Craig Lamson

There are many versions. The two best are Thompson 1 and Weisberg 1. I have copy negatives but cannot readily lay my hands on prints. They are unfiled and packed in storage boxes. The Smith version is the best one with the thumbprint. Earlier copies do not have the thumbprint. The earliest copy is the Zippo copy. Jack Jack, -Do you know where the ORIGINAL POLAROID is nowadays? -Do you have a very high resolution copy of that Gordon's original and can you post that one? -Can you explain the "special techniques" he used for copying old faded photos? Gr. Paul. As far as I know, the original is still in Mary's bank safe deposit box, unless she has given it to the Sixth Floor Museum. The one posted by Robin was scanned originally by me and was my best one. I posted it several years ago on Rich's Forum. Any scans of the Smith version came from me. Gordon was a photographer with about 50 years of experience. I do not know his special technique, but it involved using 4x5 film, filters, and special contrast controls in development of negative. But the main ingredient was his experience in copying old faded photos. Jack No Jack the Moorman posted by Robin is not the copy YOU had made. It is the 1967 THOMPSON copy. The Thompson number 1 print did not have the thumbprint. Jack I'm not sure how you are "numbering" the Moormans that Thompson owns but the IMAGE POSTED BY ROBIN is the copy Thompson had made in 1967 from the original polaroid. How do I know? The image posted by Robin is a match to the drum scan of the Thompson 1967 copy negative. PERIOD. For those interested a downsampled and levels corrected copy of the drum scan 1967 Thompson copy negative of the moorman is available here for a limited time. The file is 16"x13" at 300dpi. It is saved in lossless PNG format and is 17mb uncompressed. The file image can be found here: http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/66990161/original Which brings us back to the fact that all of your posts the subject of the image Robin posted were nothing but crap...as usual.

There are many versions. The two best are Thompson 1 and Weisberg 1. I have copy negatives but cannot readily lay my hands on prints. They are unfiled and packed in storage boxes. The Smith version is the best one with the thumbprint. Earlier copies do not have the thumbprint. The earliest copy is the Zippo copy. Jack Jack, -Do you know where the ORIGINAL POLAROID is nowadays? -Do you have a very high resolution copy of that Gordon's original and can you post that one? -Can you explain the "special techniques" he used for copying old faded photos? Gr. Paul. As far as I know, the original is still in Mary's bank safe deposit box, unless she has given it to the Sixth Floor Museum. The one posted by Robin was scanned originally by me and was my best one. I posted it several years ago on Rich's Forum. Any scans of the Smith version came from me. Gordon was a photographer with about 50 years of experience. I do not know his special technique, but it involved using 4x5 film, filters, and special contrast controls in development of negative. But the main ingredient was his experience in copying old faded photos. Jack No Jack the Moorman posted by Robin is not the copy YOU had made. It is the 1967 THOMPSON copy.

"QUOTE( Jack White @ Sep 3 2006, 01:00 AM) 2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT." Ever going to live up to this statement? Like on your latest Apolo thread?

No what's funny is that White was fishing for someone to support him because he has his tit in a wringer over an apollo thread. So who rides in? Why it's Hogan..getting played by White...again. Thanks for the laughs.

Bump....Jack is such an honorable man so worthy of praise. /s

from an online analysis by Timothy Campbell - "An Internet "xxxxx" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people. Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish. Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility. Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true xxxxx can not be changed by mere words." The real question is: do some of them do it because it is their "job" so to speak? If you observe a forum for an adequate length of time, you figure out pretty quickly who the trouble makers are. They are the ones who initiate the insults, and when their targets respond in kind, they claim the moral high ground, claiming total innocence and a noble desire to uncover the truth. Their modus operandi is so predictable and similar from forum to forum, it's as if it is the result of some kind of psy ops training. One wonders. Thanks, Brian for the definitions of the forum's TROLLS. We are infected by five or six who fit the descriptions exactly. Unless they are demented, they are "doing a job" for someone, for nobody in their right mind would spend 24/7/365 following one person around all internet venues just to heap insults on him. These pests were so vicious on the JFKar forum that they were banished for bad behavior. One of the banishees even hacked that forum and closed it down for several days. These and others have tracked me around for about ten years now, even back to the old alt.jfk forum to heap their insults. As Fletcher Prouty told me..."they attack you because they fear your photoanalysis, which is clear, concise and easily understood by average people". None of them does actual research, they are just somebody's attack dogs. Jack ROFLMAO!

