Loony Toons loose

[Wim Dankbaar]

YES, I WAS HAVING A DEJA VU:

From Bill Miller:

It was Jack White who invited me to that site back in 1998 or 1999. I recieved nothing but praise on that site from Jack and Fetzer and was even asked to present at the 2000 Lancer conference. It was when I looked at and challenged Jack's "Mary Moorman being in the street" nonsense that DelleRosa soon terminated my membership. I might add that at the time DelleRosa was taking donations to keep his site running and he had just cashed a $100.00 check of mine and waited until it cleared the bank before turning off my membership. Thompson, Lamson, Miller, Hepler, Peters and anyone else who challenged Jack White's nutty claims of film and photo alteration have all been banished from that site. If one goes there now and looks at the membership position ... they will see that the site at JFKResearch is "alterationist" site.

I have not been on the JFK Research site since the late part of 1999 or the early part of 2000. Jack White saying that I have been gone from there only two years now is just another misstated fact created by Jack.

Bill

Edited July 12, 2004 by dankbaar

[Larry Peters]

Roland Zavada seems to be an “affiliate member” of The Gang: he had been employed by Tink and Mack as one of his suppliers of hard science, but since pulling out of the Duluth Conference—admitting he was completely out of his depth—he has not been as eager to contribute to the cause.

In the event that some other people may have gotten the wrong impression, I want to clarify some things that Mr. Healy did not. Zavada had been asked to authenticate the Zapruder films authenticity in ways that had nothing to do with comparing it to other films and photos. When Zavada learned what the Deluth Conference was about, he had no choice but to bow out because he had not done any film and photo cross-referencing for signs of alteration. By no means did Zavada ever mean that he was not qualified to have done the job, just that it was not part of the process he had undertaken in his previous work. So at that point in time he may have felt out of his league to discuss Jack White's claims at the conference, but not in the way Mr. Healy portrayed it to mean.

Edited July 12, 2004 by Larry Peters

[David G. Healy]

Roland Zavada seems to be an “affiliate member” of The Gang: he had been employed by Tink and Mack as one of his suppliers of hard science, but since pulling out of the Duluth Conference—admitting he was completely out of his depth—he has not been as eager to contribute to the cause.

In the event that some other people may have gotten the wrong impression, I want to clarify some things that Mr. Healy did not. Zavada had been asked to authenticate the Zapruder films authenticity in ways that had nothing to do with comparing it to other films and photos. When Zavada learned what the Deluth Conference was about, he had no choice but to bow out because he had not done any film and photo cross-referencing for signs of alteration. By no means did Zavada ever mean that he was not qualified to have done the job, just that it was not part of the process he had undertaken in his previous work. So at that point in time he may have felt out of his league to discuss Jack White's claims at the conference, but not in the way Mr. Healy portrayed it to mean.

dgh01: Ah, Mr. Peter's Dr. Costella might have a differing take on this than you do, actually so do I -- of course, if you can cite for Zavada's reasoning -- have you spoke to him, Roland Zavada recently?

David Healy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[David G. Healy]

YES, I WAS HAVING A DEJA VU:

dgh01: it's okay WIM lot's of us understand you've been taking a beating over the TEAM Judyth controversy on the big internet boards...

From Bill Miller:

It was Jack White who invited me to that site back in 1998 or 1999. I recieved nothing but praise on that site from Jack and Fetzer and was even asked to present at the 2000 Lancer conference. It was when I looked at and challenged Jack's "Mary Moorman being in the street" nonsense that DelleRosa soon terminated my membership. I might add that at the time DelleRosa was taking donations to keep his site running and he had just cashed a $100.00 check of mine and waited until it cleared the bank before turning off my membership. Thompson, Lamson, Miller, Hepler, Peters and anyone else who challenged Jack White's nutty claims of film and photo alteration have all been banished from that site. If one goes there now and looks at the membership position ... they will see that the site at JFKResearch is "alterationist" site.

I have not been on the JFK Research site since the late part of 1999 or the early part of 2000.

dgh01: Thats Adobe Photoshop Bill for you, can't make up his mind even today -- have 'em post a

.jpg of the cancelled check - better yet a animated .gif...

----------

Jack White saying that I have been gone from there only two years now is just another misstated fact created by Jack.

Bill

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Lily Lighto]

I have only been a member for a week...I am surprised at the factionism - although I WILL say, that since the age of 5, I have been fascinated by the subject. My mother NEVER cried, about ANYTHING, and this was the first time I had seen HER grieving, SOBBING (AND she was NOT a Kennedy fan!).

