David G. Healy

Your IF urged me to respond so.... between Nov. 24th and mid-February 1964, when the WC officially saw the film, as a group the first time. AFTER the 3 copies were made. One can reasonably suspect the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film has been altered more since then. Who'd know? The only folks needing to see the Zapruder film (in 1964) that is until Jim Garrison came on scene was the Warren Commission. Plenty of time to tidy up loose ends for that trial...

Sadly, for you and your sorry little group, Costella has been destroyed here by solid and unimpeachable empirical evidence. Costella's folly Now I can understand why you are running away, you learned it from Costella. "destroyed here by solid and unimpeachable empirical evidence"? An essay written by Bab's, Tink and Wild Bill Miller, ya gotta be kidding me.... Actually, over-the-years Dr. John Costella has made mince-meat out of anyone feigning qualifications that has debated him, your wishful thinking aside... What, reading beyond your education level David? Costella's Folly....read it Healy and you might actually learn something ya might as well send along a url for the WCR, Craigster.... LMFAO! They did get the date, place and time of the assassination correct though Try this and tell me the wrongs that need righting? http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html Ya have a tough time, I'm sure Wild Bill can pull your fat out of the fire. And for all those with a 1.5GPA and below, I could care less about the Moorman #5 photo, its a canard, canard of diversion, only the latest that fear throws up stalling the truth. Is that the best you can do David? Clearly you can't be this utterly ignorant. Like your pal Fetzer, you seem to be pimping for Costella without even checking to see if he knows what he is talking about. Or perhaps you can tell us how you know his work is correct? If you want to know what needs correcting you must have lost your ability to read. But given the quality of your posts here, that is no longer in doubt , at least to me. My work will stand David, take your best shot. what you think Craig, what you AND other people *seem* to think is totally irrelevant -- what Wild Bill Miller thinks is a waste of my valuable time. Ya want a pissing match with Dr. John Costella, challenge him, gird those loins and get it on.... I'll watch! He doesn't want to play, that's his decision... who could blame him, past experience shows he cleaned everyone of the Gangs clock 5 years ago. (see below) http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html and THAT friends and neighbors is/was the best the Lone Nuttesr have, AND had

This is the trial the Bugliosi prosecuted in England, right? BK correct....

It's little wonder that O'Reilly made a complete fool of you on his show, Mr. Fetzer. You are aware are you not that debris landed near Altgens and Brehm which were both to the front and rear of the car. wow, that 16th generation Z-film animation with brightness removed, contrast added and saturation over-driven explains a lot.... LMAO! Kinda like that photo analysis with the ghost in the bushes your famous for..... and that's Bill O'Rally of FIX news, btw.

yeah sure Ray, but did you VOTE for him?

there are few words that adequately express at times like this. I did not know your wife but by her above words (noticeably absent of fear) its plain to see she was more than prepared for what she faced (as we all shall face one day). She had the time to prepare, emotionally and spiritually -- we can thank GOD you were present during the difficult times and displayed the support a life partner needs during those last moments.... She's on her way to another tomorrow - always beyond the horizon, her thoughts will never leave you, she's in good hands. Take care John Simkin, David Healy

Sadly, for you and your sorry little group, Costella has been destroyed here by solid and unimpeachable empirical evidence. Costella's folly Now I can understand why you are running away, you learned it from Costella. "destroyed here by solid and unimpeachable empirical evidence"? An essay written by Bab's, Tink and Wild Bill Miller, ya gotta be kidding me.... Actually, over-the-years Dr. John Costella has made mince-meat out of anyone feigning qualifications that has debated him, your wishful thinking aside... What, reading beyond your education level David? Costella's Folly....read it Healy and you might actually learn something ya might as well send along a url for the WCR, Craigster.... LMFAO! They did get the date, place and time of the assassination correct though Try this and tell me the wrongs that need righting? http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html Ya have a tough time, I'm sure Wild Bill can pull your fat out of the fire. And for all those with a 1.5GPA and below, I could care less about the Moorman #5 photo, its a canard, canard of diversion, only the latest that fear throws up stalling the truth.

Sadly, for you and your sorry little group, Costella has been destroyed here by solid and unimpeachable empirical evidence. Costella's folly Now I can understand why you are running away, you learned it from Costella. "destroyed here by solid and unimpeachable empirical evidence"? An essay written by Bab's, Tink and Wild Bill Miller, ya gotta be kidding me.... Actually, over-the-years Dr. John Costella has made mince-meat out of anyone feigning qualifications that has debated him, your wishful thinking aside...

