of the *alleged* altered film.... Now you have your hissy fit by your lonesome, us big kids have the end of summer to celebrate..... anf btw guy, think you can prove that film all locked up tight at NARA is the "original Z-film"? In your fondest dreams .... the best we can get these days from the lone nut-xxxxx camp is N-O-I-S-E, the latest being Jer 'the nutter att'y' Logan... Carry on! I take the sputtering, name-calling and subject shifting to mean that you haven't figured out how Zapruder got his 414PD to run at 24 frames per second. Maybe we'll all look the other way and not remember your first post. Did someone mention NOISE? oh sitdown, Jer.... I forgot more about the camera than even Zavada knows.... so chill dude! Best let Lampoon do your talking... I'm not impressed as others with you Tink, and Bab's.... Of course you Nutter-trolls certainly needed someone to change the subject, so you'll do for the time being....

amazing how many things in this investigation were "misunderstood", including Dealey Plaza eye witnesses to the limo slowdown/stop... And here the entire FBI couldn't tell the difference between film speed from frame rate.... perhaps FBI-SA Shaneyfelt should of been consulted on this too. And to think the LHO/SBT shooting sequence depends on the Z-film frame rate (fps). What a lone nut farce.....! Worse than the 3 Stooges... amazing how many things in this "research" were "misunderstood"... And here the star "physicist" of the CT crowd can't understand basic physics nor the properties of light and shadow.... perhaps this "physicist" should have consulted a decent photographer.... And to think this "physicist" claims to have proven beyond a doubt the z film fake.... What a CT farce.....! Worse than the 3 Stooges... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm perhaps our star physicist and your attorney, Jer Logan can get together, review the alleged Z-film, compare college degrees and come to a conclusion, eh.... Then the ever present CT bomb, that no one knows whats on the original Zapruder in-camera all we see this day are copies of the *alleged* altered film.... Now you have your hissy fit by your lonesome, us big kids have the end of summer to celebrate..... anf btw guy, think you can prove that film all locked up tight at NARA is the "original Z-film"? In your fondest dreams .... the best we can get these days from the lone nut-xxxxx camp is N-O-I-S-E, the latest being Jer 'the nutter att'y' Logan... Carry on!

amazing how many things in this investigation were "misunderstood", including Dealey Plaza eye witnesses to the limo slowdown/stop... And here the entire FBI couldn't tell the difference between film speed from frame rate.... perhaps FBI-SA Shaneyfelt should of been consulted on this too. And to think the LHO/SBT shooting sequence depends on the Z-film frame rate (fps). What a lone nut farce.....! Worse than the 3 Stooges...