David G. Healy

As Groden has said, 'Jack's alteration claims have caused a lot of damage to the progressing of the JFK assassination'. I received this note from a member who has seen your post and this person wrote saying, "Do you remember Father Guido Sarducci from Saturday Night Live--he did a sketch called "Find the Pope in the Pizza"! you were supposed to find all of the Popes in a picture of a big pizza on TV, and you were supposed to put a piece of wax paper over the TV screen and circle them within 30 seconds. Then send your results in. Winner got a "I saw the Pope on TV" button. Same stuff, only we're using assassination photos, and it's not funny." Jack, your past mistakes using such pitiful images brought us things like the' boy turning into a girl' claim, the 'white lady looks black' claim, the 'little girl magically appearing' claim, and the 'wedding party' claim. All because you choose to try and see things from poor (often blurry) images. How many times must you make the same mistakes over and over before someone lectures you??? Bill Miller Nice of you to notice the "pitiful image" angle.... seems to me I had to remind YOU of that multiple times over the years (as well as *phantom* things that grow in DP bushes ands trees), eh? And NO, up-rezzing imagery does not make an image "higher" quality... You remember that one don't ya? Be careful who you correct... But we'll excuse the same mistakes you've made over and over and OVER.... However, I withdraw the offer to recommend you to John Warnock for a job with Adobe (Photoshop) Software, San Jose. They need REAL image application pro's....

With all due respect, it seems that the rules are what ever a moderator wants them to be at any given moment. One moderator says one thing, while another says something else. Maybe a lack of consistency is becoming part of the problem. Below are positions held by a moderator(s) opinion on a particular forum rule ............... yet seem contradictory to each other. (The second being over definitions that no one has explained what they had to do with 1963 techniques Vs. modern forensic testing) (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Example 1 Posted remark: "...bootstrap a piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work into “a major breakthrough” in Kennedy assassination research..." Moderator response: "This perilously close to accusing Prof Fetzer of poor research, which is prophibited by our rules:" Example 2 Posted remark: "Just to prove your incredible lack of information & poor research, let us mention two items: MOL & U2" Moderator response: " .... is claiming you have a lack of information & poor research skills, he adds material to support this claim (his opinion). In my opinion this is a valid debate tactic." Now isn't it fair to assume that every remark made about another member or their claim is just an "opinion"? funny you mention the word forensic... seems to me I've mentioned that word in different context many, many times -- concerning the Zapruder film too.... And, there are other places to post... alt.conspiracy.jfk for instance. That is, if this forum is getting a little to tough on ya! Oh, and when it comes to 1963 optical film printing/possible alteration of Zapruder film, techniques and modern film forensic methodolgies (of which you not displayed ANY understanding, so I suspect there will be no debate with you concerning the subject matter....So if your still waiting, you missed the boat, ou've had years (8 years in fact) to comment on that little piece thats housed on JFK Research then republished in TGZFH, not a peep out of you! Just gnashing of teeth! Photoshop, nor .gif animations does not make a photo analyst.... I await your pal Robert Groden, he has some optical film printing technical questions to answer.... I also have a few comments regarding Moe Weitzman email I'd like Robert to comment on....

welcome Brian.....

Isn't it truly amazing that in a typo lies the heart of the alteration pusher. This is what they look for and is exactly why they have earned the title of 'buffs' and cannot get anyone outside of a select few of like-minded individuals to take their alteration claims to the public at large. I would love to see just one solid alteration find, but if that ever happens ... it won't come from XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX... that I can be certain. Do you have any idea what your talking about...? Your efforts are duly noted. Why not take a few bucks and buy him a coffee, better yet, BRING him a cup of coffee.... that should cover the extent of your knowledge concerning DP related films and photos.... so many wannabe's so little time..... LMFAO! (c'mon bill, I'm waiting.... tap-tap-tap) edit :objectionable phrase Offensive remark removed by moderator.

