Jack White: Questions

[Larry Peters]

What about the most obvious indication that the Zapruder and Nix films don't match, Clint Hill?  In the Zapruder Film, Hill doesn't reach Jackie until she is in the limousine.  He just barely touches her in "Zapruder's" film.  But in the Nix film, he seems to be grabbing on to her, forcing her into the limousine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's the angle of the car going away that makes Hill look like he is overlapping Jackie. In the same Nix film as the limo turned onto Houston Street we can see agents Hill and McIntyre side by side on the followup car, but as their car moves away from the camera they shift togther and one of them eventually overlaps the other. Careful study of the Nix film does not show agent Hill or Jackie doing anything that is not seen in the Zapruder film - it's just being seen from a different angle.

Edited July 4, 2004 by Larry Peters

[David G. Healy]

Mr. Healy, preserving history has nothing to do with the mistakes being addressed here. For instance, if Mr. White has said in the past that the Altgens 6 photograph was sent out on the news wire within the hour of the assassination taking place and it could not have been faked, then it showing Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the grass speaks volumes and is just one step in showing Mr. White had erred. The problem isn't if someone could have altered a photo, but are the claims being made to show alteration justified. When White misreads two film frames and then thinks Mrs. Franzen has grown in height due to fakery - is it not right to point out why that occurred and to show that it didn't really have anything to do with film alteration?

dgh: What you don't realize Mr. Peter's: Jack White has recognized his mistakes and moved on. Only his severest critics stay the course - and for WHAT gain, praytell? Well, some of us know the answer and it stinks...

I'm not sure what you meant by 'taking Jack on', unless you are referring to those who in the past have pointed out Mr. White's errors only to be booted from the forum Jack resided on.

dgh: are you one opf those perhaps? Or just another one of those parrots that imitates those that reside on the Other forum?

Outside of there - he has never done more than what has been shown here.

dgh: evidently your new to this game

As far as Mr. Costella goes - the last I read on him was he had first said Moorman was in the street, then he changed it to her being out of the street and eventually decided she was back in the street. Can we assume he used the same laws of Physics each time?

dgh: Gosh, here we are discussing Physics, maybe you should visit his website and tell us what you think - post contrary findings and show us your analytical film expertise - delve right on into the forensics of the Zapruder film -- Roland Zavada can't do it, maybe you can?

What does he think about Jean Hill's interview on Black Op Radio where she was asked specifically about where she was and when when JFK came down Elm Street and she replied she stepped into the street when the limo rounded the corner onto Elm, but was back in the grass when the shooting started?

dgh: tell you what, maybe he'll answer this question for you, who knows - IF you'll answer this one... Evidently there's a piece of videotape that captures a little coaxing of a certain person present in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination [got to do with the Mary Moorman controversy] see pg's 420-422 Great Zapruder Film Hoax - David Lifton has gone public with this, what do you think? Why would someone want to convince Mary where she was and WHEN she was there? Strange goings on I'd say.

So believe it or not - Mr. Costella can and does make mistakes.

dgh: and man enough to admit it, just like Jack White... further that: so do you, Mr. Peter's, make mistakes that is - so do you!

I also think you have misstated what Josiah Thompson as repeatedly said. Thompson said that none of the assassination films contradict one another, not that they could all be made into a seamless film. None of which has anything to do with the claims Mr. White has made concerning film and photo fakery.

dgh: Well, having been a participant in those discussions, debates, arguments I think you might want to re-consult with Dr. Tink. The DP "seamless films", was BMiller's LANCER mantra for a bit (actually I think it's a great idea, so'd Miller and here we are 3.5 years later, no comparison film/video, WHY?), it's the crux of the argument against Z-film alteration and the Moorman5 Polaroid is dead center in the controversy... in short, it has lot's to do concerning film and photo fakery. Have you forgot so soon the fact that JackW initiated the Moorman5 on the Street/Grass issue on JFK Research forum?

I suspect there are those here that would answer legitimate questions posed about possible photograph and film fakery... the atmosphere and climate however, have to change.

In any case the alteration issue won't go away, the best the non-film/photo alteration camp can come up with? Discredit Jack White! A very sad state of affairs...

