Jack White: Questions

[John Simkin]

Jack White has agreed to try and answer questions about the research he has carried out into the photographs related to the JFK assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald.

However, Jack has made it clear he does not want to debate, give opinions, speculate or answer general questions such as "Who killed JFK?" or "Where were the shooters?"

Nor will he respond to any questions which contain Ad Hominem attacks on him or his research, since these are considered provocations.

[Wim Dankbaar]

What an easy way out! If Jack does not want to debate and speculate about identities, he should also refrain from downplaying jokes about Chauncey Holt, an heroic man who was one of the first insiders with courage enough to give the American public what it is entitled to: The truth !

But okay, here is a question about Jack's research:

Jack, please show us how you arrived at the conclusion that the old "tramp" is E. Howard Hunt, and how your research precludes it is Chauncey Holt?

Wim

Edited June 22, 2004 by dankbaar

[John Simkin]

What an easy way out! If Jack does not want to debate and speculate about identities, he should also refrain from downplaying jokes about Chauncey Holt, an heroic man who was one of the first insiders with courage enough to give the American public what it is entitled to: The truth !

Another example of your rudeness to fellow members. Why do you need to be so abrasive? It is if you do not want Jack to answer your question. Maybe you are not so confident after all that Chauncey Holt is telling the truth. For some reason you have chosen to believe this man’s confession. The vast majority of researchers have rejected Holt testimony. It would be far better for you and your theory, if you concentrated on arguing logically about the evidence that you have, than by attacking the people whose message you do not like. Then you might have some chance of convincing others that you do really know who the gunmen were who killed JFK.

[Wim Dankbaar]

John,

I think ít's pretty obvious that you don't like me very much. That is okay, except if it brings you to false and prejudiced statements. There is NOTHING rude about my statement that Mr. White chooses the easy way out.

Discussing the evidence is EXACTLY what I offer to Mr. White. It is HE who does not want to discuss it. You are twisting the FACTS.

Additionally, I have never been concerned with the rejection of the "vast majority", which I don't believe is true anyway in the case of Chauncey Holt. The truth is the truth, even if it has a minority of one. That is the only thing that matters to me. Neither have I ever seen credible arguments to discount Chauncey's past and story. All I have seen is flat denials without arguments,like the cheap joke of Jack White. Let him or any other member of the "vast majority" dare expose the holes in his story, and I'll answer them. Only then we can argue logically.

Wim

PS: On another note. Can you correct New Orleans into Clinton?

Edited June 24, 2004 by dankbaar

[John Simkin]

I think ít's pretty obvious that you don't like me very much. That is okay, except if it brings you to false and prejudiced statements. There is NOTHING rude about my statement that Mr. White chooses the easy way out.

Discussing the evidence is EXACTLY what I offer to Mr. White. It is HE who does not want to discuss it. You are twisting the FACTS.

Wim

PS: On another note. Can you correct New Orleans into Clinton?

I must admit I do not like your style. I much prefer people to be polite to fellow members. Except for Mr. Folsom and yourself, members of JFK forum have always behaved impeccably. This is despite the fact that we all have very different views on the assassination of JFK. The objective of this forum is to allow researchers to openly debate these issues. The way to do this is to present the evidence. You have done that about the role that people like Chauncey Holt and James Files played in the assassination. I suspect most people have found it unconvincing and some have told you so. They have not questioned your motives for believing the stories these men have told you (although they no doubt have their suspicions). Nor have they accused you of being a CIA or FBI disinformation agent (although some might think you are).

Some researchers have refused to post messages on this forum because of your presence. This is because of your behaviour on other JFK forums. However, I have resisted the temptation because I am an old fashioned liberal who believes in freedom of speech. However, I have been tempted because these are highly respected researchers whose postings would be highly valued.

Your attack on Jack White’s joke is a strange one. His joke is on himself and other photographic experts who have tried to identify people in Dallas on the day of assassination. It of course had nothing to do with your theories on Chauncey Holt.

I will request once again for you to resist from making personal attacks on fellow members. Just concentrate on the evidence they provide for their views.

Yes, I have corrected my page on James Files (from New Orleans to Clinton). I am surprised you asked. I thought you made daily checks on what I have said about your man.

