David G. Healy

And let us consider the Miles Skull is trolling for attention theory. Miles, When BMiller runs out of gas he trots out the "xxxxx" card, he has no alternative...... just to keep a thread going way beyond the norm. Loves to see those thousand+ views. Guy is a living cartoon....

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #42 Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of the 'answers'. *below question reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...* But first, an important note: ********************************************************************** Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks. These trolls include (but are not limited to): **22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************** I've decided to repost this one - since no-one has even tried to answer it. If those who believe the Warren Commission Report want to defend it - they *MUST* answer these questions... running away from them, or claiming that they are "dead on arrival" or have "already been answered" simply won't do the trick. If there are any honest LNT'ers out there - I won't hold you to trying to justify McAdams lies about this - just answer the first question below. LNT'er cowardice continues... no answers... yet these questions *MUST* be answered if they wish to convince America that the WCR got it right... 42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could *not* have referenced Oswald's MC. The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was attempting to frame LHO? There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd... Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name "Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban, had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the purchase documents. Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of. Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before? There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?" So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before the assassination? eof

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #39 Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of the 'answers'. *below question reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...* But first, an important note: ********************************************************************** Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks. These trolls include (but are not limited to): **22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************** I've decided to repost this one - since no-one has even tried to answer it. If those who believe the Warren Commission Report want to defend it - they *MUST* answer these questions... running away from them, or claiming that they are "dead on arrival" or have "already been answered" simply won't do the trick. If there are any honest LNT'ers out there - I won't hold you to trying to justify McAdams lies about this - just answer the first question below. LNT'ers have really tried explaining this one in the past, since it's such an obvious example of their lies about the evidence. Hopefully, someone will actually be able to explain the WC's actions here: [but judging from the previous 38 questions, I won't hold my breath] 39. "Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved to the Klaus Kurki Hotel." (WCR 690) Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that Oswald left England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's a lie that is in provable conflict with their own evidence: Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8/html/WH_Vol... and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959" But this wouldn't be good for the WC - for as they discovered, there were no commercial flights from London to Helsinki that Oswald could have taken in order to get to his hotel in Helsinki on the 10th. (See CE 2677) The WC knew that the only alternative was a non-commercial flight - such as a military flight. This wouldn't do at all - so the simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply lie about the day Oswald left London... Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it? eof

First of all ... what is this word "visualisisation"??? And from what I recall ... Groden had only raised the question as to who the man seen through the pyracantha bush was. As a CTs, he raised the idea that this person may have been connected to the assassins. It was when I got with him that I suggested that we test the location by recreating it. So Groden never got anything wrong for he never said that he knew who it was. Because you don't have the facts ... it appears that it is you who has it wrong. Bill when Lone Nuts are cornered the first thing they revert to is spelling, LMAO... Not to mention constant bold[type]ness

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #38 Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of the 'answers'. *below question reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...* But first, an important note: ********************************************************************** Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks. These trolls include (but are not limited to): **22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************** The silence from the LNT'er camp has been deafening... no wonder the LNT'ers prefer to hang out in a censored forum! On to the next: 38. "... but there is no evidence that an "A. J. Hidell" existed." (WCR 292) "Because Oswald's use of this pseudonym became known quickly after the assassination, investigations were conducted with regard to persons using the name Hidell or names similar to it." (WCR 313) "Hidell was a favorite alias used by Oswald on a number of occasions. Diligent search has failed to reveal any person in Dallas or New Orleans by that name." (WCR 645) But the actual evidence shows otherwise: "I, John Rene Heindel, 812 Belleville Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, being first duly sworn, depose and say: ...While in the Marine Corps, I was often referred to as "Hidell"--pronounced so as to rhyme with "Rydell" rather than "Fidel." This was a nickname and not merely an inadvertent mispronunciation. It is possible that Oswald might have heard me being called by this name; indeed he may himself have called me "Hidell." However, I have no specific recollection of his either using or hearing this name." (8H 318) If a LNT'er wishes to argue that the staff was unaware of this deposition, they'll need to face this: Mr. JENNER. Do you remember a marine by the name of John Heindel? Mr. POWERS. No, sir. Mr. JENNER. Sometimes called Hidell? This is Atsugi now. Mr. POWERS. No. (8H 288) The WCR once again, simply lied. And although John R. Heindel was known from a Secret Service investigation conducted in New Orleans from 22Nov - 2Dec; (See CE3119 pg 12) no other research has been presented... presumably, the FBI, Secret Service, and WC simply declined to investigate Heindel. Interestingly enough, the Dallas Police list of property seized on Nov 23rd at the Paine residence includes the following: "four 3 x 5 cards bearing respectively names G. Hall; A.J. Hidell; B. Davis; and V.T. Lee" (CE 2003 pg 269) Gus Hall, Benjamin Davis, and Vincent T. Lee are real people of prominence in the leftist political movement. If A. J. Hidell is a fake name invented by Oswald, the subtlety of preparing an index card for Hidell, and putting it in with known real people was certainly nothing less than brilliant. (to paraphrase Silvia Meagher) Can anyone explain why the WCR simply disregarded and misrepresented the evidence in the case of this 'alias'? eof