QUICK, give one of em Dragos place....before he wants to come back!!!! we got us another Len Colby type <sigh>

Gary Mack's arbitrary dismissal of the clothing evidence as "hard evidence" of more than one shooter is an abrogation of his responsibility as a historian. Among the American people, conspiracy in the murder of JFK is a historical fact. Gary is no historian for Gawd sakes -- he's a promoter and a self proclaimed JFK assassination photo-film evidence exert. One whose carved out a good job for himself, and I might add, he serves the City of Dallas well. I very much doubt he's in the position to voice anything contrary other than the public Dallas pap that exists concerning the JFK assassination. Gary knows my beef with him (brought to light by David Lifton). Contrary to common belief, it has nothing to do with minion Bill Miller so-called JFK researcher. More to do with how Gary produces/conducts off-camera television interviews/questioning. Most un-professional!

Of course Gary Mack is entitled to his own opinions. What Gary Mack is *not* entitled to is his own set of facts. Mack has endorsed Gerald Posner's claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated in tandem 2" - 3" entirely above the SBT-required inshoot at the base of JFK's neck. And yet the Nix film and other Dealey Plaza films/photos show JFK's jacket collar dropping to a normal position at the base of JFK's neck on Houston St. One of the first things we learn as very small children is that two disparate, solid objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time. And yet it appears to be Gary Mack's "opinion" that JFK's jacket collar and multiple inches of "bunched" shirt and jacket fabric occupied the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at the same time. Such an "opinion" is contrary to the nature of readily observed reality. The truth of the matter is, that in order to prove the jacket position , we would require photographs of the Jacket at the exact time of the shot in question. We don't have this evidence, things move, including cloth materials, so everything you said is just guesswork..Now that's a fact. Duncan Duncan, doesn't this picture of Kennedy from the side look like it's been photoshopped? It looks to me like someone blotted out the back of his neck, collar and jacket. Kathy Collins P.S. I just discovered that other members caught the black obscurity on the back of President Kennedy's neck. Sorry I repeated it. It's a long thread. But it proves how obvious this embellishment is. there is obviously a lot of jpeg artifacts in this image. The back of JFK collar appears to have *other* things going on than simple jpeg artifact. Perhaps Bill Miller JFK researcher, can lay a few Photoshop excuses on us.... eh, Bill?

The Hesters are seen in the Willis photo and Wiegman film and were on the NORTH side of Elm Street. They got off the ground and went 'across' the knoll to the shelter on the north side of Elm Street. Is the playing on words all you have to bring to the discussion??? Bill Miller the devil is in the details, sonny.......

Is this why you have roamed off of JFKResearch.com??? why you roamed off of Lancer.com????

Paul - please tell this forum what Mack has told you directly in your efforts to find this article and why he has not taken the time to find it for you. I said a day or so ago that when I get time and back to the States - I'll find the article. So what do you do - you post a new thread that is nothing more than someone blowing off as much as they can before any more can be done to show that you have been wrong all along. As Denis points out ... there are plenty of other articles that support what Gary has said. You have not posted anything detailing an exhaustive search. I had asked Mack if you have been corresponding with him in an effort to find the article and he said that he hadn't heard from you in over a year. Mack has read the article and cited various things to me from it that I cannot imagine him merely making it up. If you think that such an attempt as this to try and discredit Mack is somehow working, I can tell you that its not. It discredits you as far as your intentions as a true researcher IMO. I predict that in the end the article will be found and I hope that people will pay as much attention to your ridiculous modus-operandi than they do the article itself. Just the other day Mack said to me that he had been doing interviews the entire day for the Museum. I cannot recall the exact number that Gary did, 15 to 20 interviews and spent Friday afternoon and all day Saturday working with the Dallas Morning News on a recent story, while at the same time your arm-chair propaganda machine has been in full motion. Isn't it funny that you cannot sell not one of your outlandish claims to a tabloid and yet Josiah and Gary remain some of the most respected researchers on the JFK assassination. why try to defend a ghost? If Gary has something to say, let him say it..... he's on this board multiple times daily.... yet he allows a amateur to be his spokesperson. If you Miller, are representing the 6th Floor Museum as the person to speak publicly on these internet boards simply say so....

