David G. Healy

I find the discussion of which way the bullet entered the President's head by way of the autopsy to be a waste of time because there is so much contradictory evidence that nothing can be considered factual. The head was seen differently at Bethesda as described in Dallas, thus the evidence has been compromised as far the the body goes. About a third of the President's brain was missing in Dallas - O'Conner finds the head cavity void of a brain when Paul unzipped the body bag containing the president's body. Jackie arrives with the alleged casket containing JFK's body, which Custer observed as he is carrying the Xrays of JFK that he has already taken. Then we are given a brain weight that shows no sign of a loss of brain tissue. Something is not right and no matter whether one believes in a conspiracy or not in JFK's assassination, there can be no denying that because of a poor chain of evidence being carried out has resulted in some rather doubtful and shoddy evidence. So we go back to a point when the body had yet been compromised - The assassination films. The assassination films show only one impact to the President's head according to blood spatter science. It was stated to me by a blood spatter expert that a second impact to the President's head would have resulted in a second halo effect and that an already weakened skull would have been obliterated, which is not what is seen in the Zapruder film. So it seems to me that the best evidence is the evidence examined before the mysterious varying descriptions of JFK's wounds took place. With that being said, then the evidence has been addressed IMO. I've stated elsewhere how can a bloodspatter analyst (Sherry from LANCER) determine blood spatter from a 2 dimensional film of a 3 dimensional crime scene..... and the same blood spatter analyst never visited the crime 'street' scene, did not have access to the limo immediately after the crime. we're simply left with another "opinion"... Waste of time? If you can scientifically verify the NARA held Zapruder film as, in fact, the Zapruder in-camera original, you might get some legs, till then, noise! IF the Zapruder film is altered, one halo, two or more makes no difference, mere opinion regarding blood spatter, MOOT comes to mind. Best Evidence? Speaking of which, David Lifton is certainly stirring the pot - won't you agree?

Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear! http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an album that I prepared of black and white photographs made of the majority of the frames in the Zapruder film---- Mr. SPECTER. Starting with what frame number? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334. Mr. SPECTER. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence, being No. 334, fixed? Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was fixed as several frames past the shot that hit the President in the head. Frame 313 is the frame showing the shot to the President's head, and it ends at 334. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z310.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg -------------------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car. Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera. -------------------------------------------- http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z334.jpg Sort of like another of those "Where's Waldo"? Or, better yet, Where's Altgens? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z339.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z340.jpg It "ain't" Waldo, but he certainly has a camera to his eye as well as being only slightly in excess of 15 feet from JFK. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z348.jpg And, it would certainly appear that "Waldo"/aka James Altgens is standing just a few feet from that second yellow painted section of the concrete curb. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0487a.htm Most curious! That the WC decided that James Altgens was standing back up Elm St. so far that he would have in fact been between the first yellow curb mark (Moorman/Hill location) and the TSDB, when in fact, James Altgens was standing at approximately where the top of the first "t" in "ELM STREET" is located, which is almost directlly across from where the concrete steps leading down from the stockade fence to Elm St. is located. As well as the fact that the Zapruder photo of James Altgens standing along Elm St. had been published in newspapers across the US only a couple of days after the assassination. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Now! Would everyone who "fell" for this little WC subterfuge please raise their hand. Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear! http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm Mr. HUDSON - Well, I was right along - you see, the steps come down the steps for a way and then there is a broad place, oh, I'll say a little wider than this table here on the steps and then some steps and I was standing on this - that would be somewhere around along about there. Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere right along in there. The yellow curb marks slightly enhanced! http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm Had Mr. West not utilized his previously established survey data (that horizontal and veritical control which was established during the US Secret Service work), then we would have no way of knowing exactly where Station 4+95 of the SS work is located, in regards to the WC Survey Plat. And, the WC most assuredly did not intend for Mr. West to do so, as this is the primary reason for the establishment of "Position "A"". In that the WC apparently intended for Mr. West to take and establish all measurements from this new location. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was actually established later. But the first one to be actually located was 161. And we went back later and positioned point A. Mr. SPECTER. Well, let's start with the position which is the most easterly point on Elm Street, which I believe would be position A, would it not? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Mr. DULLES. Where is position A on that chart? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Position A is here. Mr. McCLOY. That is before you get to the tree? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he isn't under the tree yet. Mr. SPECTER. And what occupant, if any, in the car is position A sighted on for measuring purposes? Mr. SHANEYFELT. All of the photographs made through the rifle sight that are shown on the exhibit in the lower left-hand corner were sighted on the spot that was simulating the spot where the President was wounded in the neck. The chalk mark is on the back of the coat. Mr. SPECTER. When you say that position A is the first position at which President Kennedy was in view of the marksman from the southeast window on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, you mean by that the first position where the marksman saw the rear of the President's stand-in? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Mr. SPECTER. So that would be the first position where the marksman could focus in on the circled point where the point of entry on the President was marked? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Mr. SPECTER. And what position is station C? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Station C is on a line drawn along the west curb line of Houston Street in a direct line, and station C is at a point along that line that is in line with where the car would have turned coming around that corner. It is on a line which is an extension of the west curb line of Houston Street. Mr. SPECTER. And what is the distance between that point on the President and station C? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 44 feet from station C--91.6 feet to the rifle in the window from the actual chalk mark on the coat. All measurements were made to the chalk mark on the coat. Mr. SPECTER. Does the picture designated "photograph through rifle scope" depict the actual view of the rifleman through the actual Mannlicher-Carcano weapon? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. At point A. Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. At the position that has been designated as frame 161, and appears on Commission Exhibit No. 888, the distance from the wound mark on a stand-in for President Kennedy to station C was 94.7 feet. Mr. SPECTER. Would you now read the same statistical data from frame 166 on Exhibit No. 889, please? Mr. SHANEYFELT. From the chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for President Kennedy, to station C is 95.6 feet, the distance to rifle in window, 138.2 feet, the angle to rifle in window based on the horizontal, is minus 26 52'. Distance to overpass is 391.5 feet. The angle to the overpass is 0 7'. Mr. SPECTER. Will you read the statistical data from frame 185? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; from the point of the chalk on the back of the stand-in for the President at position 185 to station C is 114.8 feet, the distance to rifle on window is 154.9 And on, and on, we go. Might not it have been considerably easier to have utilized the actual survey stationing which Mr. West established and actually surveyed in as well as placed onto the large WC survey plat????? After all, Z313 was fully established in Mr. West additional "Chart"/aka CE884, at survey stationing 4+65.3. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm Mr. SHANEYFELT. The dimensions from the surveyor on frame 313 of the distance from the wound mark on the President's stand-in to station C is 230.8 feet. Distance to the rifle in the window is 265.3 feet. The angle to rifle in window is 15b021' and this is based on the horizontal. Distance to the overpass is 260.6 feet, the angle to the overpass is 1b028'. -------------------------------------------------------------------- HMMMMMM? Exactly why am I reminded of the old "Shell/Pea" game?????? Kind of reminds me of the "Whose Stretcher is This" game as well! Now! Would everyone who "fell" for the "Point/Position A" and "Station C" shell game, please raise their hand! Us's ole country boys have to stick with the simple survey stationing if we want to actually figure anything out. Once again, nice compilation, Tom... seems to me the SS reenactment had a shot down by those stairs (further west on Elm beyond the Zapruder frame 313 area, correct?)? Also, has the City of Dallas ever commented as to WHY" those "yellow stripes" on the south side Elm Street curbing? Where the "yellow stripes" in-fact, on the northside Elm Street curbing as well? Hang around... Thanks, David Healy

I'll provide the bellows... Hope all is well David, nice to see you post here... David Healy

I assume that when David says, 'See ya round the hood chump' ... that he is talking about during visiting hours. (smile) Someone please wake me up if he ever post anything related to the JFK assassination ... something like that must only happen once in a lifetime and I don't want to miss it. http://jfkresearch.com/page3.html 3rd article from the top, I suspect what got me the invite here, enjoy and have a nice week! Miller, you're a third rate researcher with a over blown ego, that is running recklessly, completely, out of control. I believe Ms. Collins asked you a question, I know a few lurkers have asked me the same, fess up Studley!

