David G. Healy

Good to see you here, Len....

While your post says nothing in the way of evidence (as usual) - your point is well taken. The Myers site that Miles likes to refer to mentioned two tress and in doing so, the Hudson tree was removed altogether while other trees further west remained. I find this action on Dale's part to be somewhat suspect and it does bring into question why he never bothered to present photos of the area himself so to make his case. somewhat suspect? Removing tree in a recreation? I'd say that's alteration wouldn't you? That also brings to mind "credibility" not only of past work but future work.... Oh... but that does lead to evidence there, Bill! Now remember, GaryM is watching this thread very,very VERY closely.....

1) All images in all my posts are hosted by 3rd party sites like photobucket or at their source locations* 2) I think I have proven beyond resonable doubt Elvis and badgeman are one in the same. 3) My post was the most 'valuable' and 'relevant' on this thread. * OK virtually all IIRC I uploaded 2 images to the forum When I try to uploat photos it says I've reached limit. I don't know what the limit is but whatever it is I don't think it needs any more of Elvis, however valuable and relevant. Elvis and Nixon is the most frequently requested photo from the National Archives. BK Actually, Colby IS Elvis, that's why he's hiding south of the Bor-dah, something to do with alimony payments, or some such fiasco.....

'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] And while we are on the subject - what can you tell us about the red shirted man (Williamson)? I am betting that you know absolutely nothing. And also I wonder if you (Miles) have even asked Dale Myers to prove Bowers could see Hudson. You’d think that Dale would have photos to back up his theory. Have you asked Dale to prove HIS theory? If not, why not? Bill Miller ********** oh-no, not another Dale Myers cartoon! Will he provide Lightwave project files for this one? Miles, DMyers does not respond to laity - he has won a Emmy however! LMAO!

oh, Bill.... we understand your relationship with Groden AND Mack, I also understand Groden's old NYC optical film house bosses relationship with Groden (which of course is on the record, the OFFICIAL as in testimony record). Hell Groden hawks JFK memoribilia and books in the Plaza, regularlly -- why not have him take a few DP oriented pics, upload 'em here the same day.... take 15 minutes? Gary can carry his camera bag.... you can provide lunch. I'll call a local Dallas reporter I know and we can have us a JFK media event....eh? Just a simple suggestion, our side has done it before.... Lamson has done it before.... your's and Groden's turn in the box. Stay on script now

It's Bugliosi's last shot at face saving and a tarnished gold ring (C-SPAN, huh?)..... Literary property 'optioned' (by HBO or anyone else for that matter) is little more than meaningless at this stage. How much did the producers pay for the "option"? Will the project get beyond scripting and pre-production? Or sit on a shelf for 10-20 years (which would be the smart Lone Nut thing to do, so don't count on it).......

Miles Scull wrote: [...] Silly nonsense. Let's get some images from the grass & up. Buy Bob some film. **************** perhaps David Lifton would lend him a spot money for a roll.

seems as though new topic page won't load.... waiting for ask.com and/or amazon.com what the hell is up with that? DHealy

Bill Miller wrote: [...] prop·a·gan·da noun Definition: 1. publicity to promote something: information put out by an organization or government to promote a policy, idea, or cause 2. misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread Bill Miller ROTFLMFAO, the irony of it all!... Not fooling me!