Jack measures your credibility as a researcher by how much you buy into his claims. This can change overnight, as you have witnessed firsthand. Bill your credibility on the other hand has NEVER been in doubt, nor does it change (and it ain't good!)... LMAO

[...] If you want to address something ... in discussing whether something could have been done in 1963 that could go undetected by modern science and expertise ... you made the following remark, "Just to prove your incredible lack of information & poor research, let us mention two items:MOL & U2". Please be more precise and tell me what those two things have in common to 1963 technology??? Bill Miller 1963 technology? What pray-tell, do you know about film-photo technology of 1963 especially when it concerns possible Zapruder film-alteration? Give us a clue man, don't miss this opportunity to demonstrate those bonifides.. your's in research, David G. Healy p.s. Hi Gary, I see you there....

Yes David ... back alley's - after all, thats where I heard you saying to this forum, 'I have seen no proof of alteration'. I also think that if you are not a candidate for being the alteration poster-boy because of past things you have said, then you probably shouldn't be telling someone how they shouldn't jump into threads uninvited. After all, if anyone would just read your last 20 responses over several of these threads ... jumping into discussions uninvited is all you ever do. But I, like about everyone else but you, are smart enough to know that this is an open Education Forum and all members are invited to participate. You see, thats one of the first things we learn in the back alley's. LOL !!! You may need to go back and read Josiah's post as a whole ... then maybe have someone read them to you ... then try sock-puppets if needed and I am sure you'll learn your answers. One helpful hunt ... If Josiah post something in response to your question, then simply ask a more direct question instead of trolling for responses. Bill, I understand you find me endlessly fascinating and entertaining, and can't do without chasing me all over the internet... making absurd remarks about most of serious Zapruder film researchers on this board, ME included.... When and if I find the time to put a microphone in your face (and a camera too) I'll give you adequate time to prepare.... rest assured you'll be asked for your resume and expertise in the film photo field, in particular the JFK assassination and surrounding DP events. All the mental gymnastics do not impress me, nor any other *professional* program producers (documentary or otherwise) haunting this board (and there are a few). No sense trying to impress us! You've been figured out! Further, I don't need suggestions how to do interview or ask simple questions, wee Willie. 40 years of doing interviews has led me to a good techniques... your need for injecting yourself in matters you haven't a clue about has been duly noted... Now run along and find other ways to run past the and misconstrue a Mod's PM. How many times do you have to be slapped down here for a EGO out of control? Edited: Offensive remark

David, but when I look at what Josiah has written and what you have responded with ... it appears to be a one sided discussion. It appears that you suffer from a lack of information and poor research skills on your part ... thats my opinion and its OK to say it because Antti has said so. See quote below ... " ......... is claiming you have a lack of information & poor research skills, he adds material to support this claim (his opinion). In my opinion this is a valid debate tactic." son, it's clear why you've spent most of your life in back alley's.... when you grow to understand the media, we'll talk... till then, sigh, I'm willing to put that good word in for you at ADOBE, they certainly pay better (even at entry level clerk positions) than the 6th Floor Museum, or shilling for Robert Groden... Let's fill the viewers in Bill, seeing you have this insatiable need to inject yourself into conversations when not invited. I certainly didn't invite you into this conversation. Did Dr. Thompson ask you to hold his jacket? btw, while you're here, Did Dr. Thompson answer the question: why him and LIFE magazine (lets see if you're really following the conversation, eh?), I know the particulars of the what and how it happened, just not the, WHY, nor his take on the why? An act of provenance (which I can buy), perhaps? (know what that means?)

