David G. Healy

I suspect 10 seconds, at least.... sufficent time and unexposed film remain running at 18.3fps... (notice when Zapruder picked up limo, it was well past the turn onto Elm Street) as for Miller's nonsense concerning: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration" That is something I've stated for years", simply dumb to go on the record saying the film is altered until the extant Z-film undergoes forensic testing. -and- Millers: "I bet you didn't find anything showing David Healy altering Kodachrome II film." I have no idea what the xxxxx is insinuating. Next, I suspect he'll be dragging out a hotblock, glue and a razor blade, insisting he's got the craft down pat..... or perhaps he's under the same illusion the extant film was created between 8mm to 8mm optical film printing systems (which do not exist, btw). At one time Roland Zavada was under the same illusion, till I set him straight.... As for Kodacolor II film gamma issues? Pure nonsense! Not one person with optical film printing experience buys into gamma problems when the process goes from 8mm-35 then back down to 8mm for final (especially if the original in-camera Z-film was destroyed after alteration)... Not an issue, a Lone Nut canard -- I mention that to Roland Zavada too! David, Interesting you should bring that 8mm to 35mm conversion process up. February 25: LIFE photo lab assistant chief Herbert Orth brought the original film to a meeting of Commission staff, FBI and Secret Service, and projected it several times. He volunteered to make 35mm transparencies, and by April produced three sets of 159 slides: for the FBI, Secret Service and the Commission, of frames 171 through 334. In the 1966 Life magazine photos, the ones with the sprocket holes, my guess is these were made from those 35mm transparencies. They already had them back in 1964 created by Life's lab assistant Orth. Why use anything else. How did I reach that conclusion. Frame 230 which they ran on the cover when scaled to fit my frames leaves mine a bit narrower. If I widen mine to fit, the aspect ratio becomes 1:37 to 1. What's the aspect ratio of 35mm film.? You got it, 1:37:1 Then size those to fit the MPI frames and the relationship between sprocket hole/frame content is a match. Your expertise and input is always appreciated, chris Isn't film amazing? Also of interest, we now have to take for granted (at least some do) the last time the in-camera original Zapruder Film was laced up in a projector. That was during the Garrison fiasco in NO..... not provable, other than taking the FBI's word for it..... I doubt, seriously doubt this historical "original" piece of celluloid ran in the courtroom that day... perhaps one of the four, excuse me, one of the three Jamieson optical prints.... certainly not the in-camera original. Now, if that is accurate, then the last known (alleged known) time the in-camera original was laced up in a projector, was during a WC gathering in Washington D.C., late Feb 1964.... and finally, before that, Nov 22nd at KODAK and Jamison Dallas labs....

I suspect 10 seconds, at least.... sufficent time and unexposed film remain running at 18.3fps... (notice when Zapruder picked up limo, it was well past the turn onto Elm Street) as for Miller's nonsense concerning: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration" That is something I've stated for years", simply dumb to go on the record saying the film is altered until the extant Z-film undergoes forensic testing. -and- Millers: "I bet you didn't find anything showing David Healy altering Kodachrome II film." I have no idea what the xxxxx is insinuating. Next, I suspect he'll be dragging out a hotblock, glue and a razor blade, insisting he's got the craft down pat..... or perhaps he's under the same illusion the extant film was created between 8mm to 8mm optical film printing systems (which do not exist, btw). At one time Roland Zavada was under the same illusion, till I set him straight.... As for Kodacolor II film gamma issues? Pure nonsense! Not one person with optical film printing experience buys into gamma problems when the process goes from 8mm-35 then back down to 8mm for final (especially if the original in-camera Z-film was destroyed after alteration)... Not an issue, a Lone Nut canard -- I mention that to Roland Zavada too!