David Healy

[Larry Peters]

dgh: What you don't realize Mr. Peter's: Jack White has recognized his mistakes and moved on. Only his severest critics stay the course - and for WHAT gain, praytell? Well, some of us know the answer and it stinks...

Really, I must have misunderstood Mr. White when he said, "I made no mistakes ....."

dgh: evidently your new to this game

It may be a game to you, but not to me. Many of us want to know the truth based on the facts and we want those facts to be tested and validated.

dgh: tell you what, maybe he'll answer this question for you, who knows - IF you'll answer this one... Evidently there's a piece of videotape that captures a little coaxing of a certain person present in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination [got to do with the Mary Moorman controversy] see pg's 420-422 Great Zapruder Film Hoax - David Lifton has gone public with this, what do you think? Why would someone want to convince Mary where she was and WHEN she was there? Strange goings on I'd say.

What you have implied is nonsense in my opinion because both Hill and Moorman have said they were in the grass, not only on the day of the assassination, but since then in various interviews. What the film alterationsist seems to do is try and dismiss what the actual witnesses have said and then when a film or photograph is shown to support that witness, they claim the witnesses were coached and the films and photos must all be faked. Someone like Mr. White will say a photograph went on the news wire immediately after the assassination, so it must be genuine and later on when it is shown to disprove a claim he had made - it then is called a fake. I find that type of behavior to be the strangest of all.

dgh: and man enough to admit it, just like Jack White... further that: so do you, Mr. Peter's, make mistakes that is - so do you!

I believe Mr. White has implied just the opposite. And yes, we all make mistakes. The difference between some of us is that we want to be accurate in our observations by having them explored and tested. Others seem to be more concerned about egos.

dgh: Well, having been a participant in those discussions, debates, arguments I think you might want to re-consult with Dr. Tink. The DP "seamless films", was BMiller's LANCER mantra for a bit (actually I think it's a great idea, so'd Miller and here we are 3.5 years later, no comparison film/video, WHY?), it's the crux of the argument against Z-film alteration and the Moorman5 Polaroid is dead center in the controversy... in short, it has lot's to do concerning film and photo fakery. Have you forgot so soon the fact that JackW initiated the Moorman5 on the Street/Grass issue on JFK Research forum?

I was not around in them days to know when he initiated his Moorman claims. All I can say is they have since been proven to be in error.

dhg: In any case the alteration issue won't go away, the best the non-film/photo alteration camp can come up with? Discredit Jack White! A very sad state of affairs...

Mr. White discredited himself in my opinion when he became so arrogant that he thought he could make off the cuff observations and not have anyone question his claims. He discredited himself when he made arguments that the witnesses must be wrong and all the films and photographs taken on 11/22/63 must be faked when they didn't show what he felt they should. Now this thread has been a debate by example and detailing the claims of film alteration. Mr. White said he would answer any questions and address his work. It would be nice if you would do the same and try and be as specific about it as some of us are trying to be.

I will leave you with some things James fetzer said about Jack White's claim in TGZFH ...

Go to HOAX and take a look at Jack's

images and discussion. His work has to be appreciated for what

it is: pilot studies that focus our attention on features that

are odd in the photographic record.

The tide knowing when to come in and go out is an oddity, but it certainly has nothing to do with the universe being hoaxed in any way. It's a matter of understanding why we see what we do. In Mr. White's case he had sat out to look for every oddity he could find and refer to it as proof of a film hoax. Those around him never bothered to tell him his mmistakes. It was a classic case of the emperor that he had no clothes. Let me share some more about what James Fetzer said concerning the accuracy of the claims in his book ...

Jack has a principle that the more ferociously

you are being attacked, the more important your

work.

I don't get it. When I edit a book, I invite

those I consider the best qualified to address

the subjects of that volume .............. He is not always right, but so what?

think anyone who wants to understand Jack's role

in conducting (what I would call) "pilot studies"

You say, "Why did I print claims by Jack White

that (I) have been shown to be false?" ....... he is responsible for

his own mistakes. There seems to be some mis-

conception that an editor is responsible for the

truth of everything his contributors have to say.

That is simply absurd.

Your loyalty to Mr. White is admirable. Your desire for putting the truth ahead of loyalty is questionable. We all might be best served if you have any specific observations about the images being discussed in this thread that you stay focused on that aspect of things. Testing the evidence is the best way to make progress here.