David: The FBI was considerably involved in what is referred to as the SS assassination re-enactment and survey work of December 2, 3, & 4th, 1963. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please? Mr. GAUTHIER. Leo J. Gauthier. Mr. SPECTER. And by whom are you employed, sir? Mr. GAUTHIER. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. SPECTER. And what is your rank with the Federal Bureau of Investigation? Mr. GAUTHIER. Inspector. I am in charge of the Bureau's exhibit section, where we prepare investigative aids, consisting of diagrams, charts, maps, three-dimensional exhibits, in connection with the presentation of cases in court. Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Survey Plat for this work of course being that survey plat which demonstrates the impact point of each of the three shots fired, with the Z313 location being the second shot, and the location at stationing 4+95/aka in front of James Altgens position being the third shot impact point. Thusly, the FBI was highly involved in this work. Then, on 2/7/64, the FBI "re-did" the survey work and assassination re-enactment. However, the third shot/Altgens impact point was still left in it's original location. There is of course no "official" known record as to who from the FBI was advising on these, as few persons were even aware of the existence of such re-enactments and surveys. As regards Shaneyfelt with the rifle at the window, (CE 887) http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0050b.htm This photograph was purportedly taken during the WC work of May 1964. Personally, this photo was one of those which had "escaped" my attention until such time as Mr. West brought out that "no one could have accurately fired that rifle, the way that they had it jacked up". Thus, I never took the time to get back to Mr. West to verify if this photo, CE887, was what he actually saw. But, I would assume that it is when one looks at the photo and compares it with what Mr. West informed me. (to be continued) http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0050b.htm Frame# 161 http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0051a.htm Frame# 166 http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm Altered Survey Data (remember) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=28 Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Since it was not practical to stop the projector when using the original of the Zapruder film, because of the possibility of damage to the film, Mr. Orth volunteered to prepare 35-mm. color slides directly from the original movie of all of the pertinent frames of the assassination which were determined to be frames 171 through 434. Normally, one would find it difficult to make "composite" photo's which compared the WC work with the actual Z-film frames, if one were utilizing slides received from Time/Life, and these slides began with what was supposedly Z171. There are many, many mistakes! thanks Tom -- agreed! I knew you'd catch this thread... David

David: The FBI was considerably involved in what is referred to as the SS assassination re-enactment and survey work of December 2, 3, & 4th, 1963. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please? Mr. GAUTHIER. Leo J. Gauthier. Mr. SPECTER. And by whom are you employed, sir? Mr. GAUTHIER. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. SPECTER. And what is your rank with the Federal Bureau of Investigation? Mr. GAUTHIER. Inspector. I am in charge of the Bureau's exhibit section, where we prepare investigative aids, consisting of diagrams, charts, maps, three-dimensional exhibits, in connection with the presentation of cases in court. Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Survey Plat for this work of course being that survey plat which demonstrates the impact point of each of the three shots fired, with the Z313 location being the second shot, and the location at stationing 4+95/aka in front of James Altgens position being the third shot impact point. Thusly, the FBI was highly involved in this work. Then, on 2/7/64, the FBI "re-did" the survey work and assassination re-enactment. However, the third shot/Altgens impact point was still left in it's original location. There is of course no "official" known record as to who from the FBI was advising on these, as few persons were even aware of the existence of such re-enactments and surveys. As regards Shaneyfelt with the rifle at the window, (CE 887) http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0050b.htm This photograph was purportedly taken during the WC work of May 1964. Personally, this photo was one of those which had "escaped" my attention until such time as Mr. West brought out that "no one could have accurately fired that rifle, the way that they had it jacked up". Thus, I never took the time to get back to Mr. West to verify if this photo, CE887, was what he actually saw. But, I would assume that it is when one looks at the photo and compares it with what Mr. West informed me. (to be continued) Hi Tom: As you are well aware, I have the greatest respect for your work on the various reconstructions carried out in Dealey Plaza, and in particular your endeavours to contact and thus communicate with Robert West, among others. However, I am not aware of any documentation which directly supports direct FBI cooperation on the matter of the Secret Service reconstruction(s) conducted in Dealey Plaza during the first week of December, 1963. Yes, I understand the Leo J. Gauthier was in Dallas during that particular week, accompanied as he was by three members of his Exhibits Division staff. Gauthier actually left the area on December 4 while the members of his staff stayed behind for two more days to finish their work. The question posed of Specter to Gauthier in the quote you cited above refers, as far as I can tell, to the construction of the two scale models generated by the Bureau. As fas as I know, and you can correct me on this if I am wrong, the SS reconstructions of this week were just that, reconstructions carried out by the SS for the SS. I am not naive enough to believe that agents of these two agencies were not aware of the presence of each other in the area during the first week of December 1963, (indeed there exists documentation which indicates that at least SS - SA John J. Howlett was interviewed by members of the Dallas Field Office of the FBI on the matter of SS reconstruction) but surviving documentation generated by both parties in the aftermath of their visits to the area reflect to very different agenda's. However, perhaps Mr. West indicated directly to you that Gauthier and/or members of his Washington based staff directly sought out West and the SS for help with their project. I do not have the time herein to examine the documentation that was generated by the two agencies involved in the weeks after their December 1963 visit to Dealey Plaza, and heavan fobid that I refer to my forthcoming book, replete as it apparently is with untrustworthy investigation, on this subject matter. All I do know is that I, like you, know that both the FBI and SS position the fatal shot along Elm Street at a point that is totally incongruous to the eventual solution as proferred by members of the Warren Commission staff. However, as you are also aware, the FBI and SS agreed to disagree as to where specifically this impact occurred. I am intigued by your revelation of an FBI survey conducted in Dealey Plaza on February 7, 1964, with the apparent aid of Robert West. I have to admit that I was not aware of the existence of this specific event, and plead ignorance of its contents. If you would care to enlighten me further, by private e-mail exchange, I would be greatful. Regarding just who is posed with the rifle in the photograph discussed in this thread, I based my answer upon identification of the individual given to me by Harold Weisberg, someone who had to sit across the table from both Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier, and on more than once occasion, during his FOIA endeavours to gain the release of documentation generated by the Bureau on the assasination event. Regards, Gary Murr might want to hold up publication for a bit....