Psychotic delusion: Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or non-existent sense of objective reality. lmfao... you certainly know when you've no place to turn, eh? So, dance sweet gloria, DANCE. Seeya round the hood chump! I'm outt'a here for awhile... A few compositing jobs beckon

Do you ever post an intelligent response. Isn't there a saying that says that it is best to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. And if you are going to at least do the latter ... let it be over the JFK assassination evidence. sitdown Miller, as you are associated with her and her board, you're now ruining Debra's credibility.... Hi Gary....

there you have, 2 denials from the principals. Wasn't that hard was it? With that aside, I think the idea of a merger would be a GREAT one.

Sorry Dave Weaver -- Debra needs to do the heavy lifting here, simple yea or nay, from Debra, 'are there talks/negotiations of a merger between the two forums'? David Healy: IMO..., I strongly believe that the Lancer Forum, and all its productions, are of a CONTROLLED specialized interest. As I have said, IMO, I believe that when anything worthwhile appears on any forum that that information, if documented and proven factual, goes against the norm of thinking as to JFK, that information is down played, spinned, twisted, and sent to the black hole of research. IMO, I believe this is done by a specialized group of "special interest", personal embedded within Lancer. IMO, I believe valid information, when posted, is tampered with and slanted so as to fit neatly into specialized projects of Lancer Productions and its Clan.., for profit. IMO. I now see this forum using those same tactics and using some of the same personal to spread confusing and mistrust and flood threads and divert the subject matter of same in other directions. IMO, I feel that this forum is being monitored by Lancer personal, CIA officials, and government personal from Washington DC. IMO, I believe members of this forum are being interfered with in their ongoing research and documentation which could be thought, by some, as damaging to those special interest projects. IMO. I believe that BOTH forums have been infiltrated by the powers that be and their combine purpose is to create diversions and confusing when something they feel damaging to the established facts of which they have decided as facts is posted on either forum. IMO and FWIW. Mr. Plumlee, I believe you're opinion is correct, most counts. What continues to trouble me about known evidence concerning the JFK assassination and possible film/photo alterations, specifically the Zapruder film is, WHY does this remains a major topic of interest? Most serious reseachers could care less. It's a simple thesis: If the assassination film record, credibility is in question concerning the film/photo record, then all testimony relating to that known record should be questioned. After all, when one collates Elm Street Warren Commission Report eyewitness testimony to the extant Zapruder film, one contradicts the other in far too many aspects. So, to most serious reseachers, that leaves a HUGE hole in the official record... So. we move on, eh? The CONSPIRACY-debate being the primary focus of internet boards, is utter nonsense, PAP, if you will! When answers concerning conflicting WCR eyewitness testimony and answers concerning legitimate questions are not forthcoming, one has no alternative but to cast a dim eye on the official record and the credibility of those in defense of same... have a nice day Mr. Plumlee...

Sorry Dave Weaver -- Debra needs to do the heavy lifting here, simple yea or nay, from Debra, 'are there talks/negotiations of a merger between the two forums'?

David ... still no JFK assassination stuff for you to discuss? Also, see Weaver's response in post #3 ... it seems that you are once again blowing off your mouth about something you know nothing about. Oh Bill, keep your jockstrap on.... "...know nothing about...", does that mean YOU know about the possibility? C'mon son.... As for rumors [sic], it makes perfect business sense, a Lancer/Ed Forum combo... the only thing that surprises a few of us, talks or rumors were expected MORE than a year ago... I'd like to hear a few reasons WHY a merger of the two internet JFK assassination forums/boards CAN'T work? (I think the moderation issue/milestone has been met, eh? LMAO) I'm sure Gary has a few comments...? So, sans the denials, the trial balloon has been sent up.... p.s. and frankly unless Dave Weaver signs Lancer checks, perhaps Debra needs to comment, eh? BMiller acting as the mouthpiece for Lancer is not a good idea right now, unless of course Bill owns controlling interest in Lancer... btw, has this forum merger rumor showed up on Lancer? John Simkin has denied it, its now Debra's turn.....

there goes the neighborhood.... Miller has his checkbook out again..... LMFAO! And Pointing, sitdown.....

my-goodness, I had no idea research into JFK's assassination, The Warren Commission Report AND The Zapruder Film stopped after the publication of Dr. Thompson's 6 Seconds in Dallas, Kathy? Look, Josiah Thompson, David Lifton and Oliver Stone (whether you believe any of three or not), have done more in bringing attention the conspiracy side of this case, than anyone alive today or any other time, for that matter. The three above are apt and capable defending the entire scope of their work, if YOU have any doubt, ask them... with that said: I guess we can all fold this Ed Forum tent and go home, eh? Is your above patronage (potential bias[es]) part of a mod's job description? Can we get back to the technical aspects regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder film, you know the stuff no one wants to touch? Finally, you may rise off of bended knee now, I'm in the house! LMAO!

So, according to Jack White, we have 2 Zapruder film's, 2 Lee Oswald's, 2 Margarita Oswald's and now...2 Bill Miller's. Oh well, could be worse, at least we dont have 2 Jack White's and 2 Healy's. God forbid!!! LOL wasn't for the likes of researchers like Jack White, you and the rest of the "LHO did it all by his lonesome Lone Nut crowd" would have no place to ply your disinfo-mania. So be grateful Pointing, we give you something to do with all that spare-time you have.... better than a real job, eh? p.s. where is your profile btw?

Kathy your an active poster on the Lancer forum, posted there today in fact. Its known Miller had a little something to do with the resurgence of Lancer AFTER he was thrown off of JFK Research (he did try to take that board over also, but was rebuffed). I was there, BOTH places. So, if Miller isn't asking you to do his bidding, fine. At best it looks suspicious and YOU are a moderator here... What are we to think? Doesn't have to be a conspiracy, Kathy. Collusion, perhaps.

cute, but NO banana. If he could send a picture taken in the back country, from the back country to you, why couldn't he post it to the forum from the back country? So malarky is everywhere... and where's the Bigfoot pictures?

Bigfoot! I should of known..... ROTFLMFAO! you Bill's gopher these days, Kathy? Or is he at his maximum, if so why is the forum giving him a break.

Dr. Thompson wrote: you know Dr. Thompson if you (or anyone else for that matter) could deliver anyone of the three in-camera originals above for detailed study by experts, you might be able to get legs with this argument. You see, as of now, quite a few folks don't believe any of the above in-camera originals exist [at this time]. The integrity of ALL three films is precarious at best! Can you sir, verify the existence of the Nix and Muchmore camera originals? Without that verification, the above point is moot. You're left with the alleged in-camera Zapruder film and on internet boards (and elsewhere) the Z-film film isn't doing well these day's... I personally believe the same as C. Drago, the beef over the Z-film is a futile argument, enough to throw able bodied researchers into a tizzy and it has created a tizzy. Knowing that the entire Dealey Plaza assassination motion-film record/sequences may be a disaster, in many minds, there's only one area of the assassination left to deal with, LHO. And after John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee, David Lifton in the wings -- Lone Nutter's have their work cut out for them. Frankly I can't see them rising to the occasion, you?

Speaking of alteration & odd splices, I'm still trying to fathom Peters' praise of BM's commentary from a recent thread revival. I don't understand it. Does anyone? not only don't understand it, can't figure out what his recommendation is either

says it all....