The UK is very impressed with Obama. It is great to have a US leader who is articulate and clearly intelligent. we are also hopeful that it will address the important world problems of global warming and the failed US foreign policy. yeah but, where's the beef? How is he (or anyone else for that matter) going to get all the US/coalition troops out of IRAQ in 2009? Dump it on the UN? Come on.... Yes indeed Obama is "articulate and clearly intelligent", he clearly can deliver a speech (did he write any of these speeches?)! My question concerning Obama and the war? Who advises him (campaign staff member) on US military matters? If say, a Colin Powell [type] was in the background somewhere Obama may have a policy as to how to deal with the IRAQ war-U.S. military matters... If Obama (likely) wins the nomination of the democratic party, when the presidential tv debates begin, they'll deliver tv audiences unheard of.... As for John McCain (likely winner of the republican nomination) he has to resell the war in IRAQ, if he can't do that, Obama walks into the Whitehouse with or without a solid plan to get out of Iraq...

David, you talk like the Riddler from Batman ... you say stupid stuff that doesn't address what's been asked. This kind of exchange is what got you to admit that you have seen no proof of alteration. Your remark came years after this so-called wealth of evidence had been in print. The sad part is that you have 'Baghdad Bob'd' yourself into a place you didn't want to be and its your own words that have come back to bite you. Now once again: At the time you said, 'I have seen no proof of alteration' - TGZFH had been out for three years. So nothing is new here ... just the same old trolling game and someone trying to pick a witnesses memory apart so to promote some outlandish idiotic claim .... like all the other ones in the book that didn't convince you of alteration. when I want something from you Miller, I'll ask, till then I'm discussing the case with one of your mentors, so stay out of the way.... for the moment your waterboy chores on this thread are finished.... you look lovely goffering, btw.....

Actually Dr. Thompson, for a good part of those 30 years right down the coast from you, during that time we probably read the same SF newspapers, watched the same news local programs (of course I was a bit closer to those news programs/studio than you were) ... however, that doesn't answer my simple query.... eh? I'm sure a few here don't have 6 Seconds available at their fingertips.... Think of it this way, if you and I were doing this on-camera a simple 2 paragraph response would do... here's the question again: How did a Philosophy professor (Ph.D.), you sir, wind up in the executive offices of LIFE magazine, working on the film of the century? That same certain magazine that did NOT want the country to witness that same film as purchased (still pics.motion picture rights) by them... And please, don't push a Bill Miller type out to fetch your paper, as it stands right now Miller can't believe your posting to this thread.... thank you for the above, your time and candor... frankly though, still doesn't answer a lingering question, why you? A full-time university professor/turned writer with a contract.... "LIFE at that point was starting an investigation of the whole case. They could train up an editor in a few months to tell them what doors to open but that would take time." Interesting, a leading US publication of the time, needs an outside source [not only] to suggest how to conduct an investigation, but what doors to open? I'd like to relate to you sometime my experiences (Vietnam-1963 [in and OUT of Tudo Street bars]) with LIFE photographers. In general damn competent photog's and great reporting.

Who did you use before telling this forum that you have seen no proof of alteration, David??? son, when one reviews the current wealth of evidence pointing in that direction, what is a thinking man gonna do? Run around Dealey Plaza looking for autographs? And, who did I use for what?

Josiah, you are aware that David Healy never cites data about the case .... so he may have never read anything about JFK's assassination. David's interest seems to be in making contradictory statements like 'I think the Zfilm is altered' and 'I have seen no proof of alteration'. relax Bill, Dr. Thompson will recognize you soon enough, he may even autograph your T-shirt if he has the time. Right now he's busy with a question... So while we wait, how is the job 6th floor Museum going?