'Gary Murr' wrote: [...] The Zapruder frame count that is universally accepted and utilized by all those who study and refer to the film by frame number, the system that starts with frame 1, excluding the few personal scenes shot at the beginning of the roll by Abraham Zapruder, and ending with frame 486, was assigned to the film byFBI SA Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 29, 1964. dgh: January 29th .... hmm, considering NPIC testimony (taken by Doug Horne) states the NPIC guys who worked with the Z-frames (as they said late the 22nd, certainly that weekend), their working doc's of that weekend show the Z-frames clearly numbered and fps determined? Coincidence shows us Shaneyfelt used the same numbering sequence 9 weeks later? Fascinating.... This excercise on the part of Shaneyfelt was conducted as a result of a direct request by Norman Redlich of the Warren Commission staff. I do not know which specific FBI generated copy of the Zapruder film Shaneyfelt used; all I do know, to a certainty, is that the FBI produced more than two copies of the film for their own use from a first generation copy of the film supplied to them by the Secret Service the day after the assasination. I suspect that the copy Shaneyfelt utilized was the same one that he and a select group of Warren Commission staff members had studied both prior to the Redlich request and for months after the Redlich request. dgh: again, how did those frame numbers show up on NPIC documents the weekend of the assassination? BTW, there were more copies floating around within 2 weeks of the assassination than Carter had little liver pills -- I suspect that's one of the reasons (amongst others) why the 6th floor museum is collecting what hasn't been destroyed over the years. I will also indicate the following, and again I hate to be annoyingly repetative, but it is covered in great detail you-know-where- in my forthcoming book. Lyndal Shaneyfelt was NOT responsible for the "accepted" and universally utilized average Zapruder film run speed of 18.3 fps. His methodolgy applied in his study of the film arrived at an average that was close, but it was not 18.3 fps. dgh: no one said he was responsible for determing the camera speed, however the FBI was responsible along with B&H in determining the gate assembly speed of the camera. He takes claim to *numbering* the Z-frames. Frankly, I hope your above is correct. you see January 29th 1964 would allow 9 weeks for film alteration... the audience for any alteration of the Z-film would be quite small, in fact the Warren Commission ONLY! Likewise, Mr. Shaneyfelt was NOT the FBI Lab employee who originally examined the Zapruder film AND camera and, in essence, Shaneyfelt became the FBI "expert" on the Zapruder film strictly by accident for reasons that are explained, in detail,.... you know where. dgh: I seriously doubt "by accident", in fact I find that nonsense... One of the (fatal?) flaws prevalent in the research of those who see the hideous hand of the CIA in some sort of nefariously instantaneous plot to alter the film of Abraham Zapruder before the body of the slain President barely had a chance to grow cold is that they see the entire CIA Document 450-NPIC incident as a SINGULAR entity/occurrence over the weekend of the assassination. This simply is not true. As I am able to prove in my forthcoming work, the entire NPIC-CIA-SS-Zapruder film scenario was not one but three "separate" but related incidents that evolved not over days, or weeks, but months. I exchanged correspondence on this issue with Douglas Horne for, as a complete reading of all of his ARRB generated memoranda reveal, he suspected as much, but was unable to follow through to fruition on these same suspicions for a variety of reason's most of which were beyond his control. I also believe I have discovered who the mysteries agent/Zapruder film delivery boy "Smith" of the Secret Service was, but I will leave that for those who want to read more. dgh: all sounds fascinating Gary -- unfortunately we have Shaneyfelt lying or we have the good folks at the NPIC lying, after all how could they be working with a Z-film, on the weekend of the assassination, with Z-frame numbers as we know them today -- Then we have this FBI guy (Shaneyfelt) who allegedly assigned numbers to the film frames (by your account) around Jan 29th, 1964 -- some 9 weeks later.... What is true, Gary? Shaneyfelt or the NPIC number the frames.... Doug Horne comment on that? Oh, didn't Shaneyfelt do the initial Z-film recreation (for the FBI/SS) on Elm Street within weeks of the assassination? I believe he's (Shaneyfelt) pictured in the TSBD snipers window along with a rifle with a camera mounted on it.... Not bad for a regular ole FBI grunt! AND who Smith is is irrelevant to this thread. FWIW... FWIW Gary Murr

David, you should really consider the validity of the things you say and how others will perceive them if you don't wish to be seen as someone who consistently says things that have no basis or merit. In the 'Men who Bowers saw' thread you posted twice and both times you said things that were not even about the topic - one of them being you saying peek-a-boo to someone named Gary and the other response was just as senseless. These two ridiculous childish post of yours came in a thread where I have been repeatedly saying how a shot came from the fence, supported by the smoke seen by the witnesses. So what do you then say ... 'dah, Miller's a lone nutter, dah!' Tokyo Rose came closer to citing more facts than you do. Now about the numbering problem you spoke about. I have discussed this with Gary Mack in the past and his analysis seems about the most sensible as any I have heard to date. Gary says that any researcher wanting factual documentation regarding the Zapruder film must read Richard Trask's book National Nightmare. The NPIC story appears on pages 298-304 where, using good source and reference material, it is obvious that the NPIC study was performed on one of the copies made in Dallas that first day, not on the original film. Furthermore, while the original NPIC examination may have occurred the weekend of the assassination, the charts were prepared or annotated on or after December 2nd as a result of a LIFE magazine article. surely there's testimony then stating how and where, and when FBI Shaneyfelt numbered the frames, eh? What the 6th floor museum thinks is irrelevant. This ain't PR hon. If things are so obvious to YOU then a cite must be in the offing, was it the original Z-film, or a first generation dupe? If a dupe, then THAT kind of testimony just blows the SBT/LHO did it all by his lonesome right out of the Dallas Texas water, doesn't it! Why are you Lone Nutter's so damn sloppy?

I guess you are included in which ever side one is on, David. After all, you are only person so far who has said they believe the Zapruder film is altered and in the same thread then say that you have always said there is no proof of Zapruder film alteration. Bill Miller Having a difficult time understanding english, willie? Answering the Shaneyfelt numbering question should be easy for you big guy, gird those loins--give it your best shot, eh? xxxxx on, David ... you're another person who talks out of both sides of his mouth. And as far as understanding the English language ... maybe I should start a thread called the 'Disjointed say-nothing responses of David Healy'. If anyone wants to know about the Zapruder film, then go read the data already published on it. perfectly fine Bill, I expect no less from you -- You're not the only Lone Nut xxxxx (hiding in CT respectability) that refuses to answer, if FACT, none in your camp CAN answer..... Keep pulling wool, Bill...