LMFAO!

how about... we're told Zapruder rolled film a bit to early to cover the limo procession onto and down Elm Street. -- Its been suggested he stopped filming (not Zapruder testimony) the sequence [a false start if you will] only to restart filming when the Limo entered onto Elm Street (again not Zapruder testimony)... So here's the what IF: suppose Zapruder did NOT stop filming, suppose while filming this "initial" sequence, performing his left to right pan down Elm Street sequence he slowed his pan letting the lead car exit frame right, he then continued (not stopping filming) the pan down Elm Street with the leading edge (right side of the frame) of the frame just behind the lead car which is now out of the frame... He only needs about 8 seconds of a clear Elm Street left to right pan.... What would that leave film compositor with? How about a completely clear, left to right pan down Elm Street.... In short, everything needed to alter the original in-camera original Zapruder film... more than enough to convince the Warren Comission members and staff re shots from the rear AND of course, the SBT! (note: the ONLY audience of Z-film consequence) Is that what happened? Hell, who knows... but tell you what, this scenario goes a long way explaining why we might have a newly Zapruder film composite Elm Street downhill sequence running what appears to be on-the-level and even on a slightly up hill track... Think Hollywood.... "here's the footage, do your magic and above all, make it work! Ya got the most efficient film compositors in the world, Academy Award winning technology, Academy Award winning facilities, unlimimited dollars in the budget and you have 70 days (more than enough time), so get'er it done" also: panning film cameras too fast has serious blur consequences.... books have been written on the very subject, formulas created... professional cinematographers are well aware of the artifacts created by panning too fast

nervous?

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #19 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. 19. Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them... John McAdams has denied that any photo or X-ray have disappeared, but to do so; he must call the eyewitnesses liars - and beg ordinary people to suspend common sense. The prosectors described only *TWO* injuries inside the body - one to the trachea, which they were prevented from removing, and one to the tip of the lung - WHICH THEY STATE THAT THEY PHOTOGRAPHED. A photograph that has never been seen. (Interestingly, this also happened in the RFK case, missing photographs... although the controlling agency in this case was the LAPD) eof

Frank, I had the same thought too while I was working on it. The only thing I could think of, was to compare the MPI frames with frames from a lot earlier time. I chose the frames that were printed in the 1966 edition of Life magazine. They included the sprocket holes. Here are two different animations from two different frames. I see no differences between them. If this is a reasonable comparison. chris there's a laundry list of MPI errors when it comes to the Zapruder film project DVD... perhaps Miller can do something constructive for a change and have Gary Mack provide the that MPI list of errors. Gary Mack knows each and every one of them....

You are correct, Frank ... but don't start thinking logical here or else you'll spoil the fun. One must smile when they hear 'this or that should not have happened'. You'll see no comparison examples such as the Rick Janowitz film from Zapruder's pedestal ... instead just off-the-cuff opinions without any data to support it. what are you droning on about now? Do try to stay on point... "Off-the-cuff opinions", you have the gall to say THAT? You're still bucking for that 6th floor museum job aren't ya?

KUTGW, Chris....

some have, you're in way over your head..... <chortle>

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #18 repost 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'. *repost 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. 18. Why were the prosectors not allowed to examine JFK's clothing, a routine and completely ordinary procedure in an autopsy, despite the fact that the clothes were certainly within reach? John McAdams has attempted to assert that this was done on orders of the Kennedy family, despite the fact that Col Finck detailed in a contemporary memo who had prevented him from examining the clothing: "I was denied the opportunity to examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer who outranked me told me that my request was only of academic interest. The same officer did not agree to state in the autopsy report that the autopsy was incomplete, as I suggested to indicate. I saw the clothing of Kennedy, for the first time, on 16 March 1964, at the Warren Commission, before my testimony, more than three months after the autopsy." Why would McAdams, who certainly knows of this memo, lie about such a simple historical fact? eof

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #18 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 ********************************************************************** 18. Why were the prosectors not allowed to examine JFK's clothing, a routine and completely ordinary procedure in an autopsy, despite the fact that the clothes were certainly within reach? John McAdams has attempted to assert that this was done on orders of the Kennedy family, despite the fact that Col Finck detailed in a contemporary memo who had prevented him from examining the clothing: "I was denied the opportunity to examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer who outranked me told me that my request was only of academic interest. The same officer did not agree to state in the autopsy report that the autopsy was incomplete, as I suggested to indicate. I saw the clothing of Kennedy, for the first time, on 16 March 1964, at the Warren Commission, before my testimony, more than three months after the autopsy." Why would McAdams, who certainly knows of this memo, lie about such a simple historical fact? eof