Yes, no less than four. That's more than "none" in my wacky little world. How many saw the rather large gaping wound in the right rear of the head? Many. Clint Hill in DP ... a real up close and personal view all the way to Parkland, multiple people at Parkland, most notably the treating physicians, and then, of course, damage reported by Hill and Parkland was corroborated at autopsy. Your point? :-) LNs deny damage to the right rear of the head at all costs because they mistakenly equate damage to the rear of the head as having to have come from a shot from the front, and they have no place in their world for that. But why is it some CTs do the same thing as regards the wound that opened so graphically on the Zfilm? Actually, I guess that would just be the alterationists. It is not a situation where it has to be either the wound in the back or the wound on the right side ... it was both. Virtually the entire right side of JFK's head was shattered, destroyed, exploded ... the full extent of the damage, of course, could not be seen until autopy when they reflected the scalp .... when more bone fell to the table and some pieces stuck to the scalp ... and left them with one big honking area of missing bone ... 10cm lateral right from 1" right of the eop, and 17cm forward from there. Forensic exam of the film ... sure, that would be great. Why don't you contact the Archives about that? Contact some independent qualified professional examiners about pursuing the project and have them apply to the Archives. Go for it, that's what research is all about, right? As for being "dead set on arguing and debating the Z-film" ... not this girl. Don't know where you got that idea. The Moorman in the street issue was just that ... the Moorman in the street issue. And, imo, it has been resolved. As "proofs" of film alteration emerged, sometimes almost daily, several years ago, I did participate in some discussion about them ... saw all that I can think of debunked. I have seen no evidence that stands up to scrutiny that the film has been altered, fabricated or in any way diddled. Have you? Tell me what you know proves the film is altered. :-) Oh wait, that's right, you yourself wrote that you can't prove it. So, it seems reasonable to you to try to make something out of others not believing the film was altered? There's logic. Believe with all the passion you want - when there is verifiable proof, let me know. Barb :-) my goodness... you finally have a grasp on evidence that demands testing. You nor I, Wild Bill Miller, Josiah Thompson Ph.D., Gary Mack, Len Brazil, or Craig Lamson can prove, nor disprove the authenticity of the alleged in-camera Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA... not even Roland Zavada (and all the Lone Nut contrary whining aside). And let's face it, that (and John Costella Ph.D. prodding, of course) is the reason Roland backed away from the 2003 UofMinn Zapruder Film Symposium.... So, to comment on your above sophomoric comment (which Wild Bill Miller also loves), "of course I can't prove its altered". and here's the rest of the story for Barb: I have never examined, touched or even seen the alleged NARA housed, in-camera original Z-film (up close and personal), have you? Now, I know this is above your pay grade but, how can a competent researcher state a film or photo is altered if that researcher can't examine the alleged "original in-camera film/photo.... Tell us how that works Barb, your best John McAdams definition will do just fine.... Hell Barb, ya can't even tell me or this board the exact date the Z-frames were numbered...

Tom, the Z-film reveals blood in Connally's armpit around Z-340, well before you think he was hit. In your theory, was this added to the film by the government? if the Z-film was altered, you, I nor Tom Purvis has any idea what that particular frame number represents in the actual in-camera Z-film (if in fact it was Zapruder who shot it, for some, that's for another day). Anyone ever get a straight answer as to when the Z-film frames were numbered by the FBI super sleuth Shaneyfelt? And can prove it!

delete wrong post....

delete wrong post

Josiah Thompson does indeed have a flair for the dramatic, but NEVER gone.... and much easier on the eyes, and in print, than Wild Bill Millah (or the forum ghost Gary Mack)!

Excellent post I agree with 80% of what you wrote but you put it more eloquently than I ever could. At risk of touching off a flare-up I beg to differ a bit concerning Jack though. While his mental ability is remarkable for his age in large part he attracts negative comments for repeatedly making gross errors are rarely acknowledging them. Very cleverly part-disguised off-handed ad hom Len. Your a real master at it. Peter apparently doesn't even know what the term "ad hom" means. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html My comments about Jack were the exact opposite; I didn't attribute his errors to his age (though it could be argued this was relevant). He brought up the subject and it was discussed by Steve whose post I was responding to. I made 2 typos in my previous post though I think most people could figure out what I meant. "touching of a flare-up" should have been "touching off a flare-up" AND "he attacks negative comments" should have been "he attracts negative comments yep, sure, uh-huh..... lmao!

