David G. Healy

great stuff Bill Kelly... the Jersey Shore pieces, rock-n-roll anecdotes including Woodstock ... you should write a damn book.... seriously!

Ahh, vintage Bill Kelly --- I can almost feel the Jersey shore, er Woodstock mud beneath my feet... Recently heard a snippet on NPR (interview with one of the organizers of Woodstock) "...the bands all sounded horrible for the first 20 minutes of their set, that's how long it took for *black beauties* to kick in...". He went on, "...the only group/artist at Woodstock that had its entire act together was Santana!"... During College of San Mateo days (1966-68) a little known singer played at the college cafeteria, Country Joe MacDonald (we had other groups show up there on ocassion, Buffalo Springfield, The Byrds, etc). When Joe showed up on stage at Woodstock we were dumbstruck, for a moment ...... (the San Francisco bay-area was a great place for music in the late '60's, over 500 bands to choose from, Some could even play, imagine that!)

McAdams was not suggesting that calling someone a crackpot makes the name-caller a Nazi. McAdams is just saying that only Nazi's (totalitarians) would want to PROSECUTE "crackpots" (as in CRIMINAL PROSECUTION) on account of their beliefs, and I am sure most members would agree with that particular sentiment. Of course McAdams was falsely attributing those sentiments to John Simkin, but he has apologized, in a fairly half-hearted sort of way. What we got here is a failure to c'mmunicate. all you need to know about Paul (McAdams alias) Nolan, er John McAdams... http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html (half way down the article) p.s. there is a REAL Paul Nolan - JFK researcher as the above article states...

After 10's of thousands of internet, USENET, forum posts -- he disappears. Amazing....

LMFAO! LaRouche belongs in a straight-jacket..... nuff said!

last I checked majority of posters on AAJ (McAdams USENET board) ARE lone nut-trolls. Those that think they can change nutters, discuss or even persuade them otherwise are dreaming... .john is locked into 1999.... IMHO, he's pretty low on the disinfo scale these day's, many have raced to head that pact.... David Von Pein, aka Dave Reitzes-pieces come to mind, the guy has to have at least 7 websites and blogs supporting the unsupportable -- the WCR-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome nonsense (and that doesn't count the Bugliosi AMAZON gigs or YouTUBE) and who knows (or cares) how many internet aliases.

see below: http://www.paullee.com/jfk/bunchedjacket.html

mcadams can't get near beer, he breaks out in aliases.... as does David Von Pein (aka Dave Reitzes-pieces)

ahh Mike, beauty as well as reality is in the eye of the beholder, eh? -- "bizzare backwaters?" Assassination is not a tool of politics? -- You aren't going to tell us the US sllide into oblivion and disrepute didn't start with the political assassinations of the 60's are ya? If that's the case when will you be rewriting history books there, Mike? Evidently you haven't followed the numbers on this board very close Mike, the JFK assassination/conspiracy: numero uno! It's not JFK assassination contributors that brought down the "lively" educator discussions, that's YOUR fault -- whining about that is a waste of everyones time and I doubt any of this boards conspiracy participants even hear you.... So as far as "grasp of reality" is concerned: would your time be better spent developing secondary education curriculum(s) which actually have merit, you guys are cranking out morons these days.... Is it any wonder why critical (as well as creative) thinking seem to be non-existent these days? Perhaps it's simply "secondary educator" FEAR?

you've gotta be kidding, right? The Len and Evan Show? How quaint...

Barb, dont you know Dave's idea of staying on topic means insults and smears....Dave just doesn't 'do' evidence and research. LOL I came to know that rather quickly. There's at least one on every channel. <g> Bests, Barb :-) think .john has noticed Denise yet, Barb? After all, ALL lone nutter-xxxxx deeds do get paid.... Carry on!

Barb, dont you know Dave's idea of staying on topic means insults and smears....Dave just doesn't 'do' evidence and research. LOL just the facts young man.... no whining when the big boys are around..... this isn't .johnnies -- and where you hidin' Wild Bill Millah?

You keep saying this, Pamela, both here and on the mod group .... over and over and over, yet you never attempt to actually discuss any witness who you think has been dismissed or bashed, you never point out which witness statements you think have relevance to the events. Pointing out that a witness placed the damage in the wrong part of the windshield is not gratuitous bashing and dismissal, for example. Putting forth what ones have found and inviting discussion ... which IS encouraging others to think for themselves and voice their opinions ... is not any "heavy-handed tactic." Presenting new information, as in this case, the Taylor affidavit, does move research forward. Nothing here was about the WC, certainly not about defending it. The WC had no way of knowing that years later someone would fail to either read thoroughly, or comprehend completely, the Taylor Report and would cite it as evidence of a hole through the windshield. Or that for 29 years following THAT, others. including you, would have picked that up and run with it, continuing to promote that mistaken notion sans any additional full reading and understanding of what the document actually says themselves. You do nothing but criticize others, leaving nothing but a trail of innuendo, not so veiled allegations and labels ... and inflammatory rhetoric about "WC defenders." Regardless of the subject. This is just one more in a long line where you have done the exact same thing. Your nose is out of joint at me over my undertaking some fact checking on Judyth Baker's story a year and a half ago. Since you are one of her biggest defenders, and one who has actually given her money, you couldn't stand that, especially since, at every turn, claims she makes crash headlong into documented facts. Anything that mentions John Hunt's work has the same effect on you after the trouncing you took in a quite long discussion a few years ago involving the Dallas evidence going to the FBI lab in D.C. This is not the place or time to revisit any of that ... this is about whether or not there was a hole in the windshield, but the back alley agenda and any tactics are yours ... and is obvious to anyone who knows your history in some of those discussions. Most people here don't. I wish I had a dollar for every post you have done since our windshield article came out that says nothing on topic, but merely fans flames, casts innuendo and steers any hope of actual discussion about what was presented further and further off course. Perhaps that is what you want. If you think witnesses have been dismissed unfairly, then discuss the witnesses and what you disagree with in what we wrote. If you have additional insight or information ... bring it out. Pick one. Let's go. :-) no whining Barb, so stay on topic.... this isn't .johnnies hidey-hole.... thanks!

