Jack White's Online Book

[Jack White]

The first 111 pages of my book on the photoanalysis of 9/11 images are now available online.

To see my 911 studies, go to:

http://www.911studies.com

Jack

[Ron Ecker]

Jack,

The site includes a photo comparison of Mary Moorman's shoes. What photo is the dark-colored shoe taken from?

Thanks,

Ron

[Jack White]

Jack,

The site includes a photo comparison of Mary Moorman's shoes. What photo is the dark-colored shoe taken from?

Thanks,

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron, here is the full comparison of Hill and Moorman shoes with

their Zapruder zapatas. These were polaroids they took earlier

in the day.

Jack

[John Geraghty]

Hi Jack,

Some interesting work on the site. I watched some of the videos on the lniks from your site. Some extremely relevant questions asked. To look at the photos that you present was like lookign at a very poorly acted hospital soap opera, it juts had a very fake look to it. There were no major injuries and nobody looked shocked beyond belief.

I will keep viewing the content of your site. Its always important to stay informed, even if I don't have much knowledge of 9/11.#

Cheers

John

[Ron Ecker]

Jack,

I remember in the O.J. trial that LAPD had a photo of the white gate in Nicole's backyard with blood on it. But during the trial the defense exhibited an LAPD photo of the gate with no blood on it. They asked the detective on the stand where the blood was. He said, "Well, the blood is there, you just can't see it because of the glare." (He rhymed almost as well as Cochran: "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.")

While I think that Mark Furman was not the only LA cop who committed perjury in that trial, perhaps the same explanation can be applied to Mary and Jean's shoes. The dark shoes are there on the ladies' white socks, you just can't see them because of the glare.

(If you don't buy that, I'll try to think of something else.)

Ron

[Jack White]

Hi Jack,

Some interesting work on the site. I watched some of the videos on the lniks from your site. Some extremely relevant questions asked. To look at the photos that you present was like lookign at a very poorly acted hospital soap opera, it juts had a very fake look to it. There were no major injuries and nobody looked shocked beyond belief.

I will keep viewing the content of your site. Its always important to stay informed, even if I don't have much knowledge of 9/11.#

Cheers

John

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, John. The more you look at the photos, the more fakery you

will see. Thanks for your comments.

Jack

[Jack White]

Jack,

I remember in the O.J. trial that LAPD had a photo of the white gate in Nicole's backyard with blood on it. But during the trial the defense exhibited an LAPD photo of the gate with no blood on it. They asked the detective on the stand where the blood was. He said, "Well, the blood is there, you just can't see it because of the glare." (He rhymed almost as well as Cochran: "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.")

While I think that Mark Furman was not the only LA cop who committed perjury in that trial, perhaps the same explanation can be applied to Mary and Jean's shoes. The dark shoes are there on the ladies' white socks, you just can't see them because of the glare.

(If you don't buy that, I'll try to think of something else.)

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for your comments, Ron.

I watched every day of the OJ trial and am convinced that

he was not guilty, but knew who was. He was protecting

his son JASON.

Jack

[Ron Ecker]

Jack,

I think O.J. was guilty, but some of those LA cops were so used to planting evidence (when not destroying evidence as in the RFK case) that they (in collaboration with an incompetent prosecution and whoever had the brilliant idea of moving the trial) completely blew the case. (The subsequent civil trial proved how easy a conviction should have been).

I agree that the scene at the Pentagon looks faked. I had not seen those photos before. Most of the ones I've seen are related to the little hole where a fake 757 hit the building (in its least vulnerable spot, in what even the Washington Post called "a weird twist of fate"). Even the mentally declining Rumsfeld referred in an inteview to "a missile" hitting the building. Maybe as he continues to decline we might learn some more.

Ron

[Ron Ecker]

Jack,

On the shoes, note in the below image of Moorman and Featherstone that you can't tell that Moorman is wearing a black shoe on her left foot, but you can see the heel of the black shoe on her raised right heel. Note also that Featherstone's shoes are partly hidden in the grass. The obvious explanation is therefore that the black shoes in the Z film are simply not discernible in the grass.

[Tim Gratz]

Jack wrote:

I watched every day of the OJ trial and am convinced that

he was not guilty, but knew who was. He was protecting

his son JASON.

Jack, I assume you are aware of a book by a Texas investigator that advocates the theory that you advance. I discovered the book through one of these forums but I no longer recall the name of the author.

[Jack White]

Jack wrote:

I watched every day of the OJ trial and am convinced that

he was not guilty, but knew who was. He was protecting

his son JASON.

Jack, I assume you are aware of a book by a Texas investigator that advocates the theory that you advance.  I discovered the book through one of these forums but I no longer recall the name of the author.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes...private detective BILL DEAR wrote a book saying that

Jason did it and OJ covered for his son.

I reached that conclusion far earlier, during the trial.

Jack

[Tim Gratz]

John, perhaps you should start a topic somewhere on the OJ case. It sounds like some of our members are still interested.

I once met (but very briefly) Cochran.

I assume everyone knows at least one connection between the OJ trial and the JFK case.