from an online analysis by Timothy Campbell - "An Internet "xxxxx" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people. Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish. Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility. Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true xxxxx can not be changed by mere words." The real question is: do some of them do it because it is their "job" so to speak? If you observe a forum for an adequate length of time, you figure out pretty quickly who the trouble makers are. They are the ones who initiate the insults, and when their targets respond in kind, they claim the moral high ground, claiming total innocence and a noble desire to uncover the truth. Their modus operandi is so predictable and similar from forum to forum, it's as if it is the result of some kind of psy ops training. One wonders. THE TRUTH BITES EH BRIAN? You should learn to deal with truth rather than wallow in some silly paranoid fantasy...and you are living a fantasy, as shown by your remarks. If calling me a xxxxx makes you feel better, then by all means do so. However the TRUTH is that I am highly qualifed to comment on the shabby state of photo interpretation as practiced by many members of this forum including one Jack White. That anyone finds his work OR him as a person to be of merit speaks volumes about the state of intellectual honesty of many members of this forum. That is fact. Learn to deal with it. Watching the ct's on this forum reminds me of this statement: "You cannot use reason to resolve a persons position if they didn't use reason to arrive at it."

pour yourself another glass of wine Craigster -- you're obsessive-compulsive when it comes to Jack White and his theories.... When Bill Miller farts, you yell it wasn't me.... Who the hell do you think your kidding..... when the GANG squeaks you're looking for something to oil..... Pass the foamcore.... What was that NASA control number again.....? roflmao! I see you are at a loss for words again davie...mind all blocked up with silly ct things. Come on davie deal with the Armstrong shadow. You have all of the information, including the answer. Be a man and not a mindless robot for White and crew. You do have a mind...right? Don't you know that shilling for them has destroyed what little of a reputation you had left? I hope dealing falsehoods was worth it for you. Craig, Bill, David Why are you guys so damn mean to each other? And what does all of this have to do with being hacked? Dawn Leave Jack the hell alone ok. You've offered your opinions about 7,000 times now. Enough already. We don't care. We like and respect Jack. I take no position on the Z film. If it was altered it still leaves in the headshot....the proof of conspiracy that got this case rolling early on. Attorney Vince Salandria was, I believe, the first to point out the backward motion, using stills from the Z film. I concur with RCD that this issue is secondary. Beyond secondary. The issues are why was JFK killed and how can we get the media to tell the truth. Now that Nellie is gone, taking many secrets with her to the grave, this seems a good time to try to get some media people with a quest for truth. Take a hike Dawn...if you like and respect someone as dishonest as Jack you are worthless. my-gosh... spoken like a true dry-goods photog..... pass the foam-core -- your making a ass out of yourself Ass? No davie that would be you. First I suggest to research the term "drygoods" Your misuse of the word as it applies to my work is very telling..asslike infact...... Second, please for once try defending Jacks ignorant works rather than trying to defend a dishonest man. I've been lmao watching the losers on this fruom defending a MAN who is perhaps one of the most dishonest researchers on the planet. What a wonderful group of people..."dedicated" to finding the truth about JFK yet willing to support a massively dishonest and ignorant peson! What a bunch of hypocrites! No wonder the thinking world considers you all loons. But hey davie how about for ONCE you actually DEFEND the work of White (and Costella too) and tell us how right they both are about the Armstrong shadow.... Oh wait I forgot, you are a chickenxxxx as well as an ass....