"The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND." I can just here Barb now Jack: Tink, now what do we do? Where do we go with this, ya think Barb has the "strength of character" to admit her fallacy? We'll see! There's nowhere to go with this, though since you seem to have not comprehended the situation, I'll type slowly. :-) Fetzer claimed there was no wound on the side of the head ... that it was fabricated in the film. He further claimed that "no witnesses" reported seeing such a wound on the side of JFK's head. I posted quotes of 4 witnesses who reported seeing a wound on the side of JFK's head. You with me so far? That means that Fetzer's claim was wrong, false, incorrect. Now, I find it hilarious that the "there was no wound there and no witness saw a wound there" people are falling all over themselves, not saying a thing about the claim that a few simple quotes showed to be false ... but now quibbling that the witnesses said this fabricated wound they couldn't have seen because it wasn't really there and none of them had reported it was an entry wound, not an exit. And you climb right on board Fetzer's latest "fallacy" folly, entering stage left, doing your Tony Marsh impression! ROTFL! Best chuckle of the day. Almost. Barb :-) Again, a lack of comprehension. All quotes described ENTRY WOUND, not EXIT WOUND. Changing the subject doe not changes the facts. Jack hmmmm, no less than 4 witnesses claimed a wound on the side of the head, humph! How many witnesses claimed a (rather large) hole in the back of Kennedy's head, again? Listen Barb, if your dead set on arguing and debating the Z-film, have the non-alteration crowd handlers provide the alleged in-camera Zapruder original for forensic testing. Simple as that. What's the big deal, the Zapruder family is enjoying 16 million American taxpayer dollar$ for a film we (the American taxpayers) can't touch or mount up on a projector and run.... The Z-film film isn't the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.... get over it! (emphasis mine)

"The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND." I can just here Barb now Jack: Tink, now what do we do? Where do we go with this, ya think Barb has the "strength of character" to admit her fallacy? We'll see! There's nowhere to go with this, though since you seem to have not comprehended the situation, I'll type slowly. :-) Fetzer claimed there was no wound on the side of the head ... that it was fabricated in the film. He further claimed that "no witnesses" reported seeing such a wound on the side of JFK's head. I posted quotes of 4 witnesses who reported seeing a wound on the side of JFK's head. You with me so far? That means that Fetzer's claim was wrong, false, incorrect. Now, I find it hilarious that the "there was no wound there and no witness saw a wound there" people are falling all over themselves, not saying a thing about the claim that a few simple quotes showed to be false ... but now quibbling that the witnesses said this fabricated wound they couldn't have seen because it wasn't really there and none of them had reported it was an entry wound, not an exit. And you climb right on board Fetzer's latest "fallacy" folly, entering stage left, doing your Tony Marsh impression! ROTFL! Best chuckle of the day. Almost. Barb :-) Barb, I'm not on any factions "fallacy" train here.... (remember I can't prove the Z-film is altered, eh! I'm still waiting for 6th Floor/Mack/Miller contingent to make the alleged Z-film available for forensic testing) It does appear though you're on the Tinkster's train choo-chooing all the way down that Lone Nut track.... What ya need to do is give us your best shot at being a Cter, Barb! Here & Now. Attacking Dr. Jim Fetzer and Jack White personally, simply because they don't conform to the Dallas City fathers image of preserving local and national history (even when its an outright lie) is simply nonsense. You, Miller the Tinkster are just making noise. There's 45 questions and 16 smoking guns out there Barb, even .john ran from them, they've been posted to this forum a few times, and countless time at acj -- no lone nutter can touch them. Perhaps you'll be the first, eh?

well, it's tough when center stage is a long reach isn't it? So, it's time to move over, there's a new breed of JFK researcher coming down the pike. We should all look forward to watching them work!

"The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND." I can just here Barb now Jack: Tink, now what do we do? Where do we go with this, ya think Barb has the "strength of character" to admit her fallacy? We'll see!

hell, you see heads with hats in Dealey Plaza bushes -- Phones in shoes? Much more realistic.....

Don, no one will waste a second with you except Wild Bill Miller who is Gary Mack second here.... he of course is trying to paint a good face on everything here for the Dallas City Father's. In so far as Tom Purvis, I suspect he's forgot more concerning this case than you'll ever know.... so, when it comes to lunacy, I'd keep myself under wraps for a while if I were you. At least till the real *in the know* CT's finally leave this forum. Then you Lone Nut wunderkinds can have your justly deserved lovefest.... btw, Josiah doesn't do autographs.... rumor has it, Miller does! LMAO

perhaps the Lone Nutter's need a good Photoshop guy/gal? Besides, I wouldn't trust where ANY of these .jpg/.gif images originated from. They're running you in circles Chris...

Barb my work has been on JFKResearch.com for years, viewed thousands and thousands of times! If you read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, you ran into it too. All 30+ pages of it..... but, alas, most fair-haired rubber stamp Lone Nut folks don't look at what they criticize. Why? They're simply terrified their government might have lied to them, it's called D-E-N-I-A-L, that's why..... LMAO! And you expect CT's to take you seriously? Speaking of the website JFK Research, weren't you thrown out of there? And for what reason, praytell? As far as Tony Marsh goes, Barb you have 1000's of back and forth posts with Tony Marsh most on alt.assassination.jfk (John McAdams home away from home, ya know the place most Lone Nuts ran too when when they couldn't deal with conspiracy), if anyone has a fixation it is you..... annnnnd, Tony Marsh appears to be a Lone Nut in CT clothing, certainly afraid to debate one Ben Holmes (at alt.conspiracy.jfk) concerning JFK assassination/WCR evidence. What are we Ct's to think? Even .john became mum when it came to the 45 questions and the 16 smoking guns, as have all his Nutter minions... and where do we find you guys? Hiding all over the internet debating distance measurements concerning a xxxx*ty, absolutelty useless Polaroid photo called the Moorman #5 that means nothing, nada, nil when it come to the assassination of the President of the United States.... Minutae! Even has a NYT best selling author all wrapped up in the nonsense, can you imagine THAT? The posted (alt.conspiracy.jfk) 45 questions and the 16 smoking guns, answers to those will get to the bottom of the conspiracy angle concerning the assassination of JFK. Care to give them a whirl Barb? They've been posted to this forum, too! Might wanna take a peek at the Tom Purvis work, too! Appears he's found a few anomalies in the WCR work in Dealey PLaza.... 'SEARCH' is your friend!

speaking of fantasy and basic principels, are you finishing out your JFK assassination USENET career on this board? If so, I certainly hope you and Tony Marsh have a pleasant retirement.... For the life of me, I'd love to see something, anything you investigated [or research] concerning the JFK assassination that was original. I'd hate for you to go down in assassination lore as Bab's the rubber-stamp, blue-hair lady.

That's what happens when Gary Mack sends Wild Bill Miller to do his bidding...... <sigh> -so- "Geoffrey and I did the experiment, which was about whether the camera lens was capable of detail sharp enough to show the face of a person behind the fence." Now THAT is interesting. Then you'd of thought Zapruder and Sitzman would of been readily identifiable in the the Moorman #5? the fence. It was.

I see you are as daft as White when it comes to the simple meaning of the word "cross". "A mark or pattern formed by the intersection of two lines, especially such a mark (X) used as a signature." So where is that "cross" in Moorman? Wanna try again Jim? frankly, a case can be made the lines could actually meet. Perhaps Craig was a bit 'conservative' with his lines... Why not show us David, instead of your standard meaningless postings. All you need to do is apply a very "liberal" dose of your vaunted photographic skills. added on edit: I see you have tried and failed. Have you been reduced to making things up out of thin air? So much for David Healy and his photographic analysis skills. They are non existant. Perhaps you should move along, you are in way over your head..... I posted the photo, can't you find the meaningless photo?.... few posts above ^ post #22 And I made an addition to my original post when I saw your image...its right there...notice the words "added on edit" Hell, I'm still trying to find Zapruder & Sitzman in this cropped recreation.... Soooooooo a horizontial pixel here, a vertical pixel there, sigh! In the 72dpi world no less, way to go.... LMAO! Hardly convincing, Craig (for neophytes perhaps, but not the pro's) -- But, many suspect this has gone way beyond photo (e)valuation. Appears it's is all about personalities, isn't it? If that's the case, you're debating from a position of weakness, so much for "professional" opinion. Your side simply can't convince anyone with case photo-film knowledge .... So, let's continue posting more piss-poor quality images, perhaps that will lend more to the Z-film anti-alteration position.... ROTFLMFAO! btw, Zapruder and Stizman? I'd recognize them anywhere.......