Edited July 5, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Guest]

Larry has been trying to upload the attached image to this thread.

Apologies to all for problems still occurring due to the recent forum upgrade

[Larry Peters]

Larry has been trying to upload the attached image to this thread.

Apologies to all for problems still occurring due to the recent forum upgrade

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for putting that image up for me, Andy.

If one looks at just the dark part of Zapruder's coat, it gives the appearance that he is has his left hip shoved towards Sitzman and is slightly bent sideways to his right. That is basically the same stance he has in Moorman's photograph. In both the Bronson slide and the Betzner photo we can see the part of Zapruder's clothing that is sunlit. In the black and white Moorman photo that sunlit area blends into the background. It is also that sunlit area of the clothing on Zapruder that is blocking out the pergola windows and not allowing us to see the holes.

I hope I have said this in a way that was easy to follow. I'll be happy to show another example of this when I can load photos onto the site.

[David G. Healy]

Jack White says something, you say something else -- Nobody, I mean NOBODY can identify Zapruder or Sitzman as the person on that pedestal, in any of the film or still photos. That includes Gary Mack, as he told me on more than one ocassion ... He and a thousand others (such as you) can tell us what you've been told, but none of you can prove to us that: YES indeed that's good ole Abe Zapruder, I can see his face, that's him [or the same, for Sitzman]

[David G. Healy]

dgh: What you don't realize Mr. Peter's: Jack White has recognized his mistakes and moved on. Only his severest critics stay the course - and for WHAT gain, praytell? Well, some of us know the answer and it stinks...

Really, I must have misunderstood Mr. White when he said, "I made no mistakes ....."

dgh01: not the first time nor will it be the last time someone has misunderstood Jack White, or me for that matter -- JWhite doesn't deal with provocateurs any longer and has made that quite clear. Which I'm sure you understand, don't you? He has made no mistakes on many pieces he's done, on other's he's conceded error, so what? If it stymies your search for the truth, cut out on your own and let's see your stuff... Why waste time pouring over JWhite's material - if you don't agree with him!

dgh: evidently your new to this game

It may be a game to you, but not to me. Many of us want to know the truth based on the facts and we want those facts to be tested and validated.

dgh01: pretty much the stock-n-trade answer, I expected no less --

dgh: tell you what, maybe he'll answer this question for you, who knows - IF you'll answer this one... Evidently there's a piece of videotape that captures a little coaxing of a certain person present in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination [got to do with the Mary Moorman controversy] see pg's 420-422 Great Zapruder Film Hoax - David Lifton has gone public with this, what do you think? Why would someone want to convince Mary where she was and WHEN she was there? Strange goings on I'd say.

What you have implied is nonsense in my opinion because both Hill and Moorman have said they were in the grass, not only on the day of the assassination, but since then in various interviews. What the film alterationsist seems to do is try and dismiss what the actual witnesses have said and then when a film or photograph is shown to support that witness, they claim the witnesses were coached and the films and photos must all be faked. Someone like Mr. White will say a photograph went on the news wire immediately after the assassination, so it must be genuine and later on when it is shown to disprove a claim he had made - it then is called a fake. I find that type of behavior to be the strangest of all.

dgh01: hey man, I didn't imply it, I asked the question -- David Lifton wrote it, if you need his email address I can provide it -- he's a nice guy -- brooks no nonesense and responds to reasonable questions... Some things are just a little difficult to get your hands and mind around aren't they? Bring you lunch if you want to debate with him...

It's amazing, a 'certain' researcher gathers *more* information about a specific subject then changes his/her mind regarding the earlier conclusion, then makes it public -- sounds pretty reasonable to me. Not you? Then others make vague accusations about same researcher - that vague accusation is of course he doesn't know what he's speaking of. A waffler, in this case a poor researcher.... Kind of like real life waffeling regarding WAR and Weapons of Mass Destruction and the reason nations go to WAR, without the serious consequences of course. We all know about that one!

dgh: and man enough to admit it, just like Jack White... further that: so do you, Mr. Peter's, make mistakes that is - so do you!