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #17 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 ********************************************************************** 17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial: Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question. A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom. Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom? A: Right. Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room? A: I don't recall. Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time? A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck. Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question. LNT'ers have occasionally attempted to assert that the Kennedy family was the cause of these restrictions, as if the Kennedy's cared about JFK's trachea, or were concerned that someone might learn of the actual path of the bullet... yet can offer no evidence other than hearsay for such control. Any LNT'ers brave enough to confront this evidence (and explain it) head on? eof

Consider the source, Kathy ... consider the source. well, did Josiah come up with hatman or not? David Healy And NO I have NOT received an annual Mary Ferrel Award -- so THERE

I haven't seen one of them actually deal with Mantik's findings. What did that one guy say? The bullet didn't hit the spine - "Because it didn't hit the spine %^*wipe!" Gee what a convincing rebutal. Those guys remind me of the scene in Cool Hand Luke where Luke wins the pot in a poker game by bluffing that he has a good hand. The George Kennedy character beamingly intones his admiration by refering to a boxing match in which Luke refused to give up, even after being badly beaten by the burly giant - "He just kept coming right back at me.......with nothin!" Kinda reminds me of those guys. All bluster and bluff backed up by.....nothin. To the Nutter's if it's in the WCR its *gospel*.... as for them dealing with Dr. David Mantik, M.D. and his findings, they run everytime....

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #16 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 ********************************************************************** 16. "I also found some surprising results based on the chest X-ray. I made accurate measurements of the width of the spine directly on the X-ray. The front to back thickness of the body at this site (14 cm) as well as the distance of the back wound from the midline (4.5 to 5.0 cm) were supplied by the HSCA. Since this latter distance can be measured independently on photographs of the back, I also did this. The so-called exit site at the front of [the] throat was described by the Parkland doctors as being very near the midline. When I placed these measurements onto a cross section of the body and then connected the bullet entry and exit sites by a straight line, I immediately saw that the "magic" bullet had to go right through the spine. This path would have caused major damage to the spine and would have been very obvious on the chest X-ray. In fact, there is no major trauma like this anywhere in the spine. Because of the impenetrable vertical barrier produced by the transverse processes up and down the entire cervical spine and because of the total width of the cervical spine, there is no place for the bullet to pass through anywhere in the neck and still exit through the midline of the throat. If, instead, the upper chest is considered as a possible bullet trajectory site, then another problem arises. The bullet would have to go right through the lung. But no lung damage of this type was seen by the pathologists and none is seen on the X-rays either. This "magic bullet simply cannot enter through the back wound and then exit through the throat wound without hitting the spine - or else causing major lung trauma. It is odd that this rather simple reconstruction with exact measurements has never been done before. Its very simplicity, however, proves direct evidence that the object which entered the back could not have exited at the front of the throat." Dr. Mantik, Assassination Science, pg 157-158 Why has no-one been able to step up to the plate and show that this *is* possible? eof

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #15 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 ********************************************************************** Seems that the weekend wasn't kind to the trolls... FBI Intimidation seems to work on even those who'd like to answer why there was FBI Intimidation in this case... everyone ran from answering it. But, in the interests of getting through all these questions, its a new day, here's a new question: 15. What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy? Any idea why John McAdams, as well as all other LNT'ers - keep running away from this topic? When it was pointed out that the size of this object was twice the size of the one that Dr. Humes asserted in testimony was the largest fragment, here's what John McAdams was forced to do: ******************************************* > I'd say a 6.5mm virtually round object was big enough, > wouldn't you? Particularly when it's twice the size of what > Dr. Humes thought was the largest fragment found. John McAdams: We don't know it's more than twice the mass, because it's apparently just a sliver. ****************************************** Why did McAdams dishonestly try changing from "size" to "mass"? Until LNT'ers can satisfactorily explain this 6.5mm virtually round object, the best explanation remains that this was a failed attempt to frame Oswald. eof

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #14 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 ********************************************************************** 14. Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted? Dave Powers, for example, or Tomlinson? Why do LNT'ers refuse to admit this simple historical fact of FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses? (Toddy, for example, has been running from this since 2005... even though he *requested* the supporting evidence - simply do a Google Groups search for "FBI Intimidation") "Most private citizens who had cooperated with newsmen reporting the crime have refused to give further help after being interviewed by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation." - New York Times, 6Dec63. Is there any *non* conspiratorial explanation for this pattern of FBI intimidation? eof

