David G. Healy

I'm amazed JFK's murder is treated as some sort of researcher type competition... What's the first place prize? A "free pass" to the 6th Floor Museum for a year.... By-the-way, the assassination research community has grown considerably since the 70's. You did not think it would stay static over all these years did you? Or that 6 Seconds in Dallas was the last word?

Len, I completely agree. White ran his mouth, and as usual can not support his claims. Typical of the species. No evidence to put up, and to ignorant to shut up. trolling again, Sgt. Mikey? Things slow at lancer or are you lost?

Nick "thought" he saw? This the same Nick Prencipe that belonged to JFKResearch up to the time he died? Washington D.C. cop? Who also knew SA Greer, this the same guy your talking about? And so we get this right, did you interview Nick or did he interview you? When and where did this interview take place? Thanks

not to be picky but, mislabled (sic)? Can you provide verification/cite CNN mislabeled any graphics or lower third supers? Are you aware as to how international news organizations time-stamp their tv feeds and what free running time-code means? Are you on active duty, Mr. Lewis? Just curious. Actually Dr. Thompson what stinks is the overabundance of spoon fed media BS and pap that resonates from WCR apologists and their organizations which, by-the-way continues to this day. Too many years and too many lies.... you just can't use more lies to cover up past lies eventually the house of cards collapses... Old LHO could come back from the dead tomorrow and admit being part of a plot to assassinate the President of the United States and no one would believe him... Why? Because we've multiple LHO's these days... We've come a long way baby, eh? Lies and more lies..... I notice Matt Lewis can't answer a few simple CNN "time" related [non-military] questions, I now wonder why you felt a need to rise in his behalf... Your beef with Dr.Jim Fetzer is your gig, frankly I see it as two Philosophy professors each with a titanic ego clashing. Each with a bit envy of the other..... As to the point at hand, I'm ALWAYS interested in what active-duty personnel think of conflict. Being patriotic doesn't always mean dressing up in a flag, ANY flag. If Matt Lewis can't or won't respond to the question, that's his choosing. No need to bring up Dr. Jim Fetzer every chance you get...

not to be picky but, mislabled (sic)? Can you provide verification/cite CNN mislabeled any graphics or lower third supers? Are you aware as to how international news organizations time-stamp their tv feeds and what free running time-code means? Are you on active duty, Mr. Lewis? Just curious.

Top Post http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/13/indymac/i...tion=cnn_latest http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

I suspect a few of the lawyers on this board might have a few comments concerning witness testimony and photographic evidence..... I doubt there'll be progress or resolution regarding Zapruder film alteration. At least until; forensic testing of the alleged in-camera NARA Zapruder properties and composition is performed; newly created, and complete first generation set of the Z-film frames (verified as authentic) in either 4x5 trannie or 35mm slides format released to qualified film-video compositing professionals for their review and professional opinion. Any assistance is greatly appreciated.... Until the above is achieved, discussion concerning *other* DP films is pap (so, so, many questions concerning those *other* films). Again, till a benchmark is set and verified utilizing the NARA housed, Zapruder Kodacolor II in-camera original double 8mm film), any discussion concerning the Zapruder film (not to mention *other* DP films) is futile.

Context, hmm... it is what it is, Pat. Now if Bennet is on the record clearing up his simple statement it would be nice if you could provide a cite. "...most definitely"? In JFK assassination evidence, testimony, ehibits, films and photos? I don't think so.....

I know just the guy, Sgt. Mikey.... !

Well son, we do know Jack White and his photo credentials, your photo interp credentials on the other hand, now THAT, is another story... So, no one is over or under estimating you Sgt. Mikey.... things must be slow at Lancer these day's, eh? You did however, get off to a bad start here mixing it up with Tom Purvis, we all live and learn, eh? Regarding the topic at hand, your expertise and experience in high rise collapse (and photos of same) would be much appreciated, you do you have a resume, yes? Or are you simply rendering another opinion? Let's not avoid THAT issue, eh? Seems Lone Nuts are versatile and experienced in so much these day's, simply boggles the mind.... now if they only had credentials to go with their opinons -- just might carry some weight... Carry on! Interesting to hear from someone who provides nothing on any topic. Why in the world would I have to be a photo expert to offer an opinion about the smoke in those photos? Are they geometrically challenging? Certainly not. A for Purvis, I learned long ago never to argue with a fool, folks watching may not know the difference. But at any rate Davey, carry on, and post more useless nothingness that you contribute so well. You dont have to be a photo expert to see which way the smoke goes, you just have to apply common sense, something so very lacking in most of the alteration's crowd. So now Do you have something to offer here David....or are you just to continue flapping your useless gob? Mike of course I do Sgt. Mikey... you can stop leading with your chin son, this is an international forum, either you know the material or you don't.... You're sounding strangely like Wild *BM* Bill Miller, did you attend his Lancer photo interp classes? Just curious... and I do take Josiah Thompson's posts in this thread seriously. Unlike you son, he's a known commodity with proven investigative-research skills.... you on the other hand are simply peanut gallery prattle.