I believe Mr. White has implied just the opposite. And yes, we all make mistakes. The difference between some of us is that we want to be accurate in our observations by having them explored and tested. Others seem to be more concerned about egos.

dgh01: Nonesense, I doubt you can tell me what Jack White's photographic credentials are. Observations are just that, observations, those that don't approve, should make their own photo anaylasis graphics regarding the subject, then sell it to the rest of us -- till them it's just more noise from the uninformed peanut gallery... If you bought the book HOAX and didn't like what you read, see if you can get a refund...sell it on EBay!

dgh: Well, having been a participant in those discussions, debates, arguments I think you might want to re-consult with Dr. Tink. The DP "seamless films", was BMiller's LANCER mantra for a bit (actually I think it's a great idea, so'd Miller and here we are 3.5 years later, no comparison film/video, WHY?), it's the crux of the argument against Z-film alteration and the Moorman5 Polaroid is dead center in the controversy... in short, it has lot's to do concerning film and photo fakery. Have you forgot so soon the fact that JackW initiated the Moorman5 on the Street/Grass issue on JFK Research forum?

I was not around in them days to know when he initiated his Moorman claims. All I can say is they have since been proven to be in error.

dgh01: well, those day's happened about 18 - 24 months ago - what praytell, has proven been in error - and more importantly, WHO proved them to be in error? First I've heard the news. I'm sure a few Physicist's will be more than interested in seeing the data... The only thing proven that I can see, is your NEW to the game! You'll catch on!

dhg: In any case the alteration issue won't go away, the best the non-film/photo alteration camp can come up with? Discredit Jack White! A very sad state of affairs...

Mr. White discredited himself in my opinion when he became so arrogant that he thought he could make off the cuff observations and not have anyone question his claims. He discredited himself when he made arguments that the witnesses must be wrong and all the films and photographs taken on 11/22/63 must be faked when they didn't show what he felt they should. Now this thread has been a debate by example and detailing the claims of film alteration. Mr. White said he would answer any questions and address his work. It would be nice if you would do the same and try and be as specific about it as some of us are trying to be.

dgh01: there we go again -- Mr White this, Mr. White that -- if you can't post the photographic evidence supporting your accusations re Jack White here, please post them to a website so ALL of us can review what material your basing your criticisms on. A few notations, explanations and pedigree of photo'syou post might be interesting too.

I will leave you with some things James fetzer said about Jack White's claim in TGZFH ...

dgh01: Well aware of whats in the book Mr. Peter's, help do a little work in it myself. Having never seen ANY of the debated original photography, Z-film included I find myself pondering a question, if I haven't seen and you've never seen ANY of the original film/photo how can you paint with such a broadstroke - stating that Jack White needs to be discreditied? Might you know, what many of us know about Jack and what he's seen and not seen? 35+ years of dealing with this murder certainly accounts for something, doesn't it? 50 years as a photographer has a little bit of leverage I'd say -- can you say the same?

Go to HOAX and take a look at Jack's

images and discussion. His work has to be appreciated for what

it is: pilot studies that focus our attention on features that

are odd in the photographic record.

The tide knowing when to come in and go out is an oddity, but it certainly has nothing to do with the universe being hoaxed in any way. It's a matter of understanding why we see what we do. In Mr. White's case he had sat out to look for every oddity he could find and refer to it as proof of a film hoax. Those around him never bothered to tell him his mmistakes. It was a classic case of the emperor that he had no clothes. Let me share some more about what James Fetzer said concerning the accuracy of the claims in his book ...

dgh01: Ah, it's called the moon Mr. Peter's, been going on for a few years or so, nothing odd about the TIDE! No secret, no conspiracy... Sure would be nice if you could shed some light regarding your film/photo expertise, No? Or are you stating opinion? You obviously know what we, on this side of the Atlantic think about opinions. WHY, should I or anyone of the lurkers hereabouts care one whit about your opinion of what Jack Whites opinion is regarding JFK Assassination related photography? Unless of course your attempting to protect HISTORY, a history custom designed for the masses? Why care?

I'm on the record, Mr. Peter's - are YOU?

[snip the rest of the nonsense]

Your loyalty to Mr. White is admirable. Your desire for putting the truth ahead of loyalty is questionable. We all might be best served if you have any specific observations about the images being discussed in this thread that you stay focused on that aspect of things. Testing the evidence is the best way to make progress here.

dgh01: My loyalty is to myself Mr. Peter's -- I suspect ALL that intone "the truth" is paramount in dealing with the JFK Assassination evidence. Your going to get real dirty dealing with the issues in this case. Murder is a nasty business... Why question me about motives regarding truth? They're in book form, buy HOAX!