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #13 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 ********************************************************************** 13. "in a discussion after the conference Drs. Light and Dolce (two wound ballistics experts from Edgewood Arsenal) expressed themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by two different bullets, principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from Connally's stretcher could not have broken his radius without having suffered more distortion. Dr. Olivier (another wound ballistics expert) withheld a conclusion until he has had the opportunity to make tests on animal tissue and bone with the actual rifle." "Memorandum for the Record," dated April 22, 1964, written by Melvin Eisenberg about a conference held on April 21, 1964. Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC (Dr. Joseph Dolce) fired when he refused to endorse their theory? (Or, more correctly - the WC refused to allow him to testify, and eliminated any reference to his opinions in the WCR.) In 'picking & choosing' the evidence they wished to present, the Warren Commission acted solely in the role of prosecutor rather than as an impartial fact finding body. eo

Please explain how you reached that conclusion .. both men on the steps with Hudson is seen in the Willis photo. It is Hudson who is mostly hidden by the man standing east and on the same step with him. Lee ... no problem on my end. By the way, did you look at the Muchmore film to check the area in question or are you satisfied that your posted dark poor quality prints are good enough? I only ask because Jack has had some of the best prints in his possession and even he has never made the claim of seeing what you are talking about. The Moorman print you used is not one of the better prints ... you might want to examine some other prints that are found in Groden's book "The Killing of a President". What I find odd about the remark above is that regardless if you have seen the NBC show 'As it Happens" which shows Moorman's photo as it was still in her possession only 35 minutes after the shooting ... all three men are on the steps. You may not be able to ID them as to who they are, but seeing them standing there is quite obvious. How you figure that one of them was added after the fact, presumably by Moorman in the alteration lab hidden inside the lining of her coat, will remain a mystery to me. ahh, ya can't positively I.D. the person on the pedestal in the Moorman 5 as Zapruder, either... Moorman's alteration lab (inside her coat) was working overtime, eh?

No problem, feel free. A bit simplistically, but yes. Hill was in the Personnel office when the DP shooting took place, he was not "working the streets" except by his own volition afterward; he was given no assignment, per se, to do that. Unequivocally, no, he was assigned to no such job(s); equivocally, he did perform one or more. A transcript of a "press briefing" that he gave is among the WC Exhibits, as I recall. The reporters consistently referred to him as "Jerry." How he came to be at each location he was at is likewise a bit of a mystery since every person that he said he'd ridden with failed to mention him when asked who was in the various cars with them. This includes even Hill's (temporary) superior, Capt. Westbrook ... who held no particular liking for his subordinate. Westbrook seems to have ensured that certain aspects of Hill's actions were put on record, however, none complimentary and at least one potentially even incriminating. As obscured as they are, there are answers, even if not simple - or easy - ones. I've posted a few myself. Hey Duke... FYI, I posted your response to #05 on the USENET board where the question originator hangs out... here's the originators response: (if you'd like to respond to the thread originator directly, feel free to drop by alt.conspiracy.jfk [series question #05]) -- dgh [...] >>5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic, >> changed to revolver? Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand, and asserts >>that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio report. How >>could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shooting of a >> fellow police officer? >from the Ed Forum (04.23.2008): >I think that the answer to this one is really quite simple: Hill was >not in truth an "experienced police sergeant" at least not to the >extent of having much with weapons and crimes. This falls under the answer category of "simple denial." >Consider that, as a >sergeant, he walked a downtown beat. He was in plain clothes on >November 22 not because he was a detective - as he undoubtedly >appeared to be to several uniformed officers, including Poe - but >because he was assigned to office duty in the Personnel office, not >what you'd call hard police work. I think he can't figure out what to say... did Sgt. Hill engage in normal police work on the street, or was he a desk jockey? Mr. HILL I was on special assignment, detached from the police patrol division, and assigned to the police personnel office investigating applicants for the police department. >Earlier, he had been a journalist, >and later, the spokesman for the Dallas County Sheriff's Office during >the tenure of his good buddy, former DPD communications sergeant Jim >Bowles. He was better known among the media than his fellow officers. None of this precludes him from knowing his job. Indeed, he had a better range of skills than most people who were police. Not many of them had the experience set that Sgt. Hill had. >As to how they might be identified as "automatic" shells - not having >been done by Hill's keen observational skills - is simply that they >had been nearby on the ground, as if ejected. That isn't what *he* said. >Recall that he didn't >actually pick them up He held them in his hand. >or see them on the ground: fired shells outside >of a gun at the scene might well be inferred to be from an automatic >pistol, as opposed to those fired from a revolver, which might be >inferred to either have still been in the gun, or located close >together as they were dumped from the cylinder. Why would someone "infer" anything when they have the shells in their hand, and can simply look? Telling revolver from automatic is not difficult at all... it takes no forensic skills or college education. >Duke Lane - Texas (posted with permission)

