Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[David Healy]

David Healy IS a skilled expert Albert... you're backing the wrong horse here buddy.

Let's get real, okay?

David,


Healy is the guy who was over on the Education Forum apologizing to the infamous blowhard and liar Greg Parker and endorsing Parker's bullshit. Healy wrote that he apologized and retracted everything he said and acknowledged Parker's material.


You were saying?

How long have YOU know David?
Have you ever discussed the photo/video aspects of the case with him?
WTF do you know about photo/video mechanics that you can challendge Healy anyway... Been taking "Lamson" classes? ::face.palm::

I happen to know the reasons behind that apology which will remain between me and David.... suffice to say - you really don't know what you're talking about and it would probably be a good idea not to stick your neck out so far into matters in which you remain clueless.

As anyone who has spent 5 minutes at that cesspool of a forum the infamous "blowhard" runs knows - there are 4 or 5 who circle jerk to every one of his threads/posts (which in most threads are 95% of the posts)
and the rest of the time he is over at the EF spreading the love.

One has to wonder why this group is so concerned with refuting Armstrong's H&L proof so vehemently and so poorly at every turn.
Oh that's right - he's trying to sell a book series which falls apart completely if he can't completely refute H&L's evidence.

------------------------

But this thread is about Prayerman and what amounts to the acceptance of very speculative work on an image which is 3/5th of a millimeter in area off the original frame.

Unless a better version of that frame from Weigman can be found we are left with a very poor, very very small image from which claiming to identify buttons is complete fantasy.

David and Michael Cross...
Thank you, for jumping in here. I've done much better in the past ignoring those that consider their ideas regarding film/photo alteration foolish. But these latest PM/PW threads border on lunacy, which you David have clearly demonstrated how far some will go regarding TSBD-doorway imagery. As with you guys and a few more posters in this thread, I do not suffer fools easily. Especially those hiding behind aliases as is Albert [sic].

Lone nuts have seen their support for the 1964 WCR erode, erode to alarming levels. The work you guys have demonstrated these days, and especially the work of Jim DiEugenio and his associates have inspired those now entering the JFK fray to dig deeper, much deeper in the cause for truth. The one thing that has not changed for the past 20 years: the equipment, technology, expertise, artisans and know-how and the TIME needed was indeed available in late 1963 thru 4/1964 to alter simply or reconstruct entire film frames of the 1964 in-camera original Zapruder film.

Having that knowledge, what makes it such a leap of faith to alter any JFK assassination related film/photo? That also includes the infamous BYP's?

David Healy
p.s. and yes, David Josephs and I communicated regarding my apology to Parker (and his forum) for an assumption and question I made/posted. Parker and one of his moderators accepted that apology, that same moderator apologized for to me for making an undue assuption on his part which I recognized.

What David and I discussed will remain between myself and David Josephs. Thanks!