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #37 Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of the 'answers'. *below question reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...* But first, an important note: ********************************************************************** Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks. These trolls include (but are not limited to): **22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************** The silence from the LNT'er camp continues... which merely illustrates the fact that the evidence *DOESN'T* support the WCR's theory. On to the next: 37. "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee, Frankie Kaiser, found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the northwest corner of the sixth floor at the west wall a few feet from where the rifle had been found." (WCR 143) Mr. KAISER. I was over there looking for the Catholic edition--teacher's edition. Mr. BALL. Where did you see the clipboard? Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the plain open boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and I just noticed it laying over there. Mr. BALL. Laying. on the floor? Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was laying on the floor. Mr. BALL. It was on the floor? Mr. KAISER. It was on the floor. Mr. BALL. How close was it to the wall? Mr. KAISER. It was about---oh--I would say, just guessing, about 5 or 6 inches, something like that. Mr. BALL. From the wall and on the floor? Mr. KAISER. Laying on the floor. Mr. BALL. And were there any boxes between the wall and the clipboard? Mr. KAISER. No, not between the wall and the clipboard--there wasn't. Mr. BALL. Were there boxes between the stairway and the clipboard? Mr. KAISER. No, you see, here's---let me see just a second---here's the stairs right here, and we went down this way and here's the stairs this way going up and here's the and it was laying fight in here by the cards--there are about four or five cards, I guess, running in front of it--just laying between the part you go down and the part you go up. Mr. BALL. You mean laying between the stairway up and the stairway down? Mr. KAISER. Yes, right there in the corner. (6H 343) BALL. How long did you stay up on the sixth floor? After you found the location of the three cartridges? Mr. MOONEY. Well, I stayed up there not over 15 or 20 minutes longer--after Captain Will Fritz and his officers came over there, Captain Fritz picked up the cartridges, began to examine them, of course I left that particular area. By that time there was a number of officers up there. The floor was covered with officers. And we were searching, trying to find the weapon at that time. (3H 289) The WC simply lied, when trying to disguise the fact that the many policemen that swamped the sixth floor (See Mooney's statement) couldn't find a clipboard that Kaiser clearly states was in plain sight, and not hidden at all. The clipboard was *NOT* hidden - and an entire working week went by before it was "discovered". Can anyone defend this curious lie of the Warren Commission? eof

From a Vanity Fair article: "Back in 1964, asked whether his Commission's documents would be made public, Chief Justice Earl Warren replied, "Yes, there will come a time. But it might not be in your lifetime. I am not referring to anything especially, but there may be some things that would involve security. This would be preserved but not made public."" [NY Times; 2/5/64]

Just a few of those unfortunate (Lone Nut) coincidences, perhaps? Perhpas our resident "JFK/Dealey PLaza assassination film-photos" expert (Bill Miller) would care to comment. After all these years of dedicated film analyzing work, he surely has drawn a few conclusions, at least ONE anyway..... Take it away Bill Miller....

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #36 Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of the 'answers'. *below question reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...* But first, an important note: ********************************************************************** Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks. These trolls include (but are not limited to): **22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************** 36. Why was their such an amazing amount of clumsiness when it came to the assassination films? The Z-film being broke in several places, the Muchmore film being broke right at one of the head shots, the Nix Film reportedly returning in a different condition from when it was taken from him? This isn't to mention the number of eyewitnesses who reported their film taken *and never returned* eof

We got another BM nutter-clone, Martha.... ROTFLMFAO!

Pretty sure I know the source, let me confirm it and I'll get back to you soonest...