[Jack White]

John, thank you for the invitation to answer questions that are within my areas of study on the JFK assassination for your members.

As many of your members know, I have studied photographs related to the assassination for more than 40 years, and have a huge collection of photos, books, videos and other JFK media. I testified before the HSCA in the 70s regarding the backyard photos and the MC rifle. I was prohibited from testifying about the ID photos of LHO which I was studying at that time. Subsequently I produced two videos...FAKE, on the backyard photos, and THE MANY FACES OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD, on the identity of LHO. More recently I produced a video THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX as I worked with Dr. Jim Fetzer and others on the fakery of the Zfilm. I participated in Jim's three books, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX.

I will be happy to attempt answers to SPECIFIC QUESTIONS within my areas of studies. No generalities/opinions will be considered, since they often have no answers. The question I get most often is WHERE WERE THE SHOOTERS? Let's get that out of the way...I do not know. Nobody does.

Please keep your questions simple and one at a time; no long lists please. I have hundreds of JFK images already digitized, and will be glad to post specific images on request if I have them.

On the internet, provocateurs make ad hominem attacks on me and my work, and try to provoke me into "debating". I do not have time to "debate". And why should I answer questions for anyone who includes an insulting attack?

I note that the first posting in this category begins with such an attack. I will not reply to the legitimate question at the end because of the unprovoked attack at

the beginning. I will reply ONLY if the submitter edits the posting to include ONLY the question, without the attack.

Let the questions begin.

Edited June 24, 2004 by Jack White

[Wim Dankbaar]

How am I personally attacking Jack White? I am only challenging him to produce his evidence and arguments for finding the Holt story not credible. It is HE that does not want to do this, but it is all right to claim Holt is not credible, period?

And now I am being accused of attacks and less than impecable behaviour? This is the world upside down. Please specify where I have not been impecable and which other well respected researchers I have personally attacked. I don't take it lightly that YOU attack ME, since you are the administrator, who should be objective. Your guidance of logic argument, which I follow and Jack White not, apparently does not apply for Mr. White. You put me in one sentence with T. Folsom, who indeed I have accused of being a dishonest man, not using his own identity. Just like you have done yourself, in much harsher words I might add. So now I didn't have a right to do that? Tell me, which other forum member have I attacked, apart from this one member that you called a "rogue poster" too?

And as my behaviour on other forums, I have had a clash with Mr. Rich della Rossa of JFKResearch for virtually the same reasons as are developing here. He was protecting Mr. White, giving him the floor for attacks on Judyth Baker and denying me the answers. As I protested this kind of censorship, he denied me further access claiming that I had "resigned" (despite my contribution of 25 bucks, I might add). I don't think you are familiar with that history and have been unilaterally informed.

If you want to do the same and give the floor to Jack White and others, attacking other people's testimonies, without the opportunity for others to challenge (or provoke as he calls it), at the same time leaving a false impression about me, painting me as a pain in the neck, then I'll leave this platform to you and the rest

Wim

PS: You did correct New Orleans into Clinton now, thanks. I was indeed looking every day. Last time was yesterday and it had not been done.

PS2: Chauncey's daughter still has all the documents to prove her father's story, including the note from Pete Licavoli to pick up Nicoletti and Moceri at the Grace Ranch, the instructions from Philip Twombly to produce the SS ID's and George Reynolds to come to New Orleans with Leroy Young, letters from Meyer Lansky and William King Harvey and on and on and on. Jack White and others don't know ZIP about this. Maybe it is just more covenient to keep claiming Chauncey is a hoax, as well as his documents, without even having seen them.

It is THAT and the detail of Chauncey's testimony and the new unknown names and roles that he adds, like George and Bob Reynolds, Lloyd Cobb, Leroy Young, Paulino Sierra, Frank and Bud Belcher that convinces me of his credibility. Chauncey is the strongest witness you will ever get and THAT is why his story is not known to the world and why some "researchers" must claim he is a fraud, although I believe in Jack White's case it is just lack of information and an inclination to cling to his own false theories on the three tramps. If that hurts Mr. White's feelings, that is just too bad. He has shown no reservations in attacking others and he has a chance to defend his views here and now. Instead he seems too good to be "provoked".