That has nothing to do with me. When the evidence is overwhelming on one side of an argument, discussions tend to be one-sided. I base my arguments ONLY on the following: 1) The witness testimonies from Dealey Plaza, Parkland, and Bethesda, which, on the major points, are amazingly consistent. 2) The Dealey Plaza films and photos, which, on the major points, are amazingly consistent with the witness testimonies. 3) The properly prepared contemporaneous documents/film -- Burkley's death certificate, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, the FBI autopsy report, the lateral neck x-ray, and the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors -- are all amazingly consistent with the photographs and the witness testimony. 4) The location of the defects in the clothing. That's it. That's all I ever cite. People get discouraged when they have to rationalize away so much evidence, so my discussions do tend to be lop-sided. The reason I cite the clothing evidence most of the time is because I can't stand exposing the DP/P/B witnesses to the gratuitous witness bashing that always attends these discussions. So, yes, when the authority of evidence speaks so loudly, the discussion is going to be one-sided. Yes, Barb, you should understand there was a thread about the back wound since you wrote -- correct me if I'm wrong -- three posts on it before you declared victory and departed the field. That's funny, I swear I saw the name "Barb Junkkarinen" at the bottom of the page soon after several of my posts on the back wound thread. In fact, on July 7 one Barb Junkkarinen visited my bio page. :-> There's nothing you can respond to. The preponderance of evidence of JFK's T3-back/throat-entrance wounds is beyond reasonable doubt. Your belief in the high-back/throat-exit SBT-lite is based on something akin to religious faith, just like fundamentalist Christians and their 10,000 year old dinosaurs. Your subtext is unmistakable: a shot from the front is an open question. Don Jeffries scolded you for the exact same thing. Barb, you're like the little kid caught with her hand in the cookie jar who claimed to reach for the castor oil. :-> Those are your words, Barb, not mine. If there is a problem with your notions, the fault lies with the manufacturer. :-> If you don't want your unsupported assumptions about the "research terrain" challenged, may I kindly suggest you not advance those assumptions in an article posted on this forum? Everything in your article is subject to discussion, Barb. You're in no position to foreclose critique of your logical fallacies. Your article begs the question as to the existence of a frontal shot, and is thus a proper subject for discussion on this thread. I don't recall your involvement in any such efforts. And it's clear from your position on Kennedy's non-fatal wounds that you regard a frontal shot an open question. This is on-topic, Barb, whether you like it or not. The article is an exercise in gratuitous witness bashing, led by one Barb Junkkarinen, serial witness basher. Let's take an inventory of what you regard as "the research terrain." 1) Every witness who observed a hole in the windshield suffered a similar erroneous perception. 2) Every witness at Parkland who observed JFK's throat wound suffered a similar erroneous perception. 3) Every witness at Bethesda who observed JFK's back wound suffered a similar erroneous perception. Amazing coincidence of similar erroneous perceptions, I must say! Do we see a pattern here? The difference between the windshield issue and JFK's non-fatal wounds is that the wound locations are corroborated by official, contemporaneous documents and the observations of trained observers. You employ a double stand when it comes to weighing evidence, Barb, and it's always rigged to conclude that one witness or another is wrong about something relating to the conspiracy. The DP/P/B witnesses are patriotic, heroic Americans who have solemnly spoken to the truth of the Kennedy assassination, only to be sneered at or ignored by the US government, the mainstream media, and a bunch of pet-theory addled nabobs in the "JFK Critical Research Community." Clint Hill went to the morgue on a somber mission -- to bear witness to the nature and location of JFK's wounds. He testified thusly: "I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column." This location matches the hole in the shirt perfectly -- 5.75 inches below the top of the shirt collar. But according to Barb & Co., Clint Hill wasn't able to tell the difference between "about 6 inches" and "3 or 4 inches." This is an ability most of us develop long before kindergarten. Clint Hill, highly-trained observer, brave servant of his country, was sent to bear witness to the facts surrounding the murder of a US President -- but he was so incredibly incompetent that he made a mistake few pre-schoolers would make? Barb Junkkarinen, what you call "research terrain" is nothing but an obscenity. Rest assured, your serial witness bashing will stand to challenge. BRAVO Mr. Varnell.... Game-Set-Match