I suspect you lurkers out there will be besieged with a plethora of JWhite images and criticism - stand by, it's the normal routine for anti-alteration detractors, they can't do their own photo work.. Too bad they can't create their own marked up photos and show us the error of OUR ways! However, they've plenty of time and criticism for those that DO the work! Chalk it up to good ole Yankee capitalism, greed and of course EGO -- not to mention: a liberal sprinkling of self-serving propoganda. :-)

I'll be watching Mr. Peter's.... best wishes to all for wonderful

Edited July 6, 2004 by David G. Healy

[Larry Peters]

Mr. Healy - I'm not going to take part in your foolishness on this site. You have replied several times and not once, as usual, you didn't address a single point that was made. I will correct a couple of generalities you touched on, but didn't offer any specifics.

dgh01: not the first time nor will it be the last time someone has misunderstood Jack White, or me for that matter -- JWhite doesn't deal with provocateurs any longer and has made that quite clear.

What part of Mr. White's quote did you not understand? Mr. White said he made no mistakes. I fail to see how you can twist that to mean anything else.

dgh01: hey man, I didn't imply it, I asked the question -- David Lifton wrote it, if you need his email address I can provide it -- he's a nice guy -- brooks no nonesense and responds to reasonable questions... Some things are just a little difficult to get your hands and mind around aren't they? Bring you lunch if you want to debate with him...

Mr Healy - Lifton can't understand that Mary Moorman's 54" high camera lens is looking over the top of Hargis and Martin's windshields which are several inches taller in height, so does one need to say more. Lifton was a pioneer in seeking many answers that were never made aware by the government, but too has made some serious mistakes because he doesn't understand perspective.

It's amazing, a 'certain' researcher gathers *more* information about a specific subject then changes his/her mind regarding the earlier conclusion, then makes it public -- sounds pretty reasonable to me. Not you? Then others make vague accusations about same researcher - that vague accusation is of course he doesn't know what he's speaking of. A waffler, in this case a poor researcher.... Kind of like real life waffeling regarding WAR and Weapons of Mass Destruction and the reason nations go to WAR, without the serious consequences of course. We all know about that one!

You are talking about an unknown enity and offering no specifics, so there is no way to address what you have said. The only think I can say is there is nothing wrong with making a mistake and admitting to it. That has never been the issue here.

dgh: and man enough to admit it, just like Jack White... further that: so do you, Mr. Peter's, make mistakes that is - so do you!

dgh01: Nonesense, I doubt you can tell me what Jack White's photographic credentials are. Observations are just that, observations, those that don't approve, should make their own photo anaylasis graphics regarding the subject, then sell it to the rest of us -- till them it's just more noise from the uninformed peanut gallery... If you bought the book HOAX and didn't like what you read, see if you can get a refund...sell it on EBay!

Mr. White's credentials are well known. He did some good work many years ago. It is also known that because of his poor research done in the past several years on this film and photo alteration by saying everything is faked when it doesn't support his conclusion has gotten him banned from presenting at the two Dallas conferences every year. Now I wasn't going to bring that up, but people like you who don't address the evidence, but rather works as a public relations man does more harm than good for someone like Mr. White by causing one to feel it necessary to bring these unpleasant things up.

dgh01: well, those day's happened about 18 - 24 months ago - what praytell, has proven been in error - and more importantly, WHO proved them to be in error? First I've heard the news. I'm sure a few Physicist's will be more than interested in seeing the data... The only thing proven that I can see, is your NEW to the game! You'll catch on!

There is a well detailed critque found on Lancer's site of each and every claim made in TGZFH. You know about it and like here I could not find one reply you made that dealt with any errors in that critque. To date - no one has found any errors in it. The web page is placed below.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...sg_id=276&page=

dgh01: there we go again -- Mr White this, Mr. White that -- if you can't post the photographic evidence supporting your accusations re Jack White here, please post them to a website so ALL of us can review what material your basing your criticisms on. A few notations, explanations and pedigree of photo'syou post might be interesting too.