Jack White should have a long sitdown with Jim Fetzer, for whose book he wrote chapters (on which I pointed out some grave errors as well, particularly on his theory that people "come and go" in the Zapruder film, like Mrs. Frantzen)

And if he still must insist Chauncey is a fraud, let him take his photographic skills and prove that it is NOT Bud Belcher and Leroy Young in the picture of Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pamplhets in front of the Trade Mart.

See picture here: www.jfkmurdersolved.com/holt1.htm

These are things that are easily verifiable for good researchers, for example by locating witnesses who knew these two men, or even these men themselves. It would also be easily verifiable if Chauncey's documents are fakes. It has already been verified by handwriting experts that those letters of Meyer Lansky match Lansky's handwriting of other known letters. What a fraud Chauncey must have been, to imitate complete handwritings, signatures and letterheads, as well as inventing all these names and facts that can be verified if checked (and have been to a great extent). And for what? Just to leave his family with the legacy of being a "fraud"?

The truth of the matter is that people who "have found it unconvincing" do not know the extent of his testimony, cannot produce ANYTHING in his story that can be disproven, or have another reason to say so.

Edited June 24, 2004 by dankbaar

[John Simkin]

Jack, I am interested in your analysis of what have become known as the backyard photographs.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO1.htm

These photographs show Oswald with a rifle, a pistol, and two socialist newspapers. I know when I first came across these photographs I immediately thought they were fakes. Not because I knew anything about photographs but because I found it difficult to believe that an assassin would have a photograph of himself taken carrying the proposed murder weapon. The holding of the two newspapers also seemed ridiculous (especially as they were published by two opposing groups (Stalinist and Trotskyite) and were unlikely to have both been purchased by Oswald (from his comments he would have appeared to have been an anti-Stalinist).

If these photographs are fakes, it proves that Oswald was being set up in advance of the assassination as a “patsy”.

I believe that the two commissions that have looked at these photographs have declared them to be genuine. I believe Marina Oswald confessed to taking them and as far as I can see, has never withdrawn this statement.

Can you explain why you think they are fakes? I am particularly interested in the technical reason for this (rather than the political reasons that I have given.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Ha, this is an issue I wholeheartedly agree with Jack White.

The backyard photos can be proven fakes on many accounts.

Here is one (courtesy of Bill Miller) showing the varying size of the body, while the size of the face remains the same.

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Oswaldbackyardfake.gif

Also the shadow under the nose remains the same, even if the head is tilted in one of the photographs.

Here is another, showing the square chin, opposed to Oswald's pointed chin.

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/oswaldchin.jpg

There are many more, but one is enough to prove Oswald right when he said these pictures were fakes, it was his head pasted on another body, and in time he would be able to prove it.

Wim

[Lee Forman]

Hi Jack!

Personally, I'd like to know more about the Zapruder Waltz. There was a lot of detail in 'Murder in Dealey Plaza,' but I'm interested in your professional opinion -- specifically as to whether you believe one of the positions can be used as a 'template' or 'genuine' Zapruder/Sitzman whereby the other photos can be judged.

- lee

[Wim Dankbaar]

Lee,

FWIW: Here's an email I wrote to Jim Fetzer:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, wim dankbaar wrote:

> Jim,

>

> I'd like to tell you this up front: I have not read your books yet, but in

> eagerness glanced over a few pages. my impression is that you undoubtly

> have uncovered a great deal of unknown stuff and I view you as a tremendous

> asset to hopefully solve the case some day, or better, get the entire world

> convinced there's was a conspiracy and thus expose the government cover up,

> still ongoing up to this day. This will rock the foundations of american

> consciousness, which is why I think the JKF murder is still a very actual topic.

>

> However, in a good investigation there are always some errors, which does

> NOT mean the rest of its investigation suddenly lost its value. One such

> error I found quickly after checking the films and I hope you don't mind me

> drawing your attention to it. I read with great interest and amazement your

> stuff about people come and go in the Nix and Zapruder film, particularly

> the Franzens.. Because first glance you seem to be right. But I found after

> studying the moving pictures frame by frame that Mrs Franzen has NOT

> dissappaered in the Nix film. In fact the 'unknown' woman' in the Nix film

> allegedly not visible in the Zapruder film IS Mrs Franzen herself. She

> backs away from her husband in horror after seeing the full extent of JFK's

> headwounds. This is why she looks to be a sudden stranger in the Nix film,

> since she's no longer next to her husband. In fact she partially blocks the

> view of the unidentified man, which is logical, because she is in front of

> him (from the NIX viewpoint). Let me state this is my OPINION, based on

> what I see on those films. Please check it again and let me know if it

> makes sense. Please understand I'm not out to try and nail or discredit

> you, because the majority of your work is in alignment with my own thoughts

> about the case and I'm already convinced I will learn more from you..

>

> I hope you don't mind my critics, if not I'll be back with more, as well as

> compliments.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Wim

FWIW: Jim acknowledged the observation and thanked me for it.

Edited June 24, 2004 by dankbaar

[Dixie Dea]

Wlm Dankbaar wrote....

"And as my behaviour on other forums, I have had a clash with Mr. Rich della Rossa of JFKResearch for virtually the same reasons as are developing here. He was protecting Mr. White, giving him the floor for attacks on Judyth Baker and denying me the answers. As I protested this kind of censorship, he denied me further access claiming that I had "resigned" (despite my contribution of 25 bucks, I might add). I don't think you are familiar with that history and have been unilaterally informed."

Hello Wlm....

Of course, I am familiar with you from other forums, I suppose you are also familiar with me. I do recall when you were a member of the JFKresearch forum and also recall when you were 86'd. I do wonder why you feel that Jack White needs protection from Rich Della Rosa, or anyone else? Whether I believe your removal was just or unjust, is not my concern. I also belibve you were 86'd because of your methodology in relating to other members, which is quite similar to how you relate to others at this Discussion Board....and has been pointed out to you.

I don't feel that anyone would want to deny you, your rights to your own beliefs and opinions. That is just not the problem! In turn, if anyone disagrees with you, you seem to have a way of provoking and challenging and come off as threatening or baiting them. If this is your intention or not, I just don't know. Although, I do know this does not win you any points and in fact, it pisses people off. Most likely, this is the reason you do not get the responses or answers to your questions. It is not true that researchers are not willing to give you answers to your questions..it is true they will not, because they refuse to be intimidated or baited. You even accuse those that disagree with you of being CIA...although I have also heard the same charges against you! Are you really oblivious to how you come across?

So much for that.......

As for Chauncey Holt, you must know there is controversy as to him being one of the DP Tramps or not. In my own caee, I am unable to agree it is Chauncey, unless or until I am able to actually see that it is actually him. So far, I have been unable to do that! Browbeating or intimidation to convince it is him, just won't cut it for me or most likely many others. I have, of course seen the NO photos that is also claimed to be Chauncey in the photo. I do not yet, see that actually being him either. I especially have a hard time seeing that the tramp and the NO man as being the same person at all.

You made a comment that Jack White does not know Chauncey or anything about him. I don't mean to reply for Jack, but I believe that Jack did in fact meet and talk with Chauncey. I am sure he knows a a whole lot more then you give him credit for knowing.

I have related this on other forums, but wanted to mention it here as well. In fact, about four years ago, Chauncey's daughter (Karyn) also joined the JFKresearch Forum. Her information in regard to Chauncey, was presented at that time. We hassled this back and forth for some time. Some did, in fact, give Karyn a bad time and some also did believe her. So, you are mistaken in your assertions that Jack, and probably others do not know what we are talking about. In fact, Karyn also put up a little website, with extra photos for us to ponder. She answered many questions put to her.

At one point, Karyn and I began e-mail correspindence and actually became friends. Then, I also met her in person, along with her mother (Mary), at the Lancer Conference in Dallas that same year. She made a presentation as well. Karyn, is a very outgoing and delightful person. I liked Karyn very much! I also told her that in all honesty, I was unable to see with my own eyes that the tramp or the NO man in the photo was her father. I tried to see the resemblances, but the truth was that I just was not able to. At the same time, I did believe that Karyn was being honest and that she was realating what she did beleive to be true. Both her and her mother, told me many things about Chauncey. She also told me of the many hours of videos that Chaunhey had done before he died as well as all of his Docments he left her.

Then at some point, Karyn walked away!! I never knew the reason, except that I believe there was a litigation involved, in regard to a past attempt to process Chauncey's information (trusting the wrong people) and which may have temporarly halted further affiliation with Karyn. I have no idea where matters stand now, except that you evdently now have some involvemnt.

Is Chauncey the tramp? I still have no idea and just can't see that he is. I also can't see that he is the NO man in that photo. In fact, I even feel like that photo of him in, LHO's passing out flyers, has been inserted. It just does not look right to me. But, I cannot actually come up with a logical reason why he would have deceived his own family....especially since Karyn and her father were extremely close. I also cannot see Karyn trying to pull off a hoax. This is just really puzzling to me. Perhaps one day I may see what I do not now see, in regard to the Chauncey photos.

Regards

Dixie

[David Boylan]

Wim,

You said "It is THAT and the detail of Chauncey's testimony and the new unknown names and roles that he adds, like George and Bob Reynolds, Lloyd Cobb, Leroy Young, Paulino Sierra, Frank and Bud Belcher that convinces me of his credibility. "

What did Holt have to say about Paulino Sierra?

Dave

[Paul Kerrigan]

John, thank you for the invitation to answer questions that are within my areas of study on the JFK assassination for your members.

As many of your members know, I have studied photographs related to the assassination for more than 40 years, and have a huge collection of photos, books, videos and other JFK media. I testified before the HSCA in the 70s regarding the backyard photos and the MC rifle. I was prohibited from testifying about the ID photos of LHO which I was studying at that time. Subsequently I produced two videos...FAKE, on the backyard photos, and THE MANY FACES OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD, on the identity of LHO. More recently I produced a video THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX as I worked with Dr. Jim Fetzer and others on the fakery of the Zfilm. I participated in Jim's three books, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX.

I will be happy to attempt answers to SPECIFIC QUESTIONS within my areas of studies. No generalities/opinions will be considered, since they often have no answers. The question I get most often is WHERE WERE THE SHOOTERS? Let's get that out of the way...I do not know. Nobody does.

Please keep your questions simple and one at a time; no long lists please. I have hundreds of JFK images already digitized, and will be glad to post specific images on request if I have them.

On the internet, provocateurs make ad hominem attacks on me and my work, and try to provoke me into "debating". I do not have time to "debate". And why should I answer questions for anyone who includes an insulting attack?

I note that the first posting in this category begins with such an attack. I will not reply to the legitimate question at the end because of the unprovoked attack at

the beginning. I will reply ONLY if the submitter edits the posting to include ONLY the question, without the attack.

Let the questions begin.

How do you respond to those who attack your credibility as a photo expert because of you HSCA testimony? This is always brought up by critics of your work.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#JWHITE

[Jack White]

Jack, I am interested in your analysis of what have become known as the backyard photographs.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO1.htm

These photographs show Oswald with a rifle, a pistol, and two socialist newspapers. I know when I first came across these photographs I immediately thought they were fakes. Not because I knew anything about photographs but because I found it difficult to believe that an assassin would have a photograph of himself taken carrying the proposed murder weapon. The holding of the two newspapers also seemed ridiculous (especially as they were published by two opposing groups (Stalinist and Trotskyite) and were unlikely to have both been purchased by Oswald (from his comments he would have appeared to have been an anti-Stalinist).

If these photographs are fakes, it proves that Oswald was being set up in advance of the assassination as a “patsy”.

I believe that the two commissions that have looked at these photographs have declared them to be genuine. I believe Marina Oswald confessed to taking them and as far as I can see, has never withdrawn this statement.

Can you explain why you think they are fakes? I am particularly interested in the technical reason for this (rather than the political reasons that I have given.

John...I have studied the backyard photos for about 40 years, and they are provably fake in many ways, as I demonstrate in my video FAKE. Attached are two

slides from my Duluth PowerPoint presentation (see THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX).

The first slide shows a list of many of the problems with the 3 photos.

The bottom slide shows that EVEN IF the photos are genuine, the difference in the rifle SLING RINGS makes the backyard photos EXCULPATORY instead of incriminating.

I hope you find this reply to your question satisfactory. If you have additional specific questions, let me know.

Jack