UH...Neither Davidson nor Martin has applied perspective correction to bring the two images into agreement. How in the world do you expect to make a comparison? can't find a physicist to debunk Dr. John Costella's work so you dig up an attorney who was a news photog 40+ years ago? PUL-eeeze.... LMFAO! Ya can't win the film-photo debate, ya lost the PR war years ago..... even FACE is out the window. Where's Wild Bill Miller when you need him? Gary what are you, Lampoon-Lamson and Dr. Thompson trying to feed the group here? Wow David you are a bit behind the storyliine. Do you need a cartooish storyboard to follow along? A few PhD's in Physics, one silly PhD in bullsnit and their trusty sidkick the "photoexpert who can't understand shadows" are stumped by these uimpeachable proofs that John P. Costella, PhD in physics, does not understand physics! www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com.coatella2.htm John P Costella and company are losing the PR war, the Photo/film war, and for sure Costella has lost face because he has been reduced to hiding under a rock down there in OZ. You need to get out more davie, you have lost touch with reality. I'm here to serve you lone nut-trollsters there Craig. My one true function in life, to show how misguided your film-photo perceptions are.... now you keep coming back ya'll hear? And, when you find a Physicist willing to debunk Dr. John Costella work you get right back to us (been 6 years now.... tick-tock, still waiting).... This recent nonsense of throwing up a retired word merchant (lawyer) is rather childish and trite, if you catch my drift.... Lone Nutter-trolls, you're running out of time... P.S. I'm out for hours, on a daily basis, son.... retirement is wonder-bar.... and what better place than in Las Vegas.... think you'll retire someday or have current conditions forced you there already...?

UH...Neither Davidson nor Martin has applied perspective correction to bring the two images into agreement. How in the world do you expect to make a comparison? can't find a physicist to debunk Dr. John Costella's work so you dig up an attorney who was a news photog 40+ years ago? PUL-eeeze.... LMFAO! Ya can't win the film-photo debate, ya lost the PR war years ago..... even FACE is out the window. Where's Wild Bill Miller when you need him? Gary what are you, Lampoon-Lamson and Dr. Thompson trying to feed the group here?

And your sideshow got its kindling from where, Counselor? This is a PR war my dear Watson... And the Lone Nut-Trolls (with and without college degrees) are losing!

Research is your friend Lemkin, once again you are wrong as rain: JUNE 25, 2009 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14500 Indeed.... As the Gang of Eight found out when it came to TGZFH! Say, the YAHOO JFK Group now has Dr. Thompson talking to himself, that makes a total of two, what happened to you guys.... anyone left over thar?

this case was resolved years ago..... and upwards of 90% of today's thinking Americans think JFK was assassinated by CONSPIRACY. Which nullifies the SBT/LHO did-it-all-by-his lonesome nonsense. So what's to resolve? When and if Wild Bill Miller takes over Gary Mack's slot? As far as "position paper authors" (LMFAO) are concerned: who the hell cares about their outdated, outmoded postion? All that's happening in this thread is a PR campaign for the 6th Floor Mausoleum, it's summer time after-all... What the does anyone do in Dallas during the summer?

My compliments to everyone involved in this study. If we now take it as a fact that the windshield was damaged FROM THE INSIDE, do the authors of this study believe that the damage was definitely caused by a bullet or bullet fragment? If so, does the damage tell us anything about what direction such a bullet or fragment came from? I ask that because if the damage was caused by a ricochet, I am not sure if the damage itself could tell us anything about the original source/direction of the bullet. credible evidence as displayed on a internet forum, same credible evidence imagery prepared in Photoshop or some such other image manipulation software (of which there a plenty)? Come ON..... what is known is simply this: no one that has looked at this case for 15 minutes or longer, no one, is taking the WCR serious. (despite quoting David Lifton, LMFAO!) 45+ years and all the lone nuts have to show in that time span is a dog-n-pony show, brought forth by the City Fathers of Dallas, Texas called the 6th Floor Museum.

Barb forget her password, Andy? Glad to see you trying to juice the place up..... Barb experienced some technical problems posting and asked me for help - perhaps in time you might want to comment on the substance of the article? no need waiting -- balderdash comes to mind. Perhaps as the latest to carry Barb's water, you can comment on its content?

Barb forget her password, Andy? Glad to see you trying to juice the place up.....

sure do.... Miller resurfaced (yesterday-Thursday) on acj, btw..... no softballs there

knock-knock.... Hi Evan.... "When people have had their say...", ah, isn't this about procedure, etc? What is this conversation doing in the middle of 'Me and my shadows' thread? Some thread stealing going on here, Evan? And here's a bit of news for you, I suspect the number of posts to this board during the past few months is going down (by as much as 30%), certainly the number of active CT posters 'posting' here is going down. Thread views I suspect the same -- down... no new members... That cuts website revenue..... Which means THE rules aren't making for *happy campers* -- which in turn means, old hands are moving on to more, er, confrontational places? Never fear though... the graveyard of JFK assassination related websites, is vast... Moderate on.....