As you know if you have bothered to read my post in the past couple of days - this site is not letting images go up. Before the problem occurred I did manage to make a few points, but you have not addressed them. The web address for all those images you want to talk about is attached once again belwo. I look forward to you pointing out any errors you find.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...sg_id=276&page=

dgh01: Well aware of whats in the book Mr. Peter's, help do a little work in it myself. Having never seen ANY of the debated original photography, Z-film included I find myself pondering a question, if I haven't seen and you've never seen ANY of the original film/photo how can you paint with such a broadstroke - stating that Jack White needs to be discreditied?

It's Mr. White's claims of film and photo alteration that is being discredited. let me adress your silly remark about not seeing any of the original photography. I saw JFK's funeral on TV and it was filmed and photographed from many different angles. One like you or Mr. White could make the claim that JFK's casket was draped with a horse blanket instead of a flag and that all the films and photos showing it to be a flag must be faked because they don't support your claim. Now does one really need to have been there to know that your position is unfounded. But Mr. White doesn't even make us do that because like with the missing people - it was just a matter of checking his observation to find the flaws in it.

dgh01: Ah, it's called the moon Mr. Peter's, been going on for a few years or so, nothing odd about the TIDE! No secret, no conspiracy... Sure would be nice if you could shed some light regarding your film/photo expertise, No?

What expertise did it take to understand the critque I've mentioned several times now? How much expertise to see Moorman looking over the top of a cycles windscreen or to cite Moorman and Hill's affidavits or remarks concerning where they stood? How much expertise does it take to see an overlay of Mr. White's pedestal photo against that of Moorman's and to observe the vast shifting that takes place? How much expertise did it take to point out Mr. White authenticated the Altgens 6 photo by saying it went on the news wire immediately after the assassination, but then said it was faked when it shows Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the south pasture just like in the Zapruder film. You know - there is a reason why Mr. White and others have not been able to address the critique on Lancer and that's because the mistakes are easy enough to see once they have been pointed out. Feel free to give it a shot if you like.

I suspect you lurkers out there will be besieged with a plethora of JWhite images and criticism - stand by, it's the normal routine for anti-alteration detractors, they can't do their own photo work.. Too bad they can't create their own marked up photos and show us the error of OUR ways!

I have offered up the web page to the critique of White's claims of film and photo alteration. It's to the point - well illustrated - easy to follow - and unlike your replies, it's focused on the claims and to the point. Try to keep in mind that many of us CT's want there to be evidence pointing to a conspiracy, but making unfounded claims shot full of errors is not going to help anyone. If anything, it overshadows the good claims of a conspiracy that were made.

I apologize for the bold lettering errors. I tried several times to correct it, but the site is causing it somehow and its out of my control.

Edited July 6, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Lee Forman]

Question for Jack White:

In a comparison of the location of the Lincoln, as photographed in Moorman, with Kennedy receiving a blow to the head -- is the geographical location consistent with the same location of the head shot presented in Zapruder, say frame 316, or even earlier?

[Jack White]

Question for Jack White:

In a comparison of the location of the Lincoln, as photographed in Moorman, with Kennedy receiving a blow to the head -- is the geographical location consistent with the same location of the head shot presented in Zapruder, say frame 316, or even earlier?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Z film is a fabrication, so its frame numbers are irrelevant.

The Moorman photo has been tampered with.

It is useless to try to compare them.

Jack

[Larry Peters]

In a comparison of the location of the Lincoln, as photographed in Moorman, with Kennedy receiving a blow to the head -- is the geographical location consistent with the same location of the head shot presented in Zapruder, say frame 316, or even earlier?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For those who are interested - Moorman's photo corresponds with Z315.6 as researched by Anthony Marsh. The limo and everything seen in Mary's photo is consistent with the available assassination films. I might add that Moorman's photo was shown on NBC the very afternoon of the assassination. Now a person might ask themselves how anyone would have altered an instant Polaroid in just a few hours and more importantly how anyone could know what to alter in that photograph so soon after the shooting. The risk of a later photo or film coming forth and exposing the alteration would have been far too risky. One might even wonder why would anyone wish to alter unimportant things and leave someone as important as the Badge Man in the photo.

[David G. Healy]

Gimme something tangible to take to the media Mr. Peter's - BMiller's material doesn't pass muster-- How long will it be till your presentations are available?