Why bother anyone with that nonsense, David. Let's use the one you relied on when you posted three years after seeing Costella's so-called work that you had not seen any proof of alteration. I'm just agreeing with you and if you spoke to a physicist to reach that conclusion, then fine ... I'll cite him, too! LOL!!! yeah, if I couldn't find a physicist (for that matter anyone with credentials that could take apart JCostella's work), and I wanted no part of scientific findings, I'd say the same thing.....I believe its called, *Denial*

Actually Dr. Thompson, for a good part of those 30 years right down the coast from you, during that time we probably read the same SF newspapers, watched the same news local programs (of course I was a bit closer to those news programs/studio than you were) ... however, that doesn't answer my simple query.... eh? I'm sure a few here don't have 6 Seconds available at their fingertips.... Think of it this way, if you and I were doing this on-camera a simple 2 paragraph response would do... here's the question again: How did a Philosophy professor (Ph.D.), you sir, wind up in the executive offices of LIFE magazine, working on the film of the century? That same certain magazine that did NOT want the country to witness that same film as purchased (still pics.motion picture rights) by them... And please, don't push a Bill Miller type out to fetch your paper, as it stands right now Miller can't believe your posting to this thread....

I personally feel that there is a conspiracy to make CT's look like incompetent buffs and it started with your Zfilm alteration claims. Bill Miller then you should have no problem finding a competent physicist to dispute the JCostella Ph.D claims... Get with it, what YOU personally think is irrelevant... So Dr. Thompson, how'd a philosophy professor from Haverford U. find his way into LIFE Magazines deal with the Zapruder film? For the record books for sure, eh? There's a scarcity of information concerning same.

Evan, I -- and others -- have reached the conclusion that "Colby" is an agent provocateur (hereinafter AP). Spreading disinformation is one of the AP's primary functions. The key ingredient to all disinformation is a grain of truth. Over the long haul, a "Colby" may be expected to post factually correct information and defensible analyses of persons and events. The AP does so in order to establish credentials which in turn will be referenced to support the AP's later spurious and sophistic pronouncements. When exposed to the light, the AP will cite previous instances of truth-telling and then challenge its discoverers to respond to its subsequent statements on their own merits. If I were to accept "Colby's" challenge -- or, for that matter, cave to your schoolyard taunt -- by offering serious and honorable responses to what I and others are satisfied are ludicruous and dishonorable postings -- by definition I would be ceding the contest to "Colby's" controllers. SUCCESS FOR THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR IS DEFINED AS ENGAGING ITS TARGETS -- REGARDLESS OF THE ENGAGEMENTS' OUTCOMES. THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR'S MASTERS IS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION OF LEVEL INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PLAYING FIELDS FOR THEIR LIES ON THE GREAT BATTLEGROUND OF HISTORY. THE ONLY WAYS TO DEFEAT THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR -- AND, BY EXTENSION, ITS MASTERS -- ARE TO REVEAL ITS MISSIONS AND TO TREAT IT WITH UTTER CONTEMPT. Accordingly: WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals. Charles Drago Why is it the first phrase that comes to my mind is "deliberately inflamatory"? Because such a misreading is the best you can offer. By the by, it's "inflammatory." And it's a term, not a "phrase." Oh no! A spelling mistake! How ever will I survive? And it is both a term and a phrase. Oh most Lone Nuts survive, kinda reminds me of that battery bunny, the Nutter's just go on a-tick'in...

Len Colby needs defending by a MOD? LMAO!

old news Pointing, real OLD news .... you have the credentials to challenge anything Fetzer or those that contributed to his books have to say? If so speak up.... or asre you just another Josiah Thompson place mat? Are you suggesting that only someone with certain credentials is allowed to post an opinion on this forum Healy? Ill take a look thru the forum rules, see if I can find that one. Meanwhile, the credentials I possess are lateral thinking, strong logic, common sense and street savvy, Don't think your too strong on those one's, are you Healy? Josiah Thompson place mat?....No, not really, but I would imagine that's a far more comfortable position than being one of Dr Jims bitches. LOL with authority? Of course! opine to your hearts content, hold all the Lone Nut jocstraps you want -- I could careless. Criticize the JFK assassination photo research/studies of course you'll be called to task -- ask Miller he's been at it for 6 years and can't get off first base..... fill in for him, we're bored with him!