Jack credentials especially as of late are very much under question. You must have missed it but be has made a number of embarrassing blunders recently. He is clearly wrong once again video show smoke coming out of 7 NOT 6 WTC. Jack silly 6 WTC explosion "theory" has already been debunked a few times And what prey tell are your or Jack's credentials? your published bio is where again, Len Old Chap? That bio contains what as far as photo interp? Who are you Len? You failed miserably with RZavada a few years back, what should we expect regarding the WTC debacle? So far, you've misplaced a crosswalk, eh (which you copped to)? What embarrassing blunder is next?

Well son, we do know Jack White and his photo credentials, your photo interp credentials on the other hand, now THAT, is another story... So, no one is over or under estimating you Sgt. Mikey.... things must be slow at Lancer these day's, eh? You did however, get off to a bad start here mixing it up with Tom Purvis, we all live and learn, eh? Regarding the topic at hand, your expertise and experience in high rise collapse (and photos of same) would be much appreciated, you do you have a resume, yes? Or are you simply rendering another opinion? Let's not avoid THAT issue, eh? Seems Lone Nuts are versatile and experienced in so much these day's, simply boggles the mind.... now if they only had credentials to go with their opinons -- just might carry some weight... Carry on!

Tom - take two different cameras and have two people point them at each other and both take a photo ... it makes no difference in this matter by what you are saying. I will ask you once again to name one expert you have spoken to who says that Z202 doesn't not equate with the Willis photo, but rather the later frame that you have chosen. You failure to comply only supports what I believe to be true IMO. I personally know of no expert who has ev er said differently that what Jack, Groden, the many photo experts that Mack has consulted, not to mention those Trask had contact with, the experts with the HSCA ... not anyone who has come up with your conclusion. I simply do not buy the idea that you are correct and the rest of the world is wrong. I don't think that it is too much to ask for you to produce one person who is an expert in photography to validate your conclusion. Bill miller might be nice if YOU have your alleged "photo experts" provide a quote regarding Mr. Purvis's work.... For some reason, YOU saying it's so, simply doesn't cut it. What YOU, Bill Miller buy is irrelevant, as you've been told countless times. Either get official comments from these alleged experts or cease and desist the endless name dropping... We all notice none of these experts have run to your aid and support here ,or for that matter, anywhere else.... Why is that?

Not passing the sniff test, Pamela... What I'm seeing here is simply; D. Weldon is an attorney therefore he knows how to manipulate witnesses....? Ya want to discredit someone else's work, get eyewitness testimony stating the attorney manipulated their testimony, or PROOF (like a tape recording) from a uninterested 3rd party stating same... " Weldon pushing.... Weldon sanatized witness statement.... Weldon encouraged... x2 Weldon used every kind of strategy....etc." Pamela, whats all this about --sounds like envy, eh? Ya missed the boat, lady....

I think it is time that you cite the stats on who said the second shot hit JFK in the head Vs. witnesses who said the third shot hit JFK in the head ... this should being interesting to say the least. Bill Miller Have you been following any of these threads? Or, do you simply insist on showing us your research incompetence.....Search this forum, its all there! Hint: Have you heard of a Mr. West, Surveyor, you can start there? Your expertise as a 'researcher' is telling.... I can hear Mary Ferrell turning over in her grave.... btw, what new photographic evidence did you find? Does it have something to do with image resolution? Now THIS should be G-O-O-D

Your remarks are just what I would expect from someone who won't admit they are wrong even in the face of the evidence. You have become blinded through your arrogance and inability to read an image showing gaps and lines of sights in reverse. If I am wrong about my opinion of this, then how is that you would make the following statement to Jack White when what Jack said should be obvious to anyone who has ever stood in front of a mirror. You said, "NOPE! Perhaps, even at this advanced stage in life, it may serve a purpose were you to take a course in survey as well as photographic imagery interpretation." This time it is Jack who is right, as well as the rest of the noted researchers who have claimed Z202 (not Z206) mirrored the Phil Willis photo. I will explain it once again, not because I feel that you will own up to your mistake in reading the images, but so others can see just how far some will go to appear right .... rather than accurate. Willis Photo The Willis photo shows Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman standing atop of the pedestal in the background beyond Clint Hill. A more exact description would be that from Willis stood, Zapruder's body is in the gap between the east edge of the Stemmons Freeway sign and Agent Hill's head. Had Zapruder of been holding a large mirror instead of a camera, then Phil Willis would see himself from Zapruder's line of sight and I think we can all agree that a mirror shows us everything in reverse if we were looking back at ourselves. This is indisputable!!! Zapruder frame #202 Zapruder frame #202 shows Phil Willis between the east edge of the road sign and Agent Clint Hill's head ... this is exactly what is indisputably seen in the Willis photo. (Take special notice of the man and the woman standing just west of Phil Willis) Jack White illustration Jack White took the liberty to demonstrate this detail by placing a vertical white line through Zapruder's body as seen in the Willis photo so to show that Zapruder is seen in the gap/space between the east edge of the road sign and Agent Clint Hill's head. Zapruder frame #206 Zapruder frame #206 is the frame that YOU (Tom Purvis) says that it mirrors the Phil Willis photo. When I read this frame there are several major problems with your claim. They are indiputable in my opinion and are as follows .. 1) There no longer is a gap/space between the east edge of the Stemmons Road sign and Clint Hill's head as Jack White pointed out in his illustration. 2) The man standing next to the woman that I referenced in the Z202 frame now has Agent Clint Hill in Zframe #206 passing between that man and Zapruder's camera. This is not what the Phil Willis photo shows. The Willis photo shows that Clint Hill's head was not far enough west at that time Phil Willis took his photo to even be directly between Zapruder and the Willis camera ... let alone to be far enough down Elm Street to be passing by the man who stood several feet west of Willis. 3) In Zframe #206 - Phil Willis isn't seen just to the west of Agent Clint Hill's head, but is behind it and to the east of Hill's head. (Remember the mirror effect that I mentioned pertaining to Z202 ... the Willis doesn't have Abraham Zapruder being seen directly above Agent Hill's head, nor does it show Zapruder over Agent Hill's right shoulder, which is what it must show to mirror Z206. This isn't a matter of relying on numbers in a survey or interpretation of what a witness may or may not have meant to say. This is a matter of understanding a simple line of sight between two people (Zapruder and Willis). All the game playing and guesses as to who heard what shot from where and when isn't going to change this FACT. I think that before anymore time is wasted on this nonsense, I must ask that you run this response by someone skilled in reading photos so to get their opinion. Until then, I must assume that you are not going to see something that you do not wish to believe and there is nothing that can be done for you at that point. Bill Miller while you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time on "this nonsense", I'll remind [/b]YOU[/b], and one-n-all, that if, IF the Zapruder film is altered certainly doesn't say much for your benchmark, does it? Hate to remind you of that....

Lancer? I can hardly wait....

You remind me of a baby animal when it thinks that because its eyes are hidden behind a small object - that the rest of its body must also be hidden from anyones view. (smile) By the way, how is that very important request for the historical films to be given to you for examination coming along ... have you started it yet or are you still trying to decide if it should be written in pen or pencil??? (sigh) Bill Miller Is it two-step time? Ya need a partner, son...... can't buy time courting me..... seeya round the hood! LMFAO!

I appears that you assumed that everyone heard each and every shot so that when one witness said he saw the second shot hit JFK in the head and another says the last shot hit JFK in the head ... you assumed they were talking about two different shots being fired. Moorman thought the head shot was the first shot ... do you now start telling the world that JFK was shot in the head at three different points in time ... I wouldn't! Occam's Razor one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. this is dancing? ROTFLMFAO! Ya need Arthur Murray.... and, the WCR, and the volumes This keeps up, I'm gonna start ignoring you....