Jack, it's Sunday. Forum activity has been slow the last twelve hours. Maybe people are doing something else rather than sitting in front of their computer, ready to reply to Forum posts. when I signed in a few minutes ago there were 120 lurkers. Members: you and I, Michael. They're sitting out there....

you know when the moderators **"EDIT"** a posting, it might be nice to see WHERE they edited the post -- Very easy change the entire posts intent/meaning, especially if the reader is NOT aware of where and what the *mod* "altered"

Below is an excerpt from a post from a recently (today) revived older thread ("Ed Hoffman is incorrect"). The blue dotted line indicates an excision in the the text. What is of interest is the word fabrication. Question: When BM blasted these other film people, did BM mean that there is only one valid Z film? And that the notion of alteration arises only because of composite fabrication? And that, therefore, the Z film is not a fabrication? Can anyone shed any light on this? Thx Bill Miller is Larry Peters?

David, your comprehension as to what is being said and by who is amazingly poor at times and better at other times - WHY??? It is not just the 'lone nut' believers who aren't taking you seriously, but long time CT's as well. The alteration claims, which by the way you said you have seen no proof of, has divided the CT's so not to be labeled insane through guilt by association as a whole. Each time you respond to a CT's as if he or she is a lone nut believer because their views on a particular point is different than your own, then you only make my point even stronger because it makes you look like a fool to not be able to discern the difference between a CTs and a LNr. For instance, part of the problem appears to be your narrow-mindedness in thinking that anyone who doesn't believe in alteration of the DP assassination films must be a 'lone nutter'. If others thought as you appear to think, then you too, could be considered a LNr after you stated that you have seen no proof of alteration, yet no one has said such an idiotic remark concerning your position. The reason for no one saying such a thing about you on those grounds is quite simple .... its stupid! Even more interesting is the fact that you go on to say that the HSCA found that there was a conspiracy which in your mind makes game-set-and match. The HSCA didn't say that Moorman was standing in the street, that boys turn into girls, that people magically appear, that people are shorter than parking meters, or that any other alteration claims are true when finding that a conspiracy to kill the President had probably occurred. So your bringing up the HSCA's findings makes my point even clearer ... and that is that someone can believe there was a conspiracy without being so gullible as to embrace every odd-ball claim thrown at the wall to see if it sticks. As far as referring to me or other male forum members as 'hon', please save that for the appropriate websites. I am 100% male and straight, thus I don't cotton to male forum members calling me 'hon' - 'baby' - 'sweetie' or any other pet name you may be trying to work up to. Thanks!!! actually its pretty simple Bill, I understand you haven't a clue about film-photo composition (hell even Lamson called you out time and again) when confronted with the tech side of this deal you run and hide. and that's fine... your being used, champ. so when you wonder about things like the above, here's my response: I paint a broad stroke with my film-photo commentary (which btw happens to be proven through years of experience something you lack, altogether). I throw it out in all directions and wallah.... you happen to be standing directly in front of it every time.....my suggestion? Duck. You're an easy target. I'm even starting to feel sorry for you....

Pat, Paul starts with a conclusion and works his way backwards, thus he gets caught up in saying silly things to make it appear that he has legs. LMFAO, no wonder you've gotten no further than this forum.... you get anything published? EVER!

I hear ya, Denis. The puzzling thing about Healy is that he has never pointed out to Jack that he (Jack) is making erroneous claims from poor quality images. After all, David has posted that he has seen no proof of alteration and yet he had seen all Jack's silly claims in the book David participated in. It's too bad that David didn't try to prevent Jack from going forward with his claims and maybe saved us all some embarrassment as CTs. And that's the real shame, they dont just embarrass themselves, but ALL of us too. No wonder so many of the general public think were all a load of nuts. How can anyone take us seriously after reading Jacks posts on this thread, even our own members are laughing at him. That guy should do us all a favour and go back to the Apollo moon hoax board. same old argument ("nobody takes us CT's seriously" shtick ....) continue moaning and groaning by Lone Nuts (aka LHO did all by his lonesome crowd) have been laying on lurkers for years. Not to mention, you guys need a new script... getting old- you create the illusion you believe in conspiracy, yet run the other way when confronted with conspiracy.... HSCA = JFK died because of a conspiracy..... game-set-match, hon! We're just mopping up!