David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
Pamela,
If the shooters were trained snipers, this would have been a one shot event. Oswald would have been fatally framed(if not actually guilty), and we would not even be discussing it.
What IS the correct amount of time? Yes it has been done by a man named Donahue during the CBS recreation, but that is beside the point. I suspect the reason more have not completed this event in the official time, is because the official time is flawed. The official timing of the shots was built from necessity, and not evidence.
re-writing assassination related evidence Sgt. Williams? Gott'a open close that bolt, re-acquire the target and pull the trigger twice, in 5.6 seconds.
What is not beside the point is simple, more than one known military sniper with "confirmed" kills says Oswald gig is impossible to re-create. Frankly if the Lone Nut-WCR purists thought they could re-create Oswald's shooting feat, they would of. We'd of seen the the results YEARS ago...
You're selling 8-12 seconds (instead of 5.6 seconds) for the JFK assassination shooting feat. Do you have a cite for that (I'm curious)? Reminds me of Gerald Ford moving an entrance wound 4 inches. oopsee
-
Nothing going on here but a bunch of paranoid old CT fools going off on nothing in a childish attempt at...well lets just say its childish.
Don't let the the screen door slap you in the azz on your way out to greener pastures.
(Craig Lamson)
But Craig,
That's exactly what your little gang desires. That the CTs all leave.
Sorry- Mission Accomplished-not!
Why would we want you to leave? You all provide the entertainment value and also the wonders of showing the CT community at its finest. This thread is a perfect example of the latter.
It seems it's the CT's that want the playground for themself. How much easier to spew disinformation without all of those nasty people who want to throw FACTS into the mix.
David has made his threat a number of times. I say good riddence if thats what he wants. Have at. As it stands he's not much more than the little boy who cried wolf.
Threat what threat? You back in that fuzzy logic world of trailer photograhy again?
After 10+ years on alt.conspiracy.jfk and I'm the little boy who cried wolf? ROTFLMFAO! I've not met, conversed with or debated anyone capable of defending WCR final conclusions, that includes this forum. Further, when you get published concerning Z-film alteration or non-alteration matters, and attain some measure of credibility, give me a call - we'll talk. Till then, you and Wild Bill remain on the sidelines....
The WCR is simply, a convenient lie. Now I understand how and WHY you steadfastly deny this. Moreover, we understand why 911 NYC & Wash film-photo issues (some justified, some non-justified) rankle those very same Lone Nut folks who defend the WCR...
Now why don't you show the world and me
this threat: Lamson quote "David has made his threat..."rest assure I KNOW you know who Len Brazil is, you were cc'd the same email I (by accident) was. Len Brazil was also an addressee. Perhaps Len will fill you in. Think Roland Zavada's rewrite of his famous report. A topic of interest on this forum 2.5 years ago
-
David,
40 words?
Read my bio.
Check out my website.
Try to keep up.
I've no interest in what 'program' producers, networks have to say, they sell time and promote themselves, nor your website (the same).... After all, I've been at the TV thingy for over 40 years.
So I'll ask you again... if ya can't tell us in 40 or 50 words, you simply don't know your content! Seeing that I caught you off guard, 60 words, okay? You surely may refuse, as is your right (certainly noticed )
"Try to keep up"? You are a broadcasting newbie, aren't ya?
-
Let see, my name is Len and I live Brazil. That the three of you couldn’t figure out that LenBrazil is a nom de web speaks reflects poorly on your critical thinking skills.
Guyatt I’ll give you a thousand bucks for every word I wrote you can find on that page or on pages liked directly to it, that won’t cost me anything because there are none. You shouldn’t make stuff up, it reflects poorly on your credibility.
No one funds the Journal; the only expenses are web hosting which the web master pays out of his pocket. As for questions about peer review process it is obviously more rigorous than that of the Journal of 9/11 Studies which still has a paper on-line even though all involved seem to aknowledge it was completely errouneous.
Is that a non-denial denial?
I don't know what you are driving at, but then I seldom do. LenBrazil is a "screen name", the webmaster/editor-in-chief/publisher of the journal pays the limited costs out of pocket. Webhosting is cheap.
suck it up, Len. There's always Lancer.
-
Familiar names? Check it out.
Jack
Sgt. Mikey heir apparent of Bill Miller at jfklancer, that Mike Williams? Bet there's a few (off board) emails flying around. Shades of the Roland Zavada thread here a few years back,. Whose who, right Len?
-
Guess the research approach being used now can be called tossing a bunch of things up and hoping something will stick. You have yet to establish any foundation for the man from Michigan ever having set eyes on the Presidential Limousine, much less having had any connection to it prior to his 'sighting' of it at the Rouge -- hopefully someone has a copy of the original interview (mine went down in the pc crash). That would give a better orientation than the sanitized snippets in MIDP, and maybe give you a better chance to do some independent thinking. What he said he saw saw was a "Ford" "convertible".
As far as Nick's statements are concerned, he and the Michigan man did not even agree on the location of the hole they believe they saw. So which one are you going to 'believe'?
In addition, the FBI photos, Ferguson Memo, and windshield currently at NARA support the fact that the windshield in the car at the time of the FBI exam was the same one kicked out by the Arlington Glass men on Monday, Nov. 25, 1963. So Nick's statements would be relevant only if the windshield was replace between the time he saw the limo and when Robert Frazier's team photographed it.
Hopefully a reasonable discussion of this documentation will evolve once the foundation issues are fully defined.
Pamela,
there are a few folks on this board who knew and spoke to Nick on many occasions...
We (at least I) understand what changing television scripts entails, especially, ESPECIALLY during the "POST" production (editing) phase of a project. Very expensive proposition, changing promo's, conflicting personal schedules. re-budgeting, not to mention time consuming... But as with so many docu's, its the truth we're seeking, right?
The bugga-boo of a Producer <sigh>
Now, when it comes to establishing "foundation" concerning Limo issues, well, Doug Weldon would be my bet. Unless of course you (as he, Doug) are you an attorney? Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe Mr. Weldon worked in a DA's office at one time, as a Prosecutor, yes? Not to mention a competent JFK assassination researcher...
Perhaps you can tell us in your own words (50 words or less), just what your documentary(s) concerning the limo are about and the message your relating... frankly I've not seen any of the productions you've worked in.... Doug and his work, I'm quite familiar with.
-
David,
The Poz did write a book about Germ Warfare.
As a specialist on Fort Detrick AND the JFK Assassination, I wonder what he has to say about Col. Jose Rivera?
Also, latest bare all from FBI:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0644608720080806
Hey Bill....
If you get on the MSNBC link in the next few hours you can see Olbermann's interview with Ron -Pulitzer Prize- Suskind (re his new book: The Way of the World). Very interesting piece. Also, 2 weeks ago I heard from one of my LV connections concerning our mutual 'interview' interest. I was told, "perhaps in a month or so." We have our answer. Sorry!
-
COntinue to totally disregard questions of HOW MANY people know about it , mass psychology of crisis in hierarchical media environment. Im sorry let me put it like even Richard Gere's Goebbels can understand it YOUR LOGIC SUCKS. SEE I USED THE WORD LOGIC, IMPLYING THINGS!
This will be my last response to Craig, unless he types something of substance. I apologize for my role in detracting from the intention of this thread.
Nate tell what concrete effects that were part of the Bush administrations agenda the Anthrax attacks made possible that 9/11 wasn‘t enough to justify and present evidence it was consistently tied by them or the media to Arab or Islamic groups.
-----
Will get on it Len: but first a quick question before you and Craig are named Cochairs of the FCC:
What percent of the US population would you estimate read about and discussed (with at least 1 fellow citizen) the AL Q. attacks of the Cole or others on
Sptember 10th 2001?
Same question for that Anthrax letters following September 11th? A rough estimate would suffice. I know you are in one the fairer corners of Brazil, but you seem to keep up with US public opinion.
-----------
FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Saturday, August 2nd 2008, 6:32 PM
WASHINGTON - In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned.
After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide.
"They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News.
On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together."
But by then the FBI already knew anthrax spilling out of letters addressed to media outlets and to a U.S. senator was a military strain of the bioweapon. "Very quickly [Fort Detrick, Md., experts] told us this was not something some guy in a cave could come up with," the ex-FBI official said. "They couldn't go from box cutters one week to weapons-grade anthrax the next."jmeek@nydailynews.com
Any port in a storm eh Nate? You last claim was that "they" needed this to be Saddam so it would appear the attacks were from a second source. And now you tell us "they" wanted to pin it on AQ.
Maybe they still were thinking about the Cole......
Consistencey not your forte?
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann of Countdown fame had *The Poz* (Gerald Posner of CASE CLOSED fame) on his show last Friday and this past Monday discussing the subject (evidently Posner wrote a book about it) --- The Poz has shed a bit of light on the Ft. Dietrich Scientist and the case. Seems the "scientists' therapist" has quite a few questions that need answering -- I suspect she's lawyered up by now... if not, FIND one, hon, you're gonna need one! The Poz is on the job...
a link to Olbermann's (program) website (not sure there is an archive of past shows)
-
As I said in my previous post "I find it funny when people spend more time and energy making excuses rather than answering my inquiries would take IF they had good answers and then use 'lack of time' as an excuse." I'm not of course disputing that MK Ultra and Artichoke took place, this is a matter of historical record. What I have yet to see is real evidence that were successful in programming some one to do their bidding.
Now if you really had as much evidence as you claim (15 years of research) I can think of no good reason for you not to post it, you should be able to almost effortlessly, but you only offer excuses and insults. The ruse is wearing a bit thin. Also once again if you had solid evidence of the CIA or other US government agencies being able to program a "Jason Bourne" why do you an others cite instead an obscure case from Denmark in which the "Manchurian candidate" didn't even act as programmed?
Two more questions I imagine you will choose to ignore.
1) Did you know when you made your posts about Hardrup that he'd recanted?
2a) If so, why didn't you mention this?
2b) If not, doesn't that indicate your sources were either i) intellectually dishonest or ii) poor researchers?
As for our respective standing amongst our peers here, go to your profile page they have given you the lowest possible rating, why do you think that is?
What does this have to do with the subject of this thread: RFK, Jr. and the conspiracies to kill JFK and RFK?
I would think that Jan, who has already established bonifies on MKULTRA research, doesn't have to answer Colby's antagnistic questions that don't further our knowledge of anything.
BK
Colby can't help himself...
-
But since Mack made the claim that he'd seen something in a newspaper, it should be incumbent upon MACK to either produce the information--or a link thereto--or retract his [heretofore] unproven [unprovable?] assertion. That's the way the world works, Miller: if you make a claim, it's up to you to either back it up or back off. You don't seem to have a problem with this approach when dealing with Healy and others on the film alteration topic; so why are the rules different where Mack is involved?
First of all, if Mack didn't say anything, then he'd be equal to Healy. I assume we are talking about 'I have not seen proof of alteration' Healy. You could add all his post together for the year and not find any JFK assassination data in them.
Mack had told me where he recalled seeing the article and left it up to me to find it. To date, I had never gotten around to doing it ... mostly because of opportunity when the idea had crossed my mind. I cannot fault Mack for my lack of effort.
While I'll always be thankful for his suggestions, I still think that Gary Mack needs to decidse whether he's "above" these discussions or not. If he is, then he needs to abstain from using the ventriloquism act to circumvent his position. If he's not, then he needs to speak for himself. For Mack to continue to employ "sock puppets" is ridiculous.It appears that comprehension is not one of your strong qualities. Mack can and will discuss most anything to anyone who contacts him personally so to stay within the guidelines of his employment. Then one can relay what they learned from Mack to any interested parties ... such as on an Education Forum such as this. Many of us cite quotes from books and yet no one complains that we do it, so what difference does it make if we cite something Mack has said to us??? I personally see such complaining about it as meaningless rebuttal.
By the way ... no time to go to your local library to look for the article I take it.
Bill Miller
a real pathetic dance, wild Bill! Ya make a claim then run from it, typical Lone Nut tactic!
-
[...]
If you read my statements you will know that my personal belief is that, you break the rules...you pay. I also believe that failure should be let to happen and I'm against the bailout of these smucks. Lets just take the hit and move on. I expect no one to bail me or my business out no matter what happens. I can't speak any other conservatives but there are other voices just like mine. And I suspect, in your eyes, I'm a neo-con....
"Lets just take the hit and move on." Take the hit? Economic hit? It would of been nice if 5 years ago the neo-con and the Republican party felt that way concerning IRAQ... We invaded IRAQ based on WMD lies. Very, very expensive (in terms of blood as well as money) lies!
Whatever happened to William 'aka Billy' Kristol the premiere neo-con poster boy? Is he in hiding these day's?
-
Bernice Moore' date Jul 7 2008, 10:40 PM
Pamela would you publish the part of the White House Garage log showing that Arlington glass replaced the glass on November 25, as you stated in your posting and that the Ferguson memo claims.
Pamela :Ferguson was off by one day. The windshield was replaced on Monday, Nov. 26th, 1963. Hopefully, you're not going to try to dispute that.[/size]
YES, that ridiculous assertion is disputed because Monday was the 25th, not the 26th. and the garage logs clearly show the windshield was not replaced on Monday.
That one day means much due to the account of George Whitaker.
How could Ferguson have been so off in such close proximity to the events. since the 26th was on Tuesday.
There are hundreds of reference pointing to the dates, including that Monday (the 25th) was the day of Kennedy's funeral.
http://www.montva.com/calendar.php?ViewMon...&EventType=
Interestingly, almost all businesses were closed that day, except lo and behold, the Ford Motor Company was one of the few that were not.....
This lines up with Whitakers account. Almost nothing conforms to Ferguson's account except that it was a poorly done deception.
.
The SS report is also in error...as well as Ferguson....You will notice that the report has Sat as Nov.23rd which is correct......
But then Sunday becomes the 25th..nada it was the 24 th.....
Then it goes on to say, the windshield was replaced on the 26th...which was Tuesday.....
Better start tweaking that research of yours Pamela....
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=4
Pamela :If this post is an example of your research process, it needs some tweaking, as you have fallen prey to the fallacy of false alternatives.
...
B..........
good job B. I suspect the show producers would like this information... they hate after-the-fact retractions.... of ANY stripe.
David
-
Perhaps some of the esteemed teachers on this forum would comment, re the below article
-
Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson have just published The Gods that Failed. This is what the publisher says about th book:
In Britain and the United States a very strange sect has seized power. They believe that we can all reach financial paradise, if only certain sacrifices are made. There must be deregulation, there must be privatization, and markets must be left unmolested, the better to perform their magic. Democratic governments, unions and professionals will all have to accept that there is no alternative. Meanwhile job security, affordable houses and decent public services must wither away in the white heat of financial engineering. A new class has been presiding over this wonderland – the New Olympians. Since the late forties they have been planning their next move in mountaintop meetings that would make Ian Fleming blanch. Now private jets take them where they want to go as they tell the world the good news. But, in the wake of the Northern Rock collapse and the credit crunch, good news is in short supply. In this hilarious and shocking expose Elliott and Atkinson reveal the dogma that has brought us to the brink of disaster, and show us how to escape from the coils of faith-based thinking. The New Olympians have already done huge damage on both sides of the Atlantic. Miners, farmers and industrial workers have so far suffered most. But as market forces bear down on health, education and the professions, the middle classes are starting to feel the squeeze. Markets are not magic. Debt is not freedom. The Gods have failed. It is time to live without them.
"Markets are not magic. Debt is not freedom."tell that to Mastercard, Visa, Diners & American Express
-
As I have said on many occasions: I am a financial numpty.
This makes me feel a little less stupid (though only a little..
)The market works just fine as long as the failing are allowed to fail. That sadly is not the case at this point in time.
Markets always fail. It is built in. And they are never permitted to operate freely. They are alway manipulated by someone. It is better that they are managed in the interest of the greater good than the benefit of a small clique.
Ah, so YOU and yours can manage it better. And what exactly is the "greater good"?
to determine the "greater good" as determined in rational democracy, its time for "the common mans LAWYER"
good benchmark for Iraq, too.... (below)
-
Yea, Bill, but Garrision got his copy of the Zap film legimitately, he supboened it from Life. Then the copies got out.
BK
That's right, Bill. Garrison got a copy and then had copies made and then handed them out to people, thus the snow-ball effect was set in motion. As I understand it, the Shaw trial was in 1969 and Garrison had already been handing out copies of the Zapruder film.
Garrison was "handing" Z-film copies out? You do have a cite for that, right?
POSTED THIS FOR BILL MILLER--(having a technical problem)
David, do you mean aside from what Jack posted in response #185 ... And aside from I believe Weisberg once telling me about Garrison having bootlegs made - here is a cite from 'Zapruder Film - Famous Pictures Magazine' ........
"After the Warren Commission finished its report, footage and slides were entered into the National archives. Requests to get LIFE to release footage by private researchers and other media outlets are denied. It wasn’t until 1969 that Jim Garrison subpoenaed LIFE for his trial of Clay Shaw (later made famous in the movie, JFK) that the public saw the movie. Lax security at the trial allowed the film to be copied and bootleg’s started to circulate around the country. At the same trial Zapruder is called to testify, the next year on Aug 30, 1970 Abraham Zapruder died of carcinoma in Dallas."
Another source that a simple 'GOOGLE' search provided ...
http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/Zapruder_film
The Zapruder film is the 8mm home movie footage shot by Abraham Zapruder in Dallas, Texas, within Dealey Plaza while standing next to the grassy knoll during the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. It is the definitive, most authoritative film of the assassination.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Background
* 2 History
* 3 External links
* 4 Copyright
Background
Zapruder filmed the scene with a Director Series Model 414 PD movie camera via a spring-wound mechanism at an average tested speed of 18.3 frames-per-second. The entire Dealey Plaza exposed film frames lasts 26.6 seconds, with the presidential assassination sequence occupying 19.3 seconds. There are 486 frames altogether.
The film has been used by the Warren Commission and all subsequent investigations of the assassination. The Zapruder frames used by the Commission consist of exhibits 889-899 plus exhibits 901 and 902 (totaling less than 1 second of the actual 26.6 second film), published in the commission supporting volume XVIII. Frames of the film have also been sporadically published in several magazines, and the film was featured in several movies.
The Zapruder film footage has been deemed "culturally significant" by the United States Library of Congress and was selected for permanent preservation in the National Film Registry.
Some conspiracy theorists claim that only altered versions of the Zapruder film have ever been published. They point to allegedly impossible movements by persons in the background and limousine and irregular limousine signal-light flashing as evidence of film editing. Director Oliver Stone examined the Zapruder film and has publicly stated that, in his opinion as a professional filmmaker, the Zapruder film was not altered in any substantive way. Two other publicly released films of the Kennedy assassination (the Bronson and Nix films) show none of the supposed "anomalies" claimed to exist by conspiracy theorists, and neither show any evidence of tampering. Eyewitness reports of the limousine "slowing down" at the time of the assassination appear to be a result of the witnesses' shock at having seen the murder, and allegedly impossible movements can be explained by the limitations of the camera. There are in fact no anomalies in the film that cannot be easily explained by the limitations of the technology, movement of the camera, or other simple factors.
Abraham Zapruder's Bell & Howell Zoomatic movie camera, in the collection of the US National Archives
Zapruder's film is probably the most complete and best-known movie of the assassination, as it provides a relatively clear view of the motocade from a slightly elevated position. However, it is not the only film that captured at least the few seconds just before President Kennedy was struck by bullets. There were at least seven others in Dealy Plaza with home-movie cameras— F. Mark Bell, Charles Bronson (not the actor with the same name), Robert J. Hughes, John Martin, Charles Mentesana, Patsy Paschall, Elsie Dorman, Tina Towner, Marie Muchmore, and Orville Nix, along with an unidentified "Babushka Lady". Nix's, Muchmore's, and Bronson's films include the fatal shot, and the films of Bronson and Hughes show the 6th-floor window of the book depository. [1].
History
Three copies of the film were made on the evening of November 22 for investigative authorities. Within days, LIFE magazine purchased the original film and all rights to it for $150,000 ($916,000 in 2006), payable in six annual payments of $25,000. Zapruder donated the initial payment of $25,000 to the widow and children of murdered Dallas Policeman J.D. Tippit.
After acquiring the film, LIFE Bureau Head Will Lang Jr. ordered the creation of large photo prints of the individual frames for a special article on the film and the Warren Commission report. At some stage during the photo processing, several film frames were accidentally damaged — though private copies were made for LIFE executives. A few frames of the film have been printed over the years, but generally the film was kept locked away from public scrutiny and was never publicly shown in motion by LIFE.
CBS Dallas bureau chief Dan Rather was one of the few persons in the world privileged to see the Abraham Zapruder film that Saturday morning, November 23. In his narration of the film as part of CBS nationwide television coverage, Rather said the President's head "went forward with considerable violence." This narration confirmed the so-called "Oswald position" for the nation, but he said nothing about the violent backward motion of the President's head which would have strongly suggested to conspiracy theorists a second gunman at that early date. Rather apologized later in 1970s when Zapruder film became public by saying it was "an honest error."
In 1966 Dr. Josiah Thompson, while working for LIFE, tried to negotiate with LIFE for the rights to print important individual frames in a book he wrote called Six Seconds in Dallas. LIFE refused to approve the use of any of the frames, even after Thompson offered to give all profits from the book sales to LIFE. When Thompson's published book included very photo-like detailed charcoal drawings of important individual frames, LIFE filed a lawsuit against Thompson and his publishing company.
Prior to the 1969 trial of New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw for conspiracy in connection with the assassination, a copy of the film was obtained by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for use during the trial. Copies of the film were allowed to be made and were soon being further copied and shown throughout the United States and the rest of the world.
In March 1975, during the late-night TV show Goodnight America (hosted by Geraldo Rivera) assassination researchers Robert Groden and Dick Gregory presented the first-ever mass audience public TV showing of the Zapruder film in motion.
The public's response and outrage to that first public showing led immediately, and directly, to the forming of the Hart-Schweiker investigation, contributed to the Church Committee Investigation on Intelligence Activities by the United States, and led to the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation.
In 1975 LIFE sold the film back to the Zapruder family for the token sum of $1. The Zapruder family asked the U.S. government to store the film safely and help protect it from deterioration. The U.S. government now preserves the film in the National Archives.
In 1998, the original film was purchased by the United States government under the doctrine of eminent domain, and Zapruder's heirs sued to increase the amount paid for it to $16,000,000. The Zapruder family still retains all showing rights to the film. The Zapruder family at that time also donated one of the copies and various LIFE photo prints to the Sixth Floor Museum in what used to be the Texas School Book Depository building.
Perhaps while Miller's technical problems are being cleared up, he can find the cite stating Garrison, himself "had already been handing out copies of the Zapruder film"?
-
Dale Myers criticizing Max Holland is like debating whether poor, hungry people should be eating their children.
congrat's Ville -- right on
-
Yea, Bill, but Garrision got his copy of the Zap film legimitately, he supboened it from Life. Then the copies got out.
BK
That's right, Bill. Garrison got a copy and then had copies made and then handed them out to people, thus the snow-ball effect was set in motion. As I understand it, the Shaw trial was in 1969 and Garrison had already been handing out copies of the Zapruder film.
Garrison was "handing" Z-film copies out? You do have a cite for that, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sting
One might do well by themself were they to review the above.
Those in New Orleans have been "lifting" items from unsuspecting persons for many, many years.
The beauty of this one (The Garrison/Clay Shaw Trial) is that most are of the opinion that it had something to do with JFK's assassin.
http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw2.html
Q: Mr. Zapruder, do you have in your possession at this present time a copy of this film?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: May I have it, sir?
A: Yes.
MR. OSER: If the Court please, the State will mark the envelope containing a roll of film as S-37 for purposes of identification.
=================================
http://www.jfk-online.com/orthshaw.html
Q: Mr. Orth, just tell us what you did.
A: I made black and white prints and I made color prints and color slides.
Q: Now, from what film or films were these made?
A: From the original Zapruder film.
Q: I see. Did you copy the entire film or did you make prints of the entire film or only portions of it?
A: Only portions.
Q: And what portions of this film did you reproduce in black and white prints?
THE WITNESS: The black and white prints were made many years ago, only for editorial use; the color prints were made recently.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: I see. And what portions of the film do the black and white prints purport to cover, sir?
Q: How many black and white prints do you have, sir, in your possession?
A: I have none, only color prints with me.
Q: About 21 or 22 8 x 10 color photographs.
Q: Do you have them in your possession at this time?
A: Yes, I have, in my brief case.
Q: Would you please take them out, sir.
A: Certainly (producing photographs).
Q: How many of these photographs are there, sir?
A: I believe there are either 21 or 22.
Q: Would you count them, please.
A: Yes. (Counting) Twenty-one.
Q: And what do they represent?
A: They represent the frame numbers corresponding to the original 8-millimeter movie film.
Q: Thank you, sir.
A: You are welcome.
MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, in accordance with the subpoena duces tecum I would like the record to presently reflect that these photographs have been turned over to the Court.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Mr. Orth, do you have any slides in your possession at this time?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Would you please take those out.
A: Yes, sir (producing slides).
Q: How many such slides do you have in your possession, Mr. Orth?
A: From frame 200 to frame 320, so that would be 120 slides.
Q: I see. And were these slides processed either by you personally or under your supervision?
A: Yes, they were.
(Slides exhibited to Mr. Dymond.)
A: Well, again they represent the actual frame numbers to correspond with the original 8-millimeter movie film.
MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, at this time in accordance with the subpoena duces tecum I wish to present to the Court 120 slides from the Zapruder film, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Alcock, you have not given these an identifying number for an exhibit. Would you like the next number we have, merely for identification purposes? It would be S-53, the next State exhibit number. For the record, I think we should identify -- at least for identification purposes at this time we should identify what these are.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. It is merely our intent at this time to make the return on the subpoena duces tecum, and, if it please the Court, at a later time we will number these items to be admitted in evidence.
THE COURT: I would suggest you number them now. Make them S-53 for the photographs for identification purposes --
MR. ALFORD: Very well.
THE COURT: And S-54 for the slides, for identification purposes --
THE COURT: Do you have any further need of this gentleman?
MR. ALFORD: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Witness excused.)
MR. OSER: Your Honor, if the Court please, may I request that besides Mr. Orth being excused from the subpoena, also Time Incorporated be excused from the subpoena?
THE COURT: You are excused from the subpoena.
=========================================
http://www.jfk-online.com/westshaw.html
Q: Did you have occasion during the course of your duties to survey and draw a survey plat for the Federal Bureau of Investigation relative to Dealey Plaza?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you see that survey or reproduction of it in court today?
A: I think it is on the easel over there on the left.
Q: Is this survey drawn to scale, and if so, what scale?
A: Yes, sir. The scale is noted on the plat. The large portion of the map is drawn to the scale of one inch equal to twenty feet. The other portion, which has to do with vertical control --
A: This is what was required by an FBI agent. This is what he instructed me to survey and to plat.
Q: When was this plat made, if you know?
A: I can't see the date. It is on the map there.
Q: Is there a date on the plat?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Would you please step down and walk over to the plat?
A: April 31, 1964.
Q: Is your name on the plat?
A: My name is printed on the map and also my signature is on the map.
Q: Are there any seals on the plat?
A: There is a seal of the Public Surveyor's Office.
Q: Was this seal placed on the plat by you?
A: Yes, sir.
============================================================
1. Last original copy of the Z-film (not in the possession of the FBI/SS/WC) now in possession of Garrison.
2. Original prints and slides made by Time/Life now in possession of Garrison.
3. Assassination Survey Plat now in possession of Garrison.
Although I can not state as fact that I have never been "conned" out of a few bucks by the old "B"-Girl strippers of the French Quarter, I at least was mostly aware that I was being conned!
In that regards, one must pay extremely "High Compliments" to Garrison & Company!
http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw2.html
based on the above testimony how can ANYONE be sure Zapruder knew where ANY of the Z-film went (alleged in-camera original and Jamieson copies). Dallas Police Intelligence folks got a copy? What's that all about? Unless there was 4 double 8mm-un-split (16mm) copies struck of the alleged in-camera original.... And the Lone Nutters want to brand Garrison with he, Garrison was handing out Z-film copies? Come on....
-
Yea, Bill, but Garrision got his copy of the Zap film legimitately, he supboened it from Life. Then the copies got out.
BK
That's right, Bill. Garrison got a copy and then had copies made and then handed them out to people, thus the snow-ball effect was set in motion. As I understand it, the Shaw trial was in 1969 and Garrison had already been handing out copies of the Zapruder film.
Garrison was "handing" Z-film copies out? You do have a cite for that, right?
-
Pamela Quote : I interviewed Nick Prencipe by phone in March of 2000.
From: NPRINCE9@juno.com
To: pamelam@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:06:01 -0400
Subject: Re: reply
Message-ID: <20000707.080612.-3697521.1.NPRINCE9@juno.com>
Pam
I try to be as helpful as I can, but I am a bit upset at some of the
choice of words I note from time to time. When you state that you will
follow up and see what makes sense, I dont follow this line of thinking.
I knew the limo when I saw it, I sure saw it many times and even sat in
it. There was someone else in the process of lifing the tarp from its
partially lifted position, as I recall. And I did see a bullet hole, so
if there was a bullet hole, or damage to another one of the cars, there
is a new track to follow.
I do not remember what time I got home that night, or the next morning, I
have no idea what time it was.
My interest in ALL available facts in this are similar to others, I weigh
whatever I see, hear or read for my own judgements, something I have been
doing for the most part of my 84 years.
I was not aware that you were writing a book on this. so I can wait for
some the queries I made.
Regards
NICK [/i]
Thank you for posting a copy of this email from Nick. Mine were lost in a pc crash. As you can see, I was asking for details that might give an idea as to what time he went to the WHG, who was there, and facts that might be corroborated by other information.
He recalled seeing Greer that evening, yet according to existing information at this point, nobody saw Greer leave Bethesda during the evening. He also recalled walking in and pulling up the tarp on the limo without anyone questioning him, whereas the SS claimed that there were people around the car all evening. He also provided me with a location of low on the left side. He later said he couldn't recall the location. When one does not have all the answers it makes more sense to provide the information available and allow others to weigh and evaluate it. Eventually, the missing pieces may appear.
I was not asked to write a chapter on SS-100-X for CAR CRASH CULTURE, Palgrave, 2001, until after I had interviewed Nick. I explained when I interviewed him that I would communicate with him about using information from the interview in a research paper or anything at the level of the press. So I sent him a draft of the chapter for his input. This email was in response to that.
**********************
What you have left out is that you were trying to coerce Nick Principe into saying he saw a hole in another vehicle, not the limo...
...Actually the hole was on the left side....What existing info on Greer ?.........Was someone following him around recording his movements.....?
Nick knew Greer and saw him...
From: NPRINCE9@juno.com
To: pamel
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:18:41 -0400
Subject: Re: QUESTION
Message-ID: <20000703.072039.-3702699.0.NPRINCE9@juno.com>
Pam
I will answer this in several parts
First of all --If I had not been on duty--you can bet that I would have
been on my way home.
I was at the command post all evening and was in contact with my excort
men at Andrews AFB--I was aware of every thing that was taking
place--from that distance--it was only in ref to what my boys were doing.
During the period that I was there--and this was not too long after the
plane had brought the family back, I noticed Bill standing in the
street--west executive ave--only about 50-60 feet or so from me. I went
to him and we shook hands and thats when he made his statement to me.
I resumed my activity and I heard the transmissions re the escort of the
limo to the garage. Later--and I cant pin it down to any specific
minute, I went to the garage--it was not that far away. There were still
some people around and I just walked in--nobody stopped me or paid any
attention to me--all those guys in the SS and State dept. etc knew me and
were used to me being in many places at many times.
From the best of my rec. there was someone else interested in seeing that
w shield and we saw it together and
there WAS a hole in it..................
Nick
B...
thanks for posting this B....
David
-
This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.
Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong?
This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL
airplane to do this.
Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand
photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because
he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably
has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's
the ticket!
Jack
"Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand
photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because
he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably
has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's
the ticket! "
Jack, your inability to understand even the basic tenents of photography is well documented. Your inability to analyse photographic images is well documented. You have YOURSELF cast your reputation into the dustbin. Don't blame anyone else....
"tenents of photography" oh brother.... give it a rest, will ya.... without Jack White you'd be banging around that studio of yours taking pic's of trailers, boats and chairs 24/7.... and when a university, ANY university houses YOUR photos for posterity, give us a call. We'll then determine the breadth of your work... (Which I'm sure in the catalog biz, is outstanding)...
Admitted Ed Forum space buffs certainly have a lot of opinion, eh?
-
Why did Turner post it for him?
Jack
Because he asked me a question in a PM which I thought might be of interest to the general membership. Jeez.
I was reprimanded by a moderator for posting a message from another person.
Jack
LMAO.... I was recently told, I'm under 10% moderation (per our space buff turned moderator, Evan) that count as a reprimand?
-
Some questions to start the debate.
1, Were the sixties a revolutionary period?
2, Are the sixties, as the Right like to claim, responsible for present day ills?
3, Ultimately, did the working class benefit from this epoch? and if not, who are the true beneficiaries?
4, When did "the sixties" start, and when did they end?
5, What is the single most important event of that decade?
In America:
1... no more than the Roaring 20's
2... hardly, freedom of thought, ideas, speech and media manipulation. And, who is selling present day ills as ills?
3... of course the working class benefited... fair to good paying job, a home, two cars, kids off to college.
4... for some, its STILL the 60's
5... commercial use of the transistor...
-
[...]
For your information:
Gary;
I am of course aware of the photograph(s) which demonstrate LHO holding the rigle and firing from the right shoulder.
Which merely means that a photo was taken of him being properly positioned by the Gunnery/Firing Range Instructor.
It neither indicates/confirms that LHO was right handed, nor does it provide sufficient evidentiary fact to establish eye dominance.
And, as I long ago stated, many "Southpaw" shooter were required to fire the M-1 Garand right handed, even though they may in fact be left handed.
This was due to the ejection pattern of the M-1 in which a left handed shooter could end up with a hot, empty shell casing being ejected out of the rifle and into the right eye of the shooter.
There exists more than sufficient evidence to indicate that LHO was at least, ambidextrous, and quite possibly fully "Left eye Dominant".
[...]
Tom
From experience (as a left-handed shooter and left eye dominant) with the M1 during ARMY boot-camp at Fort Ord, Ca., in the summer of 1962. Three in our BCT (Basic Combat Training) platoon were left handed, NONE were forced to shoot right handed, or, for that matter, "pose for range photos" (which I find strange, cameras were never allowed on ANY of the ranges). September of 1962 found new M14's put into service for Advance Infantry Training (AIT), all three lefties, as known, shot EXPERT with both the M1 and the M14. Never a word about converting to "right-handed" shooting, not even a joke. I (nor to the best of my knowledge the other two "lefties" in my platoon) ever experienced hot brass in the face (or eye) with the M1, or the M14...
The (gas operated) bolt and thumbs, another story...
this threat: Lamson quote 
)
A Hole In One!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David G. Healy
Old time-frame? WCR "OLD" time frame? Explain to us when the WCR was amended with a "NEW" time frame, Sgt. Williams. And Sgt Williams, have you heard of the Zapruder film?
In the spirit of this thread Sgt. Williams, In simple terms, so even non-veterans AND military vet's can understand, IMHO, I forgot more about this assassination than you'll probably ever know... and Marine Sgt Williams unless you can deliver a factual accounting regarding any recreation that duplicated JFK's wounds, in the time alloted per the WCR, including proper heights, distances and wind conditions (not to mention the stress of shooter unknowables). I certainly hope you're not pinning all you hopes on the Australian connection regarding the "gaffer-tape shooting platform blowing around in the wind" re-creation, are you marine Sgt Williams?
What I see here is simple Sgt. Williams, you're attempting to sell a new 8-12 second scenario (instead of 5.6 seconds). Its long been apparent to us if that IF WCR findings seem a bit uncomfortable for certain Lone Nutters, they simply prefer to change or invent a new time frame, does that sum up your position? Do you have a cite for this 8-12 second scenario (I'm curious)? Reminds me of Gerald Ford moving an entrance wound 4 inches. oopse
Your experience shooting the manual bolt operated MC, please?
D. Healy