I certainly didn't KNOW what was going on at that time, I just remember the moment and event being INDELIBLY impressed upon my mind FOREVER. Then on one BRIGHT June morning in 1968, school had just gotten out for the summer, I came downstairs, and my mother was crying again (NEVER HAPPENS, trust ME!); she said, and I quote: "THE godd*mn b*stards did it again!!" and threw the morning paper on the table - RFK shot and killed at the Convention...headlines as "big as a HOUSE..."

I followed what PUBLIC aspects (regarding the JFK assassination) which were "allowed" to come to light via the newspapers' "tightly controlled coverage" of the "Warren Commission's Investigation" - and have since READ books and THOUGHT (proleptically, I might add!) about the whole assassination, the theories, possible conspiracies or conspiratorial factions, viewed what evidence and photos which the Misters Livingstone and Groden could convey in their book: "High Treason" and I respect the fact that THEIRS was NOT the ONLY monumental undertaking about this subject.

IF there are ANY former CIA agents, Secret Service people, and the like...(from that specific era)... who are willing "tell what they know," they should DO IT HERE (and could do so in RELATIVE ANONYMITY!) ..enlighten us, PLEASE? It would be far more porductive that the personal "salvos" which I see being "fired" herein...am I incorrect?

I came here for EDUCATION, and information, NOT to witness or participate in the interpersonal attacks and factionary divisivism...

Edited July 13, 2004 by Lily Lighto

[Larry Peters]

dgh01: Thats Adobe Photoshop Bill for you, can't make up his mind even today -- have 'em post a

.jpg of the cancelled check - better yet a animated .gif...

Mr. Healy - If I email Miller and get him to scan a copy of his canceled check and email it to me so I can post it - will you promise to start addressing the alleged photo and film alteration issues put to you instead of just posting nonsense and wasting everyone's time?

How about another alteration claim gone bad!

Below is just another example of a poorly researched approach that claims proof of photo and film alteration. In this overlay, Fetzer, White and Mantik claim to have found Moorman's exact position. Please pay attention to the shifting gap between the pedestal and the pergola window between their photo recreation and Moorman's to see just how exact these guys settled for. The first photo is a crop from Mary Moorman's number 5 photograph and the gap between the pedestal and the pergola window is cirled in red. The next image is an animated overlay of an alleged recreation photo that has been overlaid onto Moorman's photograph so to test for any gap variance between the two photographs. If the recreation photo is accurate, then no shift between the pedestal and the pergola window should take place. You can be the judge whether they got it right or not. Enjoy!

(Click on the image on the right to start the animation)

Edited July 13, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Wim Dankbaar]

dgh01: it's okay WIM lot's of us understand you've been taking a beating over the TEAM Judyth controversy on the big internet boards...

Well, David, that's just how you look at it. If there is any beating, I think it is "Team anti-Judyth" who is taking it. However, it doesn't come as a surprise you'd like to make it look otherwise.

Wim

[Jack White]

I have only been a member for a week...I am surprised at the factionism - although I WILL say, that since the age of 5, I have been fascinated by the subject. My mother NEVER cried, about ANYTHING, and this was the first time I had seen HER grieving, SOBBING (AND she was NOT a Kennedy fan!).

I certainly didn't KNOW what was going on at that time, I just remember the moment and event being INDELIBLY impressed upon my mind FOREVER. Then on one BRIGHT June morning in 1968, school had just gotten out for the summer, I came downstairs, and my mother was crying again (NEVER HAPPENS, trust ME!); she said, and I quote: "THE godd*mn b*stards did it again!!" and threw the morning paper on the table - RFK shot and killed at the Convention...headlines as "big as a HOUSE..."

I followed what PUBLIC aspects (regarding the JFK assassination) which were "allowed" to come to light via the newspapers' "tightly controlled coverage" of the "Warren Commission's Investigation" - and have since READ books and THOUGHT (proleptically, I might add!) about the whole assassination, the theories, possible conspiracies or conspiratorial factions, viewed what evidence and photos which the Misters Livingstone and Groden could convey in their book: "High Treason" and I respect the fact that THEIRS was NOT the ONLY monumental undertaking about this subject.

IF there are ANY former CIA agents, Secret Service people, and the like...(from that specific era)... who are willing "tell what they know," they should DO IT HERE (and could do so in RELATIVE ANONYMITY!) ..enlighten us, PLEASE?  It would be far more porductive that the personal "salvos" which I see being "fired" herein...am I incorrect? 

I came here for EDUCATION, and information, NOT to witness or participate in the    interpersonal attacks and factionary divisivism...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lily...don't despair. There are only two or three provocateurs on

this otherwise fine website who are causing all the stink. Do not

pay any attention to them. Virtually all their postings lie or twist

the truth. You will soon recognize who they are. They only deal in

personal attacks. Just ignore them. There are many good members

here, most of whom also post on JFKresearch Forum run by Rich

DellaRosa. You may want to check it out. Rich does not allow

such behavior.

Jack White

Edited July 13, 2004 by Jack White

[Wim Dankbaar]

Jack,

You are turning the world upside down. When people disagree with some of your claims, you call them provocateurs, accuse them of unfair and personal attacks, bad behaviour etcetera, a thin excuse to avoid answering real and valid questions, like what conspiratoral purpose is served by putting Mary Moorman on the street or switching Mrs. Franzen for a "mystery woman".

Who do you think you are to judge who are good and bad members?

While I can acknowledge you have done some excellent photographical analysis, particularly on the backyard photographs, some of your alteration claims are indeed nutty.

When reasonable input is brought to him, James Fetzer can admit he needs to revise some of your work. But you simply seem unable to admit that you can be wrong.

While I do not always agree with Bill Miller, I have never found his behaviour less than impecable. So who is attacking who here? I share a similar experience with him on the forum of Mr. della Rosa's, whom you marvel so much. And I understand we're not the only ones. The common denominator seems to be not our behaviour but the mere fact we challlenge your claims.

You agreed to answer questions, but the tough ones you ignore.

Who do you think you are to play victim of unfair treatment, while at the same time you may accuse Judyth Baker of lying and making up "phoney claims" (your words). Who do you think you are to suggest it is right that her supporters are denied access from defending her against your very personal attacks. With a man of your grandness I must assume that the fact that she totally ruins your "Harvey and Lee/Marguerite A and B" theories, have nothing to do with your denouncements of her?

Think of that folks, there were not only 2 different Oswalds, according to Jack, there were two different mothers (Marguerites), as early as 7 years before the Kennedy assassination. And those who dare to challenge that are provocateurs and liars. Well, Jack, I am not going to sit by idle when you accuse what I consider extremely brave people, like Judyth Baker and Chauncey Holt, of liars and hoaxes. If you want to brand that as disruptive behaviour, so be it. I'm not falling for it, even if I would be the only one.

You probably don't want to see a tie between Ochsner and Oswald, but

other people might be interested:

http://www.conelrad.com/media/atomicmusic/....php?platter=19

Read the backflap of this 1964 longplayer sponsored by Ochsner's INCA, they are called "the truth tapes", implicating Lee as the lone assassin. What does the head of the american cancer society have to do with blaming Oswald as the lone psychopath nut ???? The answer is 1) a CANCER bioweapon and 2) covering his ass!

Wim

[Jack White]

Jack,

You are turning the world upside down. When people disagree with some of your claims, you call them provocateurs, accuse them of unfair and personal attacks, bad behaviour etcetera, a thin excuse to avoid answering real and valid questions, like what conspiratoral purpose is served by putting Mary Moorman on the street or switching Mrs. Franzen for a "mystery woman".

Who do you think you are to judge who are good and bad members?

While I can acknowledge you have done some excellent photographical analysis, particularly on the backyard photographs, some of your alteration claims are indeed nutty. 

When reasonable input is brought to him, James Fetzer can admit he needs to revise some of your work. But you simply seem unable to admit that you can be wrong.

While I do not always agree with Bill Miller, I have never found his behaviour less than impecable. So who is attacking who here? I share a similar experience with him on the forum of Mr. della Rosa's, whom you marvel so much. And I understand we're not the only ones. The common denominator seems to be not our behaviour but the mere fact we challlenge your claims.

You agreed to answer questions, but the tough ones you ignore.

Who do you think you are to play victim of unfair treatment, while at the same time you may accuse Judyth Baker of lying and making up "phoney claims" (your words).  Who do you think you are to suggest it is right that her supporters are denied access from defending her against your very personal attacks. With a man of your grandness I must assume  that the  fact that she totally ruins your "Harvey and Lee/Marguerite A and B" theories,  have nothing to do with your denouncements of her?