David ... its said to be best to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. This was just another 'David Healy' response that didn't offer any data or any sign that you even understand what is being discussed ... now is that what you believe John Simkin invited you here to do ... be honest! (LOL!!!) How about instead of just saying something foolish .... tell us how Altgens said that the President was hit in the head while the limo was approximately 15 feet east of his location and yet Tom says that the fatal shot impacted 29.7' beyond Z313 which would then put the car west of Altgens. Do you have any thoughts about that??? Bill Miller can't duck, son...... you know who you have to discuss this with.... then I'll bring up Z-film alteration, ya said you wanted to dance. I'm waiting and watching

I suspect Miller, etal., wishes this thread would just go away...

well hell, Tom isn't the ONLY one.... it was 12:30PM on Elm Street the sun just past its zenith.... yepper'ero amazing, white helmets looking white.... btw, can you tell all of us, if the include Z-frames are blown-out (you're aware of that that means, right?)? And of course your professional film-photo opinion as to how they got that way.... Can you also attest that you didn't add brightness and contrast to these frames prior to posting? Thanks, David Healy

I kept this remark separate from my last response so to expose someone who is double talking so to seem like he always has something important to say. This is a person who will complain about someone's opinion without evidence to support it while saying things like 'I believe in alteration' ... 'I have seen no proof of alteration' while not posting a shred of proof to support either statement. Once again a simple review of David Healy's past responses shows him talking out of both sides of his mouth for no other reason than to xxxxx for a response. If you can see past his misspellings - I offer the following on what he said about "OPINIONS" ... http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...mp;topic_page=4 "This is the internet not a lab, Bill. Opinions STILL carry the day. Some people share their findings - other's don't. Some share, disinfo - other's, heartfelt research which noone was ever going to SEE or HEAR. Nobody will prove "anything" on this forum or anyother -- They'll be a lot posturing and turf protection, which, quite frankly I've no problem with -- that the way it is, interests to protect and opinions to advance-- PR David Healy" On one forum, Healy will say that opinions are nothing without concrete evidence. On yet another forum Healy says that whether one shares their research or not - 'OPINIONS' carry the day. Want to dance some more, David??? (smile) Bill Miller opinions are opinions, get with the program son... Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This o·pin·ion Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. 3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion. 4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case. 5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion. 6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him. so if YOU want to dance, then get off the stool..... however before you enter the dance floor, let us see your credentials in photo and film compositing, after all why should I or anyone else for that matter want to waste time with a self-proclaimed film-photo wannbe? Doesn't make sense, son.....

Shall I direct attention to a little west-central town in Nevada called Tonopah -- the very place (Tonopah located to the immediate northwest of Area 51) where the F-117 was put through its tactical paces a few years prior to deployment in Gulf 1 war (via Nellis [Nevada] and Hollaman [New Mexico] AFB... Everyone in Southern Nevada (includes Las Vegas) knew, KNEW something big and stealthy was going on in the neighborhood (what with Area 51 just up the street, no resident was surprised)... the "pap" comment for years, from national and local, Washington D.C., Air Force types (and also all resdients of Tonapah) was "no comment and no STEALTH.... There's a wonderful letter from Air Force bigwigs framed and hanging on a wall in the main Tonopah hotel-resturant, congratulating the town for keeping the F-117 STEALTH aircraft project secret (not commenting to prying media cameras -- which were continual and many) under trying circumstances...

]Do you not have any idea just how stupid your responses come across??? No one has contacted me about my language and I am not even sure what you are talking about. Your question about me representing the 6th Floor Museum goes to the idiocy of the responses you make. You seem to rather xxxxx for attention many times over than to just contact the Museum with a simple question so to get your answer. In fact, your remark didn't even detail why you would ask me such a nutty question. As far as Tom and Rigby ... one thinks Lane wrote about the Zapruder frame stills showing what was on the film, which doesn't make any sense and certainly something that could be presented to Lane either by phone or in writing so to see if I have read it right. Tom cannot see how light passes through the spaces in the tree foliage and you see that as them having me tied up in knots. Maybe you'd like to explain why there are sunspots on the asphalt if light doesn't pass through the tree foliage ... care to play the role of a fool some more? And why should I contact Life Magazine about someone who never had any real plans to take seriously his being allowed to examine their historical film images ... seems like just more of you wasting peoples time to me. Bill Miller son, you're not a star here.... it's all about the JFK assassination, this is not a job interview.... You've got to come to grips with a few simple facts, Miller... one, you haven't laid hands or eyes on the original Zapruder film... so all this nonsense you post is opinion, O-P-I-N-I-O-N. Therefore, two, until you post something concrete with evidence to support your opinions, you're just another Lone Nut spouting off on any forum that will put up with your arrogance [or a forum you buy into].... Gary Mack can hold your hand till the cows come home, you won't get the job.... pssst, and forget the grand ideas.... won't happen!