Your right, there's no need to spend a single second more dealing with this nonsense -- a complete waste of my not to mention this forums time, so Larry say hello to Debra and Bill Miller for me, have a nice summer... and lighten up on Jack White -- we're the last of photog's that know what their talking about.

Less than 18 months interest in the JFK Assassination photo's and films and you've got it figured out -- amazing Larry, simply amazing. And to think: I haven't seen ONE image you've created, ABSOLUTELY amazing...

btw, one can feel your angst all the way out here in good old Northern California...

David Healy

p.s. I like Jack White have found it necessary NOT to deal with propagandists and provocateurs, life is too short -- in case your not aware of the definition ---

Provocateur-Instigator =

Function:  

noun

Definition:  

provoker

Synonyms:  

advocate, agent, champion, demagogue, disrupter, dissident, dogmatist, firebrand, fireman, fomenter, hatchet man, heretic, incendiary, inciter, instigator, mover, needle man, propagandist, provocateur, pusher, reaction, reformer, revisionist, ringleader, sparkplug, zealot

AND a "wolf" in sheep's clothing!

[David G. Healy]

What about Gary Mack's study? Bill Miller and James Gordon's near recent study? Much more recent than Tony's study. Or, is Tony's study more recent and based on MPI imagery?If MPI imagery was used, it's inaccurate, you realize that don't you? SCALED wrong. Incorrect frame scaling plays havoc when making these kind of measuremnts.

Is this Marsh study the one done in the early 1990's or was that Clint Bradford's study, he did one too? So that makes at least 4 studies... To the best of my knowledge, none of these studies agree on what Z-frame relates to the Moorman 5 Polaroid. You'd think a seamless comparision of ALL the DPlaza films would be available, but it's not!

Tony's trying, bless his heart, but Z315.6? Where'd the .6 come from, there can be NO six tenths of a frame - that's impossible!

Evidently - Tony Marsh found a magic bullet [sort of speak]

If your going to post data of this type Mr. Peter's, it would be nice to get ALL the known fact's related to these studies out there -- so reasonable people can make reasonable decisions...

David Healy

[Larry Peters]

p.s. I like Jack White have found it necessary NOT to deal with propagandists and provocateurs, life is too short -- in case your not aware of the definition ---

Provocateur-Instigator =

Function:  

noun

Definition:  

provoker

Synonyms:  

advocate, agent, champion, demagogue, disrupter, dissident, dogmatist, firebrand, fireman, fomenter, hatchet man, heretic, incendiary, inciter, instigator, mover, needle man, propagandist, provocateur, pusher, reaction, reformer, revisionist, ringleader, sparkplug, zealot

AND a "wolf" in sheep's clothing!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Healy - you have been invited several times to address any of the critiques of White's claims and you have chosen not to do so, but rather you have taken the low road and just acted like it's not worth discussing. Then you post some dribble about provocateur's and instigators, which seems to be all you have been doing in the past several replies you have placed on this thread. Please try and stay focused and explain what is wrong in the critque Miller laid out. If it is so wrong, then you should have no trouble proving your position. If I have misread Miller's critique, then I want someone to show me where he erred because it is worth my time to know about it.

When you feel like you want to "instigate" an investigation into the critiques concerning flim and photo alteration ... I am sure everyone here will be interested in observing it. I know that I'll look forward to it.

Edited July 6, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Larry Peters]

Jack White says something, you say something else -- Nobody, I mean NOBODY can identify Zapruder or Sitzman as the person on that pedestal, in any of the film or still photos. That includes Gary Mack, as he told me on more than one ocassion ... He and a thousand others (such as you) can tell us what you've been told, but none of you can prove to us that: YES indeed that's good ole Abe Zapruder, I can see his face, that's him [or the same, for Sitzman]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That could be said about anyone in any of the films and photos. There are no clear images of the Newman's, Millican, Wiliis and his family, Lovelady, Brehm and his son, Oliver, Moorman, Hill, Foster, Altgens and etc,. What we can do is look at the clothing of the woman on the pedestal and note that her dress and black scarf is exactly like that worn by Sitzman in the footage shot by Abraham Zapruder when she turned and looked at the camera while standing near the Hester's before the motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza.