David G. Healy

Hello Kevin, Question: who is, "us"? Thanks, David Healy

Gil... More and more folks are looking towards YouTUBE, so much so, many commercial TV clients are looking at it as a vehicle to exploit. We in the business had to first understand how YouTube dealt with their footage from a video compression-recompression standpoint. Here's a link to that understanding, a bit techno-babble, hopefully it will bring a better understanding as to why, imagery-video clips look as bad as they do. Further note: if you're working with clean source footage, there's really no reason why it won;'t look GREAT on YouTube... http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/youtu...essor_gary.html David Healy aka AEFFECTS

My nephew who has just graduated from university was very impressed (he was one of those who phoned me up while I was watching football). He seemed to think that if they ask a question like this on "University Challenge" it means that they expect all university students to know who I am. we won't tell....

why don't you start another thread with this -- perhaps a WCR supporter can tell us where these little white cards are presently located and who the prints belonged to....

simply, it's a job -- City of Dallas-PR

A ton, from ALL the wrong places... Re-read MLane's Rush to Judgement, as good today as it was 41 years ago.... I'm sure Bugliosi sighed relief when he knew it was Jerry Spence he'd be dealing with during the Showtime "mock" trial.

Not that it has a bearing on anything but: after serving only one (1) year, then (honorably as you show above, medically) discharged? He rose to THAT position in the SCV?

good post Mark, *the Zapruder film is altered-not altered mind if I use the list elsewhere?

Let me step in here for a second .... first, one doesn't wear on their head what Tom wears on his without being put together in good ways, psyscologically and physically! FREEING the Oppressed is taken very seriously in certain circles. I've had more than a passing interest in Tom's fraternity both here and abroad. Some of those on the otherside of the Atlantic may not be as aware as those of us here in the States about that fraternity.... Presdient Kennedy for had an affinity for Tom's military fraternity, expanding their capability and usability in ways most will never know. However, one can be assured we are ALL better because of the TOM PURVIS'S of the USArmy Special Forces (Green Beret), in which Tom was a leader of the best of the BEST. I suspect Tom Purvis as a A-Team Commander [at one time] has forgot more regarding NATO 7.62/6.5mm ball ammunition [for rifles] than many of us knew/ or CLAIM today in knowing. I also won't go into what a HALO (which Tom is) instructor does, rest assured what does happen, DOSEN'T, sitting behind a computer screen.... A few on this board can also recall the dread anticipation knowing someone was going to die in a few moments. I'm also sure, the Craig Roberts and Carlos Hathcock's of the world, not to mention Marines-RANGERS including LRRP's were instructed in their crafts by the likes of Special Operations Command types, the Tom Purvises if you will. So lighten up.... yes? As far as the 6th floor is concerned, someone shot from that building, Oswald (1or2) or otherwise. Did he or they use a MC, who knows. Which Oswald was used as lackey, or active participant in the assassination? that's up for grabs, someone fired from up there. Can we put Oswald in that window? NO, the DPD can't! Does that mean a Oswald didn't shot, NO! Oswald can't be "excluded"... Answers have to be found elsewhere. Most of what Tom posts are aids, assisting researchers in background information... Primarily leads focused on/in Texas and New Orleans with accompanying history.... My problem reviewing the entire DP assassination scenario focuses on Elm Street. Everything I know about the assassination on Elm Street point to a "3rd" shot that occurs further down Elm Street street. This scenario can't be rectified by DP films, yet, YET based on MWest's survey data provided by Tom Purvis, the "3rd" shot does indeed happen further WEST on Elm Street... therefore the Zapruder FILM is altered, the question remaining is, WHY? One might also assume; background data provided by Tom Purvis will assist those that want that question answered. At the least, provide possible motive (willing and not-so-willing possible participants) in the assassination. Now having said all that, maybe Tom can tell me if he knew a certain S-Major. He was TDY to C' Detachment-5th SOF, Nha Trang, we got banged up in the Central Highlands, we shared a hopital room at the French Hospital in Saigon Aug-Sept '63. David Healy

I don't know what I did differently, but the third time it worked. I will now occasionally post images if I get the hang of it...but the problem is that all of my images are on the other computer! Jack PS...I am trying to attach a different image to this message as a test. the images appear, Jack...

The film is irrelevant re matters occuring on Elm Street in DP on Nov 22nd 1963... (we and THEY know that) Perhaps as ole Gerald Posner makes his rounds of talk shows on FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC fielding all those powder-puffs questions he's sure to be asked, he'll be kind enough to quote Gary Mack eluding to your above. I sure Posner no doubt will comment on how GREAT Jackie looks 60 seconds before her husband is shot to death with wounds in the back and head. Immediately after he states how Jeffries film supports the contention of the WCR...

TOP POST Good post, John. As a early-mid 20th century overview, it reflects the 2 Vietnam's near-recent history nicely. (an aside, during 1963, Madame Nhu (President Diem's wife) insisted her husband crackdown on dancing, dancing was banned in Saigon, a public uproar ensued. Which raised the in-country, ala national level of hatred for the (US backed) President of Vietnam; Diem)

'John Simkin' wrote: My wife has been seriously ill for the last six months. The treatment she has received from our National Health Service has been fantastic. When you deal with NHS doctors, you never feel that your treatment is being influenced by how much it costs. Studies show that private hospitals are guilty of a great deal of over-treatment. This is very important when you are seriously ill. NHS staff have very little difficulty showing they really care about your welfare. The fact that so many of the staff are immigrants does a great deal for race-relations in the UK. [...] _______________________ John, Prayers sent across the way - we're currently going through *chemo* therapy with a family member. I'm not sure what's worse, the condition, or the CURE! David Healy

John, Frankly when it comes to forum moderator's of ANY stripe, one is too many and 1000 aren't enough! Having said that, will these mod's be deleting entire posts? Or, what THEY deem 'offensive passages' within the posts, and how will those deletions appear on the screen? For that matter, what does the forum define is offensive? The criteria for their decesions is what? Who is the USofA mod Kathy Beckett? Please post her profile... David Healy David a simply forum search gives you this: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=5680 I read that, which led to the above questions ...

John, re the above, should or must? please clarify. DHealy

John, Frankly when it comes to forum moderator's of ANY stripe, one is too many and 1000 aren't enough! Having said that, will these mod's be deleting entire posts? Or, what THEY deem 'offensive passages' within the posts, and how will those deletions appear on the screen? For that matter, what does the forum define is offensive? The criteria for their decesions is what? Who is the USofA mod Kathy Beckett? Please post her profile... David Healy

Ian Herbacides were NOT used in Vietnam, circa. 1963-65. They were used soon after. Might want to post your question to alt.war.vietnam (google groups) many, many Vietnam era vets post to that board. I'm sure a few will respond to thoughtful questions covering the topic. [don't let rancor on that board hold you back from asking your questions]. I suggest in the title block of your post there, start the title with: "Doug Reese, please....". I'm sure he'll see it, you should receive a prompt reply to your question. David Healy

That is not what you said, Jack! You claimed to have replicated where Mary Moorman was standing and your first example photograph had these thick lines over the edge of the pedestal hiding the fact that the gap was missing in your so-called recreation photo. Ron Hepler, Josiah Thompson, myself and some others got after you for hiding that flaw in your example picture. Eventually you had no choice but to show it. Then Thompson offered up the drum scan and your position then was that Josiah had invented the gap with his drum scan. You went as far as to say that the drum scan was the only Moorman print that showed the gap. You were then challeneged you to take any of the known Moorman copies made before the drum scan and show us that there was no gap in any of them. You then went silent and never produced any such thing. You must have finally realized that the jig was up. Now once your 'no gap' claim was exposed as yet another erroneous claim of yours - you have suddenly come up with a new spin about the gap being immaterial. What ever you do Jack - don't admit you were wrong all along. Bill Miller perhaps you should re-read what Craig said above -- the way I interrupt his comment is: a copy of the Thompson copy of the Moorman5 Poaroid was digitally "enhanced" in Photoshop type of program for WHATEVER reason. Based on that alteration the Gang proved Jack White's (I might add Fetzer, Mantik and others) study wrong, that about it? Now how can you prove one persons analysis/content interpretation of a specific photo wrong based another's copy of the SAME photo that's been proveably altered? Who is spinning whom here, Bill Miller? Your in a tough spot, Guy! The term JOKE comes to mind... What if anything E-L-S-E was altered? Photo alteration is just that, PHOTO ALTERATION

Of course.... There are ways to determine those attributes. One can begin by noting those who do not possess them. Nothing against David H. of course.... How do those JFK assassination related facts (you've been interested in for many years) color your postings here, Mr. Hogan? Further praytell, how do they lead you in determining a researchers "attributes"? How do you Mr. Hogan know who does or does NOT possess certain attributes? Please show us your crystal ball! Have you Mr. Hogan posted/performed ANY JFK assassination related research one can review, if so, WHERE? Do you have the credentials to peer comment on specific areas of JFK assassination research, (in particular 11/22/63 films/photos of Dealey Plaza) and if so, please tell me and the lurkers those areas of expertise? And for the record, it's perfectly fine to post armchair opinions re ANY phase of JFK assassination related research, here AND other places! Just tell us its opinion!

Jack has a tendency to change is mind depending on his needs at the moment. The drum scan is sharp in Jack's eyes until he has to defend why his recreation Moorman LOS didn't show the gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window ... then all of a sudden it is an altered image. Jack cannot produce any of the other Moorman photos that he claims do not show a gap, but nevertheless ... that's just a small detail in the effort to make everything appear altered. His use of the Altgens 6 photo on the book "Hoax" wehereas he called in genuine and can be used to validate other assassination images is another example. Seeing that now he is aware that Moorman and Hill's shadows are coming from the grass, which shows his having them in the street is nonsense, then I am sure that he will now claim that Altgens 6 is altered. Isn't it ironic how in the end it has been these guys own words that has hurt the credibility of their claims. Bill look like this is appropriate response here, too! dgh: sit-down! the above from someone who thought increasing screen resolution increased detail in the image..... LMAO! But we won't talk about that, will we? Actually David, the appropriate response would be for you to show us a Moorman print that doesn't show the gap that I speak of ... so at this time I ask that you provide such a print to show us that Jack is right. You can bet your sweet behind that if what Jack said was true, then he would have posted it long ago when asked to do so. So now that you have trolled your way into the discussion, I ask that you show us such a print. Bill Miller your steel trap memory has somehow failed you... I've been on record (4+years) the street/grass Moorman 5 debate was a non-starter, a waste of time, you know that.... wake-up and keep your seat. Now about your photo resolution issues...

Robert Groden doesn't jerk any chains - if contacted, he will take the time to address questions based on his knowledge and expertise. I have never seen or heard of Robert merly trolling a forum and giving the type of say nothing responses that I have seen you do, David. And so you know this from yet another time that I have had to respeat this to you ... Robert testified that the one photo offered into evidence had signs of tampering done to it. It was the other photographer who had published photos of OJ at a football game that convinced the jury that O.J. had once wore the Bruno Magli shoes. When is the using of the poorest quality images possible so to draw characters out of pixel distortion, film transfer artifacts, and light spots seen through trees and on shelter walls considered further research? One would think that your definition of a "nutter" might be someone who takes ridiculously degraded images and draws distorted people onto them so to make CT's look like idiots. I would think that you'd be more concerned about the ground they are losing for CT's looking credible. Some of us who believe there was a conspiracy want to have it proven by way of hard credible evidence and not just by doing something short of pouring gasoline out on the sidewalk and trying to make assassins out of the swirls of light. So not only shame on those individuals who implement such practices, but also shame on the trolls who try and defend it. dgh: yeah right, doesn't jerk any chains.... it's ALWAYS the other guy...LMAO... plain English Bill: your qualification interrupting JFK assassination related film or photo is? Such an easy question to clear up, especially if one wants a measure of credibility! We know through testimony (Mo Weitzman), and other first hand experience - Groden's film background, yours is suspect! Help clear this up!

In fact, you would be one of my first choices. I will contact you about this by email. Do we have any other volunteers? It might be a good idea to have a panel of 3 moderators. If we only use one they might be accused of having a "secret agenda". It is important the other two volunteers have not been involved in any previous disputes. I think John Geraghty is an excellent choice and I thank him for offering. John's passion for truth and his ability to seek and find knowledge has always been evident from his posts, in my opinion. John Geraghty's youth is a non-issue, except that it is heartening to see that there are a few good young people out there willing to take the torch when it is passed. John Geraghty has an extremely bright future in whatever endeavors he chooses to pursue. As I have told John before, I look forward to reading his first book. *An aside, how do you, or this forum moderators determine truth, character and knowledge by reading and interpreting this (or any) forum postings? Seems a bit naive. Nothing against John.G of course.... How do you provide unbiased E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, when you have "mod's" interrupting "possible" PROPOGANDA and lies? I suspect JFK is still the biggest attraction on this site (based on posting totals, I have no idea broad lurker visits). If, say the JFK portion of this site goes to a moderated forum, most CTer's will cease posting here. I certainly will, which I'm sure will delight many. Will JFK related traffic decrease? Over the short-term, I doubt it -- Long term, of course it will! Why would this forum be different? Wanna close off spirited JFK assassination related debate, go private -- impose a fee, then you can hear what you and other Lone Nutter's want to HEAR/DISCUSS. Wanna do something constructive with the Dealey Plaza photo and film aspects of the JFK assassination? Find a source for verifiable original source imagery, which will get all these johnny-come-lately film photo experts on the same page, provide bandwidth for downloading same and space for interpretation-debate concerning same... bet 90% of the nonesense disappears.... as well as the johhny-come-lately's... (especially when they have to confirm their film/photo expertise) Based on what I see, the ONLYbehaviour problem on this forum surfaces with; JFK-Dealey Plaza related film/photos... way to many theories and careers ride on the subject status quo... as author David Mantik M.D., Ph.D. is known to of said [when it comes to the JFK debate]: "the hisorians have FAILED us, miserably....". I'll add; so has the media, public and privately held -- and that now appears to include internet-USNET based outlets.... free speech is ILLUSION, nothing is FREE!

Think Bugliosi is hoping, Mark Lane is asleep?

Cut the crap! Either put up or shut up! Post your lists! EBC EBC, Go read Jack's definition of the word "Provocateur" so to find out why I am not going to post such a list. I will address your use of the word "crap" though ... I will show you how Groden used it when speaking about the kind of nonsense you are trying to defend ... Robert Groden: I have been a close friend of Jack's for thirty years ...................... In the matter of the Zapruder films authenticity and many of the other issues such as foreshortening, and other technical issues, you have been 100% right and Jack has been 100% wrong ........ The record must remain straight ......... This Zapruder film alteration foolishness has done so much harm, that it can not be measured. It is now spilling over into other areas of the photographic evidence in the Kennedy case. I am extremely frustrated by it all ............ Jack knows how disappointed I am about the damage that has been done by the irresponsible crap that has misled so many people in this case. ************ dgh: perhaps the reason Robert Groden won't defend his JFK work [these days] is the drubbing he took during his appearence at the OJ trial, not to mention other on-camera appearences, eh? So, in order to keep a presence in the internet jfk assassination research arena he jerks ole Bill's chain on occasion. To the POINT: These folks (here and elsewhere) think no further research is need in the JFK assassination...it's: LHO ALONE, pure and simple! One needs to have compassion for Lone Nutter's in CT clothing these day's, with up to 90% of folks polled [over the years] believing something was amiss (how do you spell; C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y) with WCR/Evidence, the Nutter's have a daunting task. A huge uphill PR campaign to wage, and they're losing ground daily...

Jack has a tendency to change is mind depending on his needs at the moment. The drum scan is sharp in Jack's eyes until he has to defend why his recreation Moorman LOS didn't show the gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window ... then all of a sudden it is an altered image. Jack cannot produce any of the other Moorman photos that he claims do not show a gap, but nevertheless ... that's just a small detail in the effort to make everything appear altered. His use of the Altgens 6 photo on the book "Hoax" wehereas he called in genuine and can be used to validate other assassination images is another example. Seeing that now he is aware that Moorman and Hill's shadows are coming from the grass, which shows his having them in the street is nonsense, then I am sure that he will now claim that Altgens 6 is altered. Isn't it ironic how in the end it has been these guys own words that has hurt the credibility of their claims. Bill look like this is appropriate response here, too! dgh: sit-down! the above from someone who thought increasing screen resolution increased detail in the image..... LMAO! But we won't talk about that, will we?