I guess you are included in which ever side one is on, David. After all, you are only person so far who has said they believe the Zapruder film is altered and in the same thread then say that you have always said there is no proof of Zapruder film alteration. Bill Miller Having a difficult time understanding english, willie? Answering the Shaneyfelt numbering question should be easy for you big guy, gird those loins--give it your best shot, eh?

_______________________________ David, Excellent question! --Thomas _______________________________ just a little house cleaning, Thomas -- apparently none of the Z-film non-alteration adherents have a answer, I wonder why? Which leads to the question I've asked repeatedly on this forum: WHEN (the specific date) did FBI Agent Shaneyfelt number the Z-frames, WHERE did this event occur, WHO was present during the process and finally, WHAT film #0183-05-06-07 was utilized?

your Baghdad jokes still suck, Willie -- hey, you go to work at the 6th floor Mausoleum yet? BTW, I think Miles intimidates you.... just an opinion!

For someone who claims they don't like going over old ground again and again ... you certainly do it a lot. I couldn't help but notice in all that posting that you did - you left out the initial question that Bowers was answering, of course I am sure that was just an honest mistake. Below is that question .... Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass? Now any fool would know that Ball isn't asking Bowers to tell him who on a direct line between the tower and the mouth of the underpass is standing down the hill and out of sight. No, instead Ball is simply asking who else was on the "HIGH GROUND" in Bowers line of sight between the tower and the mouth of the underpass. And while you say that what Bowers has said is clear to you, let me remind you that it wasn't so clear when you wasted a ridiculous amount of forum space telling us that the men on the steps was the two men Bowers claimed to have seen. As I recall, you also said that those men with Hudson fit perfectly with what Dales Myers had said and once we realized this, then all would come together and make perfect sense. Bill Miller Hi Gary! I see you there..... David G. Healy

Evan wrote Received by anyone? Quad videotape machines that recorded the video feeds of that era ran about $200,000 each [uSD]. I doubt all but the very wealthy could afford the machine. Even then I doubt they'd would not know WHERE to buy one (and none would have access to the signals). Only NASA and or NASA associated groups had direct access to those *quad* video feeds!

In that article, Tomasky concludes: The rubber will hit the road next summer and autumn. Then the Republicans will tell voters that the Democratic nominee has proposed trillions of dollars' worth of new programmes and will inevitably raise taxes to pay for them. The Democrat will need to stand her or his ground and, while obviously not being cavalier about taxes, present a vision of a different kind of society. There are signs that 51% of the voters may be ready to embrace it. Tomasky seems unfamiliar with the Electoral College. In the 2000 election, Bush became* U.S. President with 47.87% of the popular vote and some timely help from the state of Florida and the Supreme Court. A plurality of Americans actually voted for Gore. *I couldn't bring myself to use the term elected. ah, the secret weapon: The Electoral College

good to see you here, chum! You going to post or remain on *lurker status*? David

Len Colby' wrote and quoted: "they concluded.... not that it couldn't..."? Is that what Lone Nutters call covering your ass? LMFAO! Perhaps the FAA research wasn't as meticulous as YOU would like (and apparently do) to believe, eh?

gimme me a break..... from Bill Miller of course? LMAO!

I have invited Dr. Rahn to particpate in our forum debates. He declined with the comment that he did not consider it "academic" enough. Maybe he meant it was too academic. by that rule of thumb one wonders why he (Rahn) posts to alt.conspiracy.jfk

obviously your grand-pappy never got to Las Vegas, nor watch the World of Poker, eh? I suspect he's as aware and knowledgable of the Z-film as you are. ZERO, nil especially if your burst on the JFK-Dealey Plaza assassination scene photo evidence is any indication.... 10,000 posts aside and of course the attending, ghostly email....... Miller if you believe this board is reviewed by those of school children age, and/or minors in general, you're in need of assistance..... LMAO!