David G. Healy

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

Speaking of a lack of reading comprehension skills ... Healy was talking about you and Jack's claim of Moorman standing in the street as being a "farce". It has only been YOU that keeps trying to make it appear that if one doesn't agree that Moorman was in the street when she took her #5 Polaroid, then this somehow means that the rest of the film must be correct and that is not what anyone has said. Even after this has been pointed out to you numerous times, you still misstate it. As much as I do not car for O'Reilly's show ... he had you pegged dead to rights. I am sure that if you wish to start another thread on how boys turn into girls on the Zapruder film and visa-versa ... Josiah and others will be happy to point out the error in that claim as well. Maybe start a thread on how Mrs. Franzen grew taller which is another claim found in 'Hoax' that was shown to be bogus. This isn't the DellaRosa site where any idiot can make a claim and not have it challenged. The bottom line is that certain 'laws of nature' show that Moorman could not be in the street when she took her photo. One can only assume that the same asinine critical thinking that would suggest that Zapruder was made of rubber has prevented you from ever being able to see what the rest of the world sees. Here is your challenge: You and/or Jack can step down into the street and shoot on any LOS that you like. Take your photo and post it and I will overlay it onto Moorman's and I can tell you that those same laws of nature that need no enforcement will expose your mistakes. [image] There is no way around the laws of nature, Mr. Fetzer. The laws of nature are not to be accepted when you believe them to benefit you and ignored other times that they don't. So far it has been only YOU that has ignored them. I think before you do anything else, you have an obligation to address those cycles windscreens and those lasws of nature that you like to speak of. Bill Miller the cycles wind screens? LMAO. Ahh the debate concerning November 1963 events in Dealey Plaza - we're really progressing LMFAO! For the record I doubt you'd be taking on Dr. James Fetzer concerning any subject matter -- methinks you need Josiah and Gary's and the gleeclubs input to hold you up! So, read my bytes, Nutter.... focus, you have to simply F-O-C-U-S.... I have no time for your inane debate. Gary, OR Josiah's Moorman#5 street/grass debate. On the record saying same! IMHO, a simple fact prevails Wild Bill, you're wrong most when it comes to photo analysis (all the way back to those *a head growing in DP bush days*). This is pure shuck and jive, Lone Nut distraction and disinfo..... Blatant attempt to discredit Jim Fetzer and Jack White.... So, try to sell it to someone else, eh? Frankly, I doubt you even understand why the Moorman #5 photo is debated on ANY JFK assassination board. When it comes to the facts I'll take Dr. Jim Fetzer in debate over you, Josiah, Gary in any JFK conspiracy related head-to-head debate (in front of an audience w/or w/o cameras) you're way above your station, young man...

I wonder how you got through school ... did you copy off of O.J.??? Aside from your constant misspellings ... your thoughts are so disjointed and so poorly thought out ... its like you have never had any schooling at all. You seem to have the mentality that to be a conspiracy believer in JFK's assassination, then you must believe every cock-and-bull claim made by every lunatic that comes along when in fact that would also include you for you didn't agree with Fetzer on where Moorman was standing, thus now you are a LNr. To refresh your less than rational memory ... you were talking as if having written something that was published must somehow put you above everyone else and my point was that even screwballs like Posner have had their writings published, thus your remarks have no validity to them. Bill Miller then stick with the original topic, wannabe (it's the moorman poll, dummy).... we understand at your age memory, and most importantly FOCUS begins to go. -- T'was you son who brought Posner into the discussion, shall I post a link to the post as a gentle reminder? Keep at it, you'll get published eventually.... I'm your biggest fan- ROTFLMFAO... I can hear them rooting for you all the way out west, just ask Josiah.....

Craig, with all due respect, isn't Crawley an expert in lenses ... I think I saw somewhere how George Lucas, the Star Wars guy, would consult him on projects. The film to my understanding was the same film Moorman used, just a different name, but never-the-less the same film. I also thought that Crawley used the same model camera as Moorman. His camera had a glass lens as Mary's did ... and Mary's camera was said to have not been used since her taking that picture, thus the settings were checked against those on Mary's camera. Crawley reported that he could get the resolution with that camera to see the details in Jack's work. Do you know something different? Bill if you're going to banter around known commercial film-industry names - provide a cite! Also, provide lurkers where they might review Crowley's "polaroid" work! BTW, what makes up a lens expert?

David ... the National Enquirer publishes stuff all the time ... its still crap. Bugliosi and Posner published books that you consider crap. So your notion that because something or someone was published is meaningless for its the content that matters. Maybe I'll publish a book on all the stupid say-nothing post you make ... that will certainly be something to be proud of. Bill Miller and Posner too! Of course they're disinfo..... Every Cter knows that, all but you evidently.... it is nice to see you nad up, and finally show your colors (but most of us knew anyway)....!

lets see, this poll went up March 7th, its now March 13th and only 29 votes have been cast? You Lone Nuts haven't bettered your PR skills since Bugliosi issued forth Reclaiming History (which btw, is the book publishing industry mega-flop of the century) have ya? LMFAO! How many views for this poll? 600+. Oh dear! How many views for Josiah's 4 part Moorman post (and others) 3,000+ concerning the same subject matter? Yet only 29 poll votes? Nothing seems to advance the Lone Nut/WCR/SBT case, does it? Perhaps it's Bill Miller..... Or simply, you can't make the case....

Ah Frank ... I see you have met the two Healy's. someday you too, may get published son.... perhaps Josiah, Gary, the 6th Floor Museum or better yet, maybe the City of Dallas will help you find a publisher.... ROTFLMFAO!

Yes ... I would like to go on record as apologizing to those who have had to read David Healy's incompetent say-nothing post. Bill Miller DH: DH Again: your learn'in Frank..... stick with the CT's and you might get to use that education you have, maybe even learn a few things about film/image composition. And who knows, perhaps a bit about optical film printing (unless you can show us a few credits concerning the media, of course so we can take you seriously). Maybe find the Moorman #5 is a shuck and jive diversion. Ya see Frank, Lone Nutters including Bill Miller's merry band of wannabe CTer's can't deal with the fact the Zapruder Film is looking more and more like its altered

Chris, actually it was Geoffrey Crawley (a well noted photo scientist who specializes in debunking images) who was able to duplicate the clarity as represented in Jack's work. Crawley used the same type camera with the glass lens. So it isn't a matter of what I or you say, but rather a fact that it was done using the same equipment as Moorman did. Bill Miller Geoffrey Crawley! ROTFLMFAO.... You have to be kidding? Best take a look at what Craig Lamson has to say (further in this thread) about Geoffrey Crawley's test..... sheeeesh! Thank you Craig, you spared me the effort!

Mary is also on record as saying that the kill shot was the first shot ... Bill Newman saying the President's ear flew off ... Sitzman thinking that a black couple was getting up off the bench immediately after Moorman took her photo, but they were obviously wrong. Even Jack had enough sense to know that he needed more and thats where he made some erroneous observations that were easily exposed as such. Bill Miller can't shuck and jive your way out of this one, son... I could care less what else Mary Moorman is on the record saying.... you blew it, and know it! An apology is in order!

So Dubya Bush being a goof is supposed to mean what ... that all Yale grads are idiots??? Is that like all photographers must be bone-heads because one in particular claimed Jean Hill was standing in the street during the shooting when Jean said she was back out of it before the first shot was fired ... that hardly seems justifiable. Bill Miller What garbage. Ofd course Lifton is simply full of it. Ther.eis no "above the line/below the line". Parts of the limo and the occupants extend "above the line" Nothing of Moorman IF she had been altered in Zapruder, would not have added more difficulty as it pertains to "below the line/above the line". In fact putting her in the grass IF the film had been altered would have been harder since realistic shadows would have been required. Nothing is harder to illustrate IN THIS ERA OF HIGH END DIGITAL RETOUCHING, than a realistic shadow. Back in the day of analog retouching, realistic shadow were mostly impossible. All in all Lifton offers us nothing but bunk...as usual. glass artists, Craig -- nothing, NOTHING was impossible including "realistic shadows". Simply depends on the artists capability and specialty (and Hollywierd had the best there was. AND that WAS their job, to make it realistic -- ala believable) -- and for only a few frames to boot? Piece of cake. Also, I doubt there are but few more knowing than David Lifton concerning *conspiracy and the JFK assassination*. One in particular, Mark Lane. And we ALL know what happend to those WCR/SBT supporters that publicly (and private) debated Mark Lane concerning the subject matter....

BMiller wrote: Mary Moorman, herself is on-the-record stating: "she stepped onto Elm street" to take polaroid picture(s). Apology?

conservative is as conservative was, its all in the eyes of the beholder... see the attached

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...

Josiah Thompson's glee club is big enough for Gawds sake, let him be! His ego is in check (for the time being) tsk-tsk. No bid contracts are over......

Wow! Allright! Now we can move on to the REAL issue, the Zapruder Film.... So, when are the seamless film advocates of Dealey Plaza (more commonly called: Lone Nut, anti-film alerationists-WCR supporters) going to deliver proof thaaaaaat the seamless films (of Dealey Plaza 11/22) are indeed seamless? Thus propping up their position that the Zapruder film is NOT altered. Time to talk to Robert Groden guys, heretell he's got access to most all the 11/22/63 *film* frames (and that is what you need, the frames)

don't need'em xxxxx, bet you sure do these day's, LMFAO.... just getting a kick out of watching all you Lone Nutters posing as CT's getting all your dander up on that new Yahoo board. You know that new one you all post to these day's. Especially Bab's daJunkkarinen.... looks like Dr. Fetzer has her running in circles over there. Her asking him what he's "blathering" about.... LMFAO. It's interesting Thompson, Junkkarinen Brazil, Lamson even you a little old newcomer (how's you make such stellar company, especially after your foolish beginning at JFKResearch?). Who knows perhaps you'll get a chance to get Von Pein's aka Dave Reitzes-Pieces autograph, eh? Now wouldn't that be sump'in!

I'll stop you right there, son. I'm not asking you (of all people) a damn thing LMFAO!

I always located Mary in the street for number 3, just based on my opinion and looking at the image. I think thats why she has confused her story. Just curious David, do YOU think Moorman 5 was altered? yep, it's a no-brainer #3 is in the street... it's a shame Gary (when he had the chance on-camera) didn't clarify the #3 & #5 possible mix up in Mary's mind..... For the record, I think your Polaroid tripod setup for duplicating the Moorman 5 of yesteryear would go a long way (with the addition of a $10 dollar laser) today in clarifying a ridiculous argument over the edge. The Moorman 5 is such a horrible photo (texture wise), after all you can't recognize the gender(s) of whomever is standing on the pedestal. Ya want to tout a reverse angle to the Z-film ya got the Nix film --- IMHO the debate over the Moorman grass/street issue is a canard... So, why edit the damn thing, the original quality is so poor. What does it prove? Mary Moorman was in Dealey Plaza that day..... (Possible) Z-film alteration (circa. 1963-1964) doesn't depend on a Mary Moorman in the street, or the grass!

I think David is on record as saying that he has seen no proof of alteration. Even David wouldn't think that someone had altered Moorman's photo within the first 35 minutes of the assassination, but of course that may depend on whether he is taking his medication. I think you should show a bit of restraint William, allow the one to who the question was directed me in this case to answer. Without you're obnoxious interruption. However, knowing full well your ego runs wild, and is completely out of control, we do understand, you can't help yourself..... sigh and, as usual, you're wrong, AGAIN.... but I'll let you dangle for a bit longer..... Thorazine chum, a full or half tab -- which do you prefer?

The 3.6 seconds from Z313 to the moment of Moorman's photo being exposed was obtained by Anthony Marsh by breaking each frame into tenths. The position of the cycles to each other in Mary's photo comes between the two exposed frames (Z315 and Z316). If you fade in one frame over the other and do it in 1/10th increments, then 6/10ths into the transition ... the two cycles come into line on the Zapruder film as they are seen in Moorman's photo. As far as the Moorman being in the street claim ... I agree with you that its a farce. Bill Miller aside: if the Z-film is altered, this mean what, again? So, Tony Marsh? ROTFLMFAO --The Boston bus driver? Now he is a film/photo expert worthy of being quoted? Wake up! And you drag Josiah Thompson into this debacle? Hell, Marsh is the guy who was unearthed as a Lone Nutter acting as a CT a year or so ago.... Ben Holmes exposed him in debate on alt.conspiracy.jfk, so bad was the thrashing in fact Marsh retreated to alt.assassination.jfk (.john [John McAdams] home away from from) never to return to acj. Marsh is one of those Barb Junkkarinen... pal's. I see all these LN types are dropping by here these days -- gotta love Jim Fetzer, he keeps all you Lone Nutters (acting as CTer's) on your toes.... btw, that Moorman on the grass issue? That should read the GRASS/street issue is a farce, a complete FARCE.... the Moorman gig is a simple diversion cause you guys can't handle nor debate the possibility of an altered Z-film.... pure-n-simple.... oh, and that's Dr. Fetzer to you, and your right you damn sure don't have a Ph.D.

Barb ... your scenario was not even mentioned by Fetzer, thus it shows that he just isn't qualified to be a critical thinker or else he is purposely leaving out the other possibilities so to sell what he knows to be erroneous. Your remarks about Moorman are spot on. The one thing that can be identified in the NBC footage showing Moorman's picture is the upward stacking of those windscreens and how they relate to the colonnade. There was no faking this for it was on TV before so many other assassination films and photos had been discovered. Fetzer will never get around those laws of nature. He is one of those people who believes that as long as he is arguing, then he is not having to admit his mistakes. Bill Miller Not bad for a high school graduate, Miller. Not bad at all. Are you part of that "have couch will travel " sect per chance......? ROTFLMFAO

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...tion=pages;sa=2 this guy has Moorman (in the Moorman 3) in the street by 9" or so..... so appears there's a new kid on the block, so Miller it's time for you to tighten up your act and present in a more professional way. Can the Moorman 5 be far behind? Get ABC Dale and his EMMY award in here to do a bit of Lightwave work (if your side can afford him).

nice piece.... tnx!

duplicate...