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #12 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 ********************************************************************** 12. "Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald's cheek Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the general atomic division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the paraffin cast, the results of which were presented to the Commission. Dr. Guinn said that he hand his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and some of the powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should also come back'. They decided to try looking for elements by putting the wax impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor.' Guinn said the had informed the FBI that it would be worth-while to utilize 'activation analysis' because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test. 'We bought a similar rifle from the same shop as Oswald and conducted two parallel tests,' Guinn said. 'One person fired the rifle on eight occasions.' The scientist stated that paraffin casts were made and when tested by means of radioactivity, 'it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both hands and both cheeks. [Weisberg, who has seen Guinn's report, quotes "heavy deposits" on the cheek casts] Then we took the casts of Oswald's cheek and put them in a nuclear reactor.' Guinn added, 'I cannot say what we found out about Oswald because it is secret until the publication of the Warren Commission Report." - Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment, pg 152-153 These comparative tests, which were done by a recognized expert - were contradicted by Cunningham's testimony on pg 561 of the WCR (despite the fact that Cunningham had *NO* experience with NAA) - but the Warren Commission was not honest enough to present Guinn's evidence... This evidence is *exculpatory* for Oswald... Why was the WC dishonest enough to present Cunningham's testimony, without allowing readers to know about Guinn's testing results? Why were those test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today? eof

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #11 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 ********************************************************************** 11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker's time of arrival back so far, and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was this needed? eof

I think that the answer to this one is really quite simple: Hill was not in truth an "experienced police sergeant" at least not to the extent of having much with weapons and crimes. Consider that, as a sergeant, he walked a downtown beat. He was in plain clothes on November 22 not because he was a detective - as he undoubtedly appeared to be to several uniformed officers, including Poe - but because he was assigned to office duty in the Personnel office, not what you'd call hard police work. Earlier, he had been a journalist, and later, the spokesman for the Dallas County Sheriff's Office during the tenure of his good buddy, former DPD communications sergeant Jim Bowles. He was better known among the media than his fellow officers. As to how they might be identified as "automatic" shells - not having been done by Hill's keen observational skills - is simply that they had been nearby on the ground, as if ejected. Recall that he didn't actually pick them up or see them on the ground: fired shells outside of a gun at the scene might well be inferred to be from an automatic pistol, as opposed to those fired from a revolver, which might be inferred to either have still been in the gun, or located close together as they were dumped from the cylinder. poses even more questions... Thanks for the response,btw. And with your permission, I'll pass it on to the other board.... "...inexperienced Police Sargent" in plainclothes on Nov 22nd? So Hill is a in-experienced cop, with damn few *gun* street smarts when it comes to shooting, who found himself working the streets, in "plain clothes", the day Tippit [and the President ] was murdered performing no-less, crime scene detective work AND, evidently was a Dallas good ole boy especially with the media types.... that sum it up? During the JFK assassination period did Hill perform any documented media (local or national) type related jobs for the DPD? I don't know Duke, no simple answers re Sgt. Hill, in my estimation

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #10 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 ********************************************************************** 10. Why was the Justice Department concerned enough to spy on the Garrison trial, and attempt to influence it by sending Boswell to counteract what Finck was testifying to? John McAdams has put forth the silly idea that Garrison was 'attacking' the Federal Government - but seriously, can anyone provide a *reasonable* reason for the Justice Department to interfere in a state prosecution? eof