David G. Healy

I personally cannot see anyone trying to alter the Zapruder film before frames were going into print. The film was shot with Kodachrome II film that according to CTs Robert Groden ... its properties could not have allowed someone to merely make prints and put them back into the film without color shifts and sharpness irregularities being present. Another problem for an alteration would be to risk one of the actual witnesses spotting the change as being something that did not match what they witnessed at the time of the assassination. There also would have been the problem that the Feds did not know who all was filming at the time of the shooting and to keep an alteration hidden ... it would had to have been done to each and every assassination film that was running at the time of the shooting. As far as frames being reversed ... that didn't occur to the actual film, but rather to the prints placed into the 26 volumes of the WCR. Bill bull-puckey, unadultrated Lone Nut nonsense...

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #30 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 ********************************************************************** 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. 30. Somewhat related to the previous question, why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo? (The Autopsy Report stated that the wound extended to the occipital, and was *devoid* of bone and scalp... this simply cannot be seen in the BOH photo.) No LNT'er has been able to point to *any* part of the Occipital that cannot be seen in the BOH photo - yet the autopsy report, *all* prosectors, and over 40 eyewitnesses place a large wound here that was devoid of bone and scalp. eof

You got that one right... Is that all that I got right, Paul? Would you agree that if Zapruder was stationary on the pedestal and the pyracantha bush was stationary on the ground, then any object seen between the branches in one frame that is not in the same location in another frame indicates that the object has moved ... or is that not conspiratorial enough for your liking to comment on??? Bill Miller your Lone Nut theory is shaping up just fine....

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #29 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 ********************************************************************** 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. 29. Why do over 40 eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo? Dr. Mantik has reported that using stereo viewing, the "hair patch" shows 2D, contrary to everything else, which shows in 3D. Many have noted the "wet" appearance of the hair patch. Interestingly, the lateral X-ray also has a "white patch" at this same location - Dr. Mantik reports that optical density measurements of this "patch" show that JFK was a "bonehead"... solid bone all the way across. Why is there such a distinct and common pattern among eyewitnesses, BOH photo, and Lateral X-ray? eof

What you say, Miller? Can't hear you thanks for removing that from your signature block, you can take direction, I see!

Perhaps out resident photo expert/researcher Bill Miller (sic) can give this one a whirl -- awfully quiet for an expert...

"A delusion is a belief that is clearly false and that indicates an abnormality in the affected person's content of thought. The false belief is not accounted for by the person's cultural or religious background or his or her level of intelligence. The key feature of a delusion is the degree to which the person is convinced that the belief is true. A person with a delusion will hold firmly to the belief regardless of evidence to the contrary. Delusions can be difficult to distinguish from overvalued ideas, which are unreasonable ideas that a person holds, but the affected person has at least some level of doubt as to its truthfulness. A person with a delusion is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real." That's the beauty of talking with people like Groden who have even more experience than that. But as you know, there is also getting caught up on Kodachrome II film and its properties. Let us know when you get up to speed with Zavada. LOL!!! Old Bruno Maggli Groden? C'mon Miller don't go delusional on us, now.... Zavada, hell son, Zavada withdrew from the 2003 Univ of Minn Zapruder film symposium.... I showed up.... come to think of it, you HID too! You're way out of your league son..... get Gary Mack some coffee or something - be useful for a change.... The word "foundation" trip you up, son?

That may be a tough one when dealing with someone who doesn't want to be proved wrong. I have seen no assassination image that makes me believe that Sitzman had a camera in front of her face ... not even the degraded images that you have posted. Bill can you ID those on the pedestal here?

Right, David ... it could have been someone dressed like Sitzman. Almost like it could have been someone dresses like Bill Newman and Emmett Hudson ... maybe they weren't really there either!!!! LOL!!!! [...] denying and/or avoiding the question gets you no where... Can you ID those standing on the pedestal? Here's a hint: nor can Gary Mack make the ID

you'd think Gary Mack (or his local gofer) would send this forum all the problems MPI's Zapruder film version/alteration has..... after all the 6th floor is now in charge of the film....

for a Lone Nut, Miller is not bad.... when he gets educated in film compositing (5-10 years down the line) we'll finally have something to talk about.... till then more of the same BS from BM

You misspelled Dealey Plaza, Tom. And I agree with the last two lines above. Bill Miller man, where would you be with GMacks h-e-l-p? I know, I know, this forum would fold its tent tomorrow without it.... LMFAO!