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #35 Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of the 'answers'. *below question reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...* But first, an important note: ********************************************************************** Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks. These trolls include (but are not limited to): **22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************** 35. From the Jan 27th Executive Session: *************************************** Mr. Rankin. Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation other shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. ***************************************** "Below the shoulder blades?" "probably a fragment came out the front of the neck?" Can you point to any statement in the current existing Autopsy report that would support these statements? Was Rankin simply mistaken? Under what conditions could he come up with such a mistaken impression of what the Autopsy Report said? eof

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #34 Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of the 'answers'. *below question reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...* But first, an important note: ********************************************************************** Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks. These trolls include (but are not limited to): **22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************* The deafening silence continues... so on to the next unanswerable question: 34. Why did the WC simply lie about the first press conference with Dr. Perry? We all know that they certainly had the power to get film of the conference, and they refused to do so... why? eof

Is the above a confession? I invite anyone to read the last 25 responses you have given, David ... and then read what you said above to see if the term 'the kettle calling a pot black' can be traced back to the Healy clan. By the way ... is someone who has posted that they don't believe in alteration and that the have seen no proof of alteration .... all in the same thread a LNr or a CTs ... or just form of a hermaphrodite in the research community. (sigh~) Bill Miller your sounding a lot like a Lone Nut-xxxxx that haunts alt.conspiracy.jfk. Ya not slumming are ya...

Well, it seems like this has been going on between y'all for some time, and in other places. I'll just fly up to my rafters again... cheers - nah.... not a good idea Otto. That's what Lone Nutters not only DO, but want..... Steal threads and divert attention. They can not, with any state of reasonableness, defend the Warren Commission Report. Complete state of denial...

they've no choice, Duncan..... they're cornered, can't bs their way out of it here.

my goodness your falling all over Bill "BM" Miller again, Mikey..... Ya didn't let Tom Purvis or I scare ya now did we? I'd like to know the extent of your JFK assassination research knowledge.... Haven't read much (if ANYTHING) from you concerning same... We do understand Lancer (aka Bill's place) has a cheer-leading crew here most of the time. Time is a valuable commodity.... do we waste more time with you or not? No sense "tossing pearls before swine", eh? Might want to give a few of those 45 questions that are posted here a shot (pardon the pun), .... give it that good old semper fi try, eh? See what you're made of......

nice dodge, chum.... the old mine is bigger than yours gig, eh? So listen up -- this isn't Lancer, we understand your devotion to Bill "BM" Miller, we also understand you have to bail him out when he gets his back to the corner...... Whining won't get you anywhere, any more than 4 or 24 years in the Corps got you anywhere when it comes to the JFK assassination. That IS why your here, right?.... Nothing beats nose-to-the-grind stone research, eh? Either one of you Mikes had the pleasure of seeing the *original* Zapruder film? ********** TomP. -- nope and thanks for the update... The above 4 on 4 sounds like a bad barroom beef..... have a bit more drama if it was one Marine (with one arm tied behind his back, of course) kicking 4 SOF asses... LMFAO! Considering our ages, I'd say its a pearls before swine gig!

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #32 Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of the 'answers'. *below question reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...* But first, an important note: ********************************************************************** Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks. These trolls include (but are not limited to): **22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************** The silence has been deafening... on to the next: 32. There were known assassination attempts in both Chicago and Tampa in the weeks before the successful assassination attempt in Dallas. Although the Chicago attempt was successfully kept out of the papers, this isn't true of the Tampa attempt - which made it into one article. Why did the Secret Service not inform the WC of these past attempts, and what can explain the WC's "ignorance" of these previous assassination attempts? Why do LNT'ers refuse to even *admit* that these attempts are historical and known? And, I might add, (although an honest answer would be a surprise) what does the fact of these two previous attempts suggest in terms of a "Lone Nut/Conspiracy" theory of Dallas? eof

sorry for the delay Tim, forwarded to Ben Holmes for a response, which I'll post here (05.15.08)

You know Mike, for someone who says they are NEW to studying the assassination, you have too much to say in my opinion, and are far too knowledgeable about many aspects related to the assassination, not just here, but on other forums too. Your disruptive tactics are nothing more than a minor irritation to me, and the good people on this forum will see through you eventually. I have nothing more to say to you, or your oversized hat ? lol!!! Duncan we have.... its the only tactic left to the Lone Nut cyber-contingent...