Think of that folks, there were not only 2 different Oswalds, according to Jack, there were two different mothers (Marguerites), as early as 7 years before the Kennedy assassination. And those who dare to challenge that are provocateurs and liars. Well, Jack, I am not going to sit by idle when you accuse what I consider extremely brave people, like Judyth Baker and Chauncey Holt, of liars and hoaxes. If you want to brand that as disruptive behaviour, so be it. I'm not falling for it, even if I would be the only one.

You probably don't want to see a tie between Ochsner and Oswald, but

other people might be interested:

http://www.conelrad.com/media/atomicmusic/....php?platter=19

Read the backflap of this 1964 longplayer sponsored by Ochsner's INCA, they are called "the truth tapes", implicating Lee as the lone assassin. What does the head of the american cancer society have to do with blaming Oswald as the lone psychopath nut ???? The answer is 1) a CANCER bioweapon and 2) covering his ass!

Wim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wim is too sensitive. I did not accuse HIM of being a provocateur.

Indeed he occassionally (not this one) makes a sensible posting.

Rather, I now think he has been misled by some bad information just like

Joe West and Bob Vernon before him on the same subjects.

But I believe James Files is a provocateur.

Chauncey Holt was a provocateur.

Bill Miller is a provocateur.

Judyth Baker suffers from a vivid imagination.

...and Wim "purchased" the story of Files

from Bob Vernon, and he "sponsors" Baker,

so he is not unbiased. But...he is entitled to his

opinion.

And let's face it. John Armstrong's massive 10-year

research shows beyond doubt that there were TWO

LHOs and TWO Marguerites. And that Judyth's claims

are impossible. She briefly knew Harvey. She never

met Lee. Many of her claims are easily debunked by

the facts.

I ignore no question...just provocative personal attacks. I stand by

all of my published research despite such attacks. Jim Fetzer has

never asked me to revise ANY of my work because of mistakes.

He does believe Holt's claims, but that is the result of his speaking

with Holt for several days...and has NOTHING to do with any of

my research, so it is just that we disagree. He also thinks OJ

murdered Nicole and Ron...but the evidence points to his son

Jason, so we disagree on that too. But he has never disputed

my research.

I will answer reasonable questions which are not accompanied

by personal attacks, as I told Dr. Simkin when he requested

that I join his forum. Play by the rules and I will try to

answer questions...even "tough" ones. I care not whether anyone

agrees or disagrees. I just try to show the truth.

Jack White

Edited July 13, 2004 by Jack White

[Larry Peters]

Here is a direct question for Mr. Jack White to answer -----

1) Jack, How long do you recall after the assassination did the James Altgens number six photograph showing the famous TSBD doorway in its background go out on the AP news wire?

Edited July 13, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Jack White]

Here is a direct question for Mr. Jack White to answer -----

1)  Jack, How long do you recall after the assassination did the James Altgens number six photograph showing the famous TSBD doorway in its background go out on the AP news wire?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trask, p 318, says 1:03 pm 11-22-63 (three photos) on AP wire.

To answer your obvious next question about the Hill and Moorman

shadows, Altgens 6 does not preclude them stepping off the curb,

since the limo is still far away. I have never detected retouching

of this photo, but that does not mean some minor retouching did

not happen. However, if it was retouched, they forgot to retouch

the hole in the windshield. Thanks for your courtesy.

Jack White

[Justin Martell]

Amazing, someone who has been a member only a week has put forth the best post in almost a month way to go Lily keep up the good work. Really you guys have hi jacked this forum with you personal issues from other forums. I too am here to learn more so I can tell my children and nieces and nephews what to look for and what questions to ask because by 2038 I will be too damned old and tired. Probably not as tired as reading all this back and forth B.S. though.

Justin Martell

[Larry Peters]

Trask, p 318, says 1:03 pm 11-22-63 (three photos) on AP wire.

To answer your obvious next question about the Hill and Moorman

shadows, Altgens 6 does not preclude them stepping off the curb,

since the limo is still far away. I have never detected retouching

of this photo, but that does not mean some minor retouching did

not happen. However, if it was retouched, they forgot to retouch

the hole in the windshield.

Thanks for the specific and to the point response. Now let's consider what you have said. At 12:39 p.m., Altgens is across the street at the Dallas Morning News and has just told of what he had witnessed and it's now being typed into the news wire (page 318, Trask, POTP) It was at this time that Altgens said his camera was taken so to get the roll of film developed. If we allow a minute or two to get from one place in the building to the other ... that means that they had less than 20 minutes to go develop Altgens negatives to see what James had captured on film and get something on the news wire. Robert Groden has said that about 15 to 20 minutes would then be needed to get a print ready to be sent out on the news wire. That covers the processing and drying time. This means that Associated Press, if they were part of the assassination plot, had around five minutes left to see which photo of Altgens they wanted to use, decide what they wanted to alter on it, then alter it ... and do so without seeing any other films and photos that were taken during the shooting. And let's not forget they had to do all these things so to get Altgens number 6 photo out on the news wire by 1:03 p.m. CST. Now I have to ask this all important question to you, Jack. Does it now seem reasonable to you that Associated Press removed Moorman and Hill from being in the street? Even if we pretend that Jean Hill never said to Len Osanic on Black Op Radio that she had stepped into the street and had gotten back onto the grass before the shooting started and obviously Altgens photo was taken after the shooting started - does it really seem reasonable that Associated Press would remove Jean Hill and Mary Moorman out of the street and place these womens shadows coming from the grass?

Edited July 14, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Jack White]

Trask, p 318, says 1:03 pm 11-22-63 (three photos) on AP wire.

To answer your obvious next question about the Hill and Moorman

shadows, Altgens 6 does not preclude them stepping off the curb,

since the limo is still far away. I have never detected retouching

of this photo, but that does not mean some minor retouching did

not happen. However, if it was retouched, they forgot to retouch

the hole in the windshield.

Thanks for the specific and to the point response. Now let's consider what you have said. At 12:39 p.m., Altgens is back at United Press and has just told of what he had witnessed and it's now being typed into the news wire (page 318, Trask, POTP) It was at this time that Altgens said his camera was taken so to get the roll of film developed. If we allow a minute or two to get from one place in the building to the other ... that means that they had less than 20 minutes to go develop Altgens negatives to see what James had captured on film and get something on the news wire. Robert Groden has said that about 15 to 20 minutes would then be needed to get a print ready to be sent out on the news wire. That covers the processing and drying time. This means that United Press, if they were part of the assassination plot, had around five minutes left to see which photo of Altgens they wanted to use, decide what they wanted to alter on it, then alter it ... and do so without seeing any other films and photos that were taken during the shooting. And let's not forget they had to do all these things so to get Altgens number 6 photo out on the news wire by 1:03 p.m. CST. Now I have to ask this all important question to you, Jack. Does it now seem reasonable to you that United Press removed Moorman and Hill from being in the street? Even if we pretend that Jean Hill never said to Len Osanic on Black Op Radio that she had stepped into the street and had gotten back onto the grass before the shooting started and obviously Altgens photo was taken after the shooting started - does it really seem reasonable that United Press would remove Jean Hill and Mary Moorman out of the street and place shadows coming from the grass?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The above message raises two points.

Point 1 is a very GOOD question...the matter of the time available to do what

Trask says is true. In my opinion Trask's claim is far-fetched. Photos show

Altgens lingering along Elm Street for many minutes after the shooting. Indeed

his "final exposure" allegedly shows Zapruder and Sitzman getting down from

the pedestal. He appears in Grant, Cancellare and other scenes well after 12:35.

He had to go back across Elm to retrieve his camera bag, which he did not

take with him when he crossed the street. His office at the DMN was about

7 blocks away...a good ten-minute walk. Developing, fixing and washing a 35mm

negative takes a minimum of 15 minutes. Printing a contact print of the negs

after they dry takes another minimum 5 minutes, and making 8x10s of

each neg takes at least another 10 minutes. Looking at the prints and putting

one on the wire service telephoto would take 5 minutes or more.THERE WAS NOT

TIME ENOUGH TO DO WHAT TRASK CLAIMS...in my opinion. I would admit that

there might be factors I am unaware of which could have shortened the time.

Point 2 is a very DUMB question...nobody has claimed that the Altgens photo

was retouched IMMEDIATELY. Indeed, I would be the first to opine that such

was impossible given the circumstances. I have studied the photo for 40 years

and have never detected any SUSPICIOUS retouching. But almost ANYTHING

is possible.

However, as I said, this is a phony issue. The shadows of Hill and Moorman

in Altgens do not preclude Hill and Moorman stepping off the curb

after the Altgens exposure. Indeed, Jean told me many times that as

the LIMO DREW EVEN WITH THEM, she JUMPED INTO THE STREET.

She never wavered from saying "I COULD ALMOST TOUCH THE CAR".

Mary said she also stepped OFF THE CURB. This is a settled issue.

Go to the Plaza and see for yourself the line of sight of the photo.

Or read the reaction of Dr. Mantik on p 344 of MIDP.

Thanks for the courteous questions.

Jack White