LOL!!!! The Bronson slide shows Sitzman's right hand on Zapruder's back and her left hand on her him, but its that third hand that keeps you in the running. (smile~) BM....can you positively ID Sitzman and Zapruder (in the Moorman5 [above] or any other Elm Street film-photo sequence for that matter) on that pedestal? THEN we'll talk about whose hands are on what and whom.... Little foundation, son.....

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #28 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 ********************************************************************** 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. Yesterday's question on the Altgen's photo - and why it contradicts the films didn't have a single attempted response. Today's question is related... let's see if the crowd that believes in the authenticity of the photos/X-rays/films are willing to support their belief: 28. LNT'ers get really nervous and never seem to have any explanation for the reported Limo slowdown/stop that took place in Dealey Plaza. With dozens of eyewitnesses all reporting the slowdown/stop - and many of them *highly* credible (such as the motorcycle cops who were *with* the limo), LNT'ers really can't deny what happened. So when it's pointed out that this *IS NOT SEEN* in the extant Z-Film - they all immediately jump into a chorus of "Hallelujah Alvarez"... pointing out that Alvarez found a slowdown in the film. BUT IT CAN'T BE SEEN BY THE CASUAL VIEWER!!! And Tony Marsh ran screaming away - and starting talking about something else (ghost images) and refused to explain this... as *no* LNT'er has been able to do. LNT'ers just *hate* the eyewitnesses - even when they are forced to imagine the eyewitnesses being correct, as in this case. Any LNT'ers care to explain what Tony ducked? Why is a slowdown *NOT SEEN IN THE EXTANT Z-FILM TO THE CASUAL VIEWER?* eof

back up here, HOW did "witnesses on the scene" determine that the first shot came between Z186 thru Z202? Were they ("witnesses on the scene") shown the extant film in order to make that determination? We KNOW the NPI saw the film that weekendf so, by whom -- where and when? If NOT who determined this specific timing sequence? Little foundation, counselor, er, DP/JFK assassination film-photo analyst... A "cite" for at least one of the "witnesses on the scene" would do nicely... Lone Nutters have been getting away with loose and fancy Z-film posting for a long time, now. Time to provide the BEEF! Miller on ...there is no wrong or right answer Miller off WHAT?

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #27 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 ********************************************************************** 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. 27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film? Simple denial seems to be the most frequent response from the trolls & LNT'er camp - yet with over 40 years to do so, no LNT'er has ever used a telephoto lense from Altgen's reported position to duplicate the photo with Chaney in the same position as Hargis (on the other side of the followup limo) Nor has any xxxxx or LNT'er explained the shadow from Chaney's motorcycle that is seen. So many of the photos/X-rays in this case simply don't match up - and there appears to be deafening silence from the "photos/videos/X-rays are authentic" crowd. eof