don't sweat it Tom Kiehl.... we FINALLY found out BMiller can spell my name correctly after 7 years. Ya want "in-depth research" when it comes to events in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63? Tom Purvis is your guy (and a lot of it is right here in this forums archive)... the remaining forum posts concerning same events? Simple opinion and commentary (a lot of it trying to impress the City of Dallas AND The Sixth Floor Museum, lest I forget Bob Groden who lurks here )

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #31 Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of the 'answers'. *reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...* But first, an important note: ********************************************************************** Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks. These trolls include (but are not limited to): **22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************** 31. Why did the WC misrepresent so much of their evidence, even to the point of outright lies at some points? The statements about Mrs. Tice, for example, or the date that Oswald left England... LNT'ers will continue to deny, claim that these have already been answered, or run away from responding - but you can't convince lurkers with such tactics. These are reasonable questions concerning the evidence - and the fact that LNT'ers can't answer them points to the real solution. eof

For clarification ... your statement goes to thinking the film is altered and not meant that you double-talk like David Healy does - right? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0 Post #8 David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=15 post #19 David Healy: I go with the Z-film is altered ... This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Feb 4 2007, 01:12 AM I agree with your statement. I had to write something about myself to shut Healy up. As far as the length of time ... there are reasons why there are levels of education that come along with degrees, so it seems that the more one has been taught ... the more they will know compared to someone who hasn't. For instance, I dwell in the photographic evidence and wouldn't be so foolish as to try and tell a blood spatter exert that I know more about their trade than they do. I learned along the way that two people can see the same event - tell it differently - and both be telling the truth because they are only telling what they recalled whether it was right or wrong. The WC re-enactment photos do not interest me ... what interest me is going to Dealey Plaza and standing where Ike did and shooting his photo for myself, which I have done. This was done because I was interested in the information that was in Ike's photograph. I agree, but with also keeping in mind that people, especially under stress, do not record things in their minds perfectly. I personally like to apply Occams Razor. I would prefer to hear this come from someone who hasn't said that they didn't bother with it because they don't believe in it. You are not educated enough to discuss blood spatter evidence. Contact Henry Lee and see if he offers a different opinion to Sherry's ... then I would find that worth the time to read. Are you talking about your post and are you considering yourself the teacher???? For clarification ... your statement goes to thinking the film is altered and not meant that you double-talk like David Healy does - right? Actually! I have no idea as to whether or not the ORIGINAL Z-film has or has not been altered, and seriously doubt that any of us will ever see the ORIGINAL film in order to fully ascertain one way or another. However, since all that we ever see are copies of copies, etc; then one can rest assured that what we are being fed is as phony as is the WC's THE SHOT THAT MISSED scenario. (which includes the SBT as well) I dwell in the photographic evidence You may "dwell" there, however, that I am aware, you most certainly have not added a great amount of knowledge and understanding to the manipulations of the photographic evidence. Exactly why was it that I had to explain to the reading public about the manipulations of the Altgens/Z255 photo and re-enactment, while you profess some great amount of study of the photographic evidence? and wouldn't be so foolish as to try and tell a blood spatter exert that I know more about their trade than they do. Perhaps you may be of the opinion that it is "foolish" to inform someone who professes some expertise that their research protocal is BS, but having conducted a few research programs as well written a paper or two, I certainly have no qualms in that regards. Obviously, along with many other items, you do not understand the concept of "Complimentary Science" as applies to Blood Spatter analysis and how it must correspond with and correlate to the other known physical facts. Which by the way your expert apparantly does not understand either. So, when some purported "EXPERT" ignores all established physical facts and then makes a statement as assinine as has been made in regards to the Blood Spatter, then it don't bother me an iota to inform as to exactly how stupid such a statement is and exactly how stupid anyone who believes and promotes the concept also is. I learned along the way that two people can see the same event - tell it differently - and both be telling the truth because they are only telling what they recalled whether it was right or wrong. The WC re-enactment photos do not interest me ... what interest me is going to Dealey Plaza and standing where Ike did and shooting his photo for myself, which I have done. This was done because I was interested in the information that was in Ike's photograph. [b]I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographic record [/b] Excuse me! I have obviously been operating under the misconception that the photographs taken by James Altgens were a critical part of the "photographic record"! Why not just come out and state that in your 25 years (or whatever) of purported research, you do not even have sufficient experience and/or qualifications to look at the Altgens Z255 photo and the WC re-enactment photo and tell that the two photographs were taken from a completely different location and alignment. And, the "photographic record" is a chemical/mechanical process of imposing an image onto film. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the person taking the photo may or may not think that he sees. I agree, but with also keeping in mind that people, especially under stress, do not record things in their minds perfectly. I personally like to apply Occams Razor. "Stress" happens to be when you are the individual who is designated as the receiving end of the bullet. Standing and watching an event transpire, without full understanding of exactly what is happening, is not normally a stressful event. Just exactly how many of those witnesses is it that you think were so "stressed" out that they did not have sufficient memory recall to establish that it was the second shot which they observed strike JFK in the right rear high of the head? "Occams Razor" , last time that I checked, had no references to the ability of an eyewitness to recall events, and were it that you were that knowledgeable in regards to Occam's Razor, then it most unlikely that you would have ever fallen for the WC's THE SHOT THAT MISSED scenario. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. The "Blood Spatter" work which you apparantly fell for is refuse! I would prefer to hear this come from someone who hasn't said that they didn't bother with it because they don't believe in it. You are not educated enough to discuss blood spatter evidence. Contact Henry Lee and see if he offers a different opinion to Sherry's ... then I would find that worth the time to read. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And therein lies you primary problem! That being, as simple as it was stated, you can not seem to even read and comprehend what was stated in regards to the "Blood Spatter'. Now! One last time! Blood Spatter is a "Complimentary Science", which, when utilized in conjunction with the other known and established physical facts, can aid in an understanding of the overall event. To look at some vague film, ignore multitudes of various established physical and forensic facts which are contradictory to the blood spatter hypothesis, and then state that JFK was hit in the head by a single shot from the front, is pure BS Science. That you apparantly fell for and believed it is your problem, not mine. Personally, I am not that stupid or ignorant of the aspects of blood spatter or the established physical and forensic facts. Thusly, it would appear that, since you fell for this garbage, that you are the one who is somewhat lacking in the education field of blood spatter analysis as well as all of the other known physical and forensic facts which totally "debunk" what you and a few others are attempting to promote. Are you talking about your post and are you considering yourself the teacher???? Let's take inventory: 1. BM fell for, believed, and even promoted a completely BS hypothesis on Blood Spatter, which is contradicted by many of the cited references; contradicted by the established and known physical and pathological facts of the assassination;, and, does not even pass the simple test of the "common man" concept of rational thought. 2. BM has researched the "photographic record" for 25 years, yet has never taken the time and effort to look at the Altgens Z255 photo and compare it with the WC re-enactment photo, which would clearly demonstrate that these two photographs were not taken from the same location or alignment. 4. BM who is highly interested in researching the witness testimonies, never bothered to find out that the WC established the position of James Altgens at a point between the TSDB and the Moorman/Hill position, when in fact James Altgens was well past the location of Moorman/Hill and farther down Elm St. closer towards the underpass. 3. BM is highly interested in researching the witness testimonies, yet has never discovered that multitudes of highly reliable witnesses clearly informed and so stated that the Z313 impact to the head of JFK was the second shot fired in the shooting sequence. 4. BM is highly interested in researching the witness testimonies, yet has never discovered that James Altgens physically observed the impact to the head of JFK of the LAST SHOT FIRED, and since James Altgens was some 40-feet farther down the street from the Moorman/Hill location, then it would have been impossible for Altgens to have observed the Z313 impact (second shot) and thusly what he observed is exactly what he stated. The LAST/FINAL/THIRD shot impact to the head of JFK, directly in front of where he was standing. Now! From this, one could easily determine that BM most assuredly has nothing to "teach us", unless of course we merely want to run around and chase our tail as many have done for the past 40+years. And, although I may not necessarily be the designated tearcher, neither am I the "dunce" who claims to have conducted research into this subject matter, yet clearly known nothing and believes BS on BS (Bull S**t on Blood Spatter). Almost forgot! You fell for Al Carrier's BS line also, did you not? appears we got us another Vietnam War historian with more inside scoop on Son Tay and Jeff McDonald -- methinks it's pen*s envy. You *sneaky petes* have ALL the charm... don't waste any on the peanut gallery, Tom....

Suck it up Williams. I'll go with Tom Purvis, okay -- he's a proven entity, you on the other hand, aren't.... And what does Son Tay and Jeff McDonald have to do with Sherry Feister, Al "in every post I'll give you my resume" Carrier and Bill Miller? Please.