'Bill Miller' dronned [...] Thanks, Tom. It is a good thing to debate and test the evidence and I for one welcome it. Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a fool, but I can feel that their opinion is foolish based on their presentation of it. Many times like with the alteration debate ... it isn't about the evidence with these people, but rather its presented with a cult-like mentality that can be very misleading to anyone who doesn't know better. dgh: and you know better? praytell your qualifications supporting your contention your a "photo analyst? (as old Evan would say: "sounds like a fair challenge", eh? *** I challenge that position, not because I think you and others cannot see the flaws in it, but rather to show those who are not as familiar with the photographic record to see how these claims come about. dgh: excellent disinfo tactic, been used for years*** There are students that come to these forums to research the assassination and I think it is important to point out how easy it is to get taken in on a conspiracy or lone assassin claim by not taking all the available evidence and weighing it against the other. dgh: now you're protecting students for what? Up to 90% of the USofA believes JFK was murdered through a conspiracy.. the rest of the known world KNOWS a conspiracy murdered JFK, so what are you protecting students from? Sounds like a PR job for the City of Dallas*** These alteration claims for instance remind me of a magicians trick where they attempt to divert your attention away from reality so to give the illusion that they have somehow done something magical. dgh: ROFLMFAO, just good old research William Miller me-boy.... and you're qualifications for photo research is what again? *** It gets very frustrating when watching these sort of things going on. dgh: murder is a frustrating gig, there ole Bill..... getting to the bottom of one, moreso. As they say "gird those loins then press on" *** The photographic record intrigues a lot of people because photos are something we all can relate to. However, misreading them, not knowing their history, or not knowing how to cross reference them does not constitute conspiracy. (smile~) dgh: "we all relate to"? What are you going on about? -- Re the above, I suspect that'll impress Gary Mack..... Certainly full of yourself, eh? **** Bill

Seems like a fair challenge. micro-managing these days, or simply vetting posts for Miller?

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #25 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 ********************************************************************** 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. 25. Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical testimony... why?? eof

correct that: "wisdom wins the day, most of the time!"

Perceptive Tom.....wisdom wins the day, everytime!

I just got to touch on this and share what little I observed when looking at the three Zapruder like cameras that I purchased. One of the things I noticed is that these were not precision instruments, but rather cheap cameras. On a full wind where the camera could not be forced another fraction of an inch ... one camera may run 58 seconds while another ran 66 seconds ... both wound as tight as they could go. So this brings into question that if these were cheaply made non-precision instruments ... even if two cameras were set on the same setting ... would that mean that the total area of the cameras field of view be identical in each??? I suspect that an inquiry into this matter would find that there is a good possibility of this not being the case. Have you any information on this possibility or is it that you never considered it??? So let me see if I understand you correctly ... You find it odd that a camera with a shutter opening and closing 18 times per second and pointed in a certain direction ... that it should never reach the same plane it did at anytime during a 2 second interval - did I understand your logic correctly??? If I am correct, then I think that is an opinion of yours that cannot be proven to be flawless. You don't seem to pick consecutive frames or frames only a few frames apart, but instead you searched out two frames that were almost filmed on the same plane by a man who was jiggling his camera around. I cannot see your justification in your not considering the possibility of this happening. If I have missed something or misunderstood your position, then I apologize in advance. Bill ya might want to have Gary Mack get in here... You just made the case that the Zapruder extant film rated at 18.3fps is probably nonsense.... And to think your doing all this without my help.... amazing! The chances of Zapruder picking up filming duplicating the same frame fov, is astronomical. btw what does the (your) following quote mean: "If I am correct, then I think that is an opinion of yours that cannot be proven to be flawless." ?

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #24 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 ********************************************************************** 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. 24. Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to government investigators? eof

delete -- duplicate....

Its really a no-brainer IMO. Zapruder's camera zoom worked by setting it manually ... he believed that he had it set all the way out, but a simple check of another camera who is set on full zoom has told a different story. So let us think for a moment ... Zapruder films Mrs. Rogers at the office before going out to the plaza ... then Sitzman and the Hesters nearby in the Plaza ... all at different distances. Then Zapruder gets up on the pedestal and does some test pans and gets his camera prepared to film the President. Zapruder is asked at what setting he had his camera at and he thinks it was set at 100%, when it may have been let's say (95%). It seems insignificant to me. Let someone who claims to have a camera like Zapruder's test it and recreate the field of view if they like ... all I have heard so far is that when they filmed at full mode ... their film had a slightly wider field of view. Now rotate the zoom back a fraction of a turn and you may realize what Zapruder had done. Bill Miller dance, dance..... DANCE you're no good at this -- oh, and you did remove my name from your signature block, just as you were told..... no sense fudging about it.... Nice theory above btw, no proof, so simply more Bill Miller opinion.... "slightly wider fov...." you're killing us, son! LMFAO!