pour yourself another glass of wine Craigster -- you're obsessive-compulsive when it comes to Jack White and his theories.... When Bill Miller farts, you yell it wasn't me.... Who the hell do you think your kidding..... when the GANG squeaks you're looking for something to oil..... Pass the foamcore.... What was that NASA control number again.....? roflmao! I see you are at a loss for words again davie...mind all blocked up with silly ct things. Come on davie deal with the Armstrong shadow. You have all of the information, including the answer. Be a man and not a mindless robot for White and crew. You do have a mind...right? Don't you know that shilling for them has destroyed what little of a reputation you had left? I hope dealing falsehoods was worth it for you. Craig, Bill, David Why are you guys so damn mean to each other? And what does all of this have to do with being hacked? Dawn Leave Jack the hell alone ok. You've offered your opinions about 7,000 times now. Enough already. We don't care. We like and respect Jack. I take no position on the Z film. If it was altered it still leaves in the headshot....the proof of conspiracy that got this case rolling early on. Attorney Vince Salandria was, I believe, the first to point out the backward motion, using stills from the Z film. I concur with RCD that this issue is secondary. Beyond secondary. The issues are why was JFK killed and how can we get the media to tell the truth. Now that Nellie is gone, taking many secrets with her to the grave, this seems a good time to try to get some media people with a quest for truth. Take a hike Dawn...if you like and respect someone as dishonest as Jack you are worthless.

Jack White has repeatedly demonstrated knowledge about events surrounding President Kennedy's murder that borders on the encyclopedic. He is one of the few researchers left that have been there from the beginning, fighting for the truth. His familiarity with others' research extends far beyond just the photographic evidence, even though that is his area of specialty. In addition, Jack has spent his life in the DFW area, which has helped give him certain unique insights into the case. The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion. I agree with Robert Charles-Dunne when he said, ...."the Z-film issue is secondary and has been superceded by other evidence in the case." As usual, Robert quickly gets to the heart of a matter. A few weeks ago, Jack was going to give his thoughts on Donald Norton. I suspect he got sidetracked. Sigh, Hogan spews again.... Jack is a flake, that much is known for a fact, as witnessed by his total failure to understand the very basics of the subject he claims expert status...photography. This has been proven over and over and over again...his work is the work of a fool. Jack also cannot tell the truth, again as witnessed by his last post on this thread. Jack is highly confrontational. I play by HIS rules which he established on the JFK cult forum many years ago. I was attacked by Jack and his cohorts while pointing out in a civil manner that Jack was mistaken about his photographic claims. Since thats the way he chooses to play I am more than happy to play in the very same manner. Period. He gets no free ride. Am I obsessed with Jack? No. He is simply a very ample and prolific target. That so many of the loon squad find his work compelling only adds to the target base. This place is what one might call a "target rich environment". I am however obsessed with facts and in case you have missed it, Jack offers very little in the way of facts. It's actually the opposite, Jack stock in trade is disinformation. And thats a fact. what did you do to deserve monitoring Jack White and his internet posting regarding "conspiracy" related photo's for all these years? Miller, I can understand, for him its avocation/obsession, wanting to fit in, you on the other hand have a professional reputation to uphold. You actually think this case is going to be determined by altered or NONE altered film/photos? In the recent past over 75% of the American people polled think something is wrong in the way the JFK case was handled, including we were lied too [for whatever reason]. Where do you fit in this equation, other than a self appointed hall monitor? Do you have a vested interest in preserving [as it is today] the photo/film record of Dealey Plaza, 11/22/63? Oh davie, how many times....sheesh. I do it FOR ENTERTAINMANT! Its as simple as that. You fools are better than the sitcoms! And it actually improves my photography knowlege. Now, how about dealing with the pesky Armstrong shadow? What are you afraid of davie? If you could prove me wrong I know you would do it in a heartbeat. Problem is you can't prove me wrong. All you can do is prove White and that nutjob Costella wrong and thats just not something you want to do is it davie? Your failure to deal with this shows just how dishonest you are. pour yourself another glass of wine Craigster -- you're obsessive-compulsive when it comes to Jack White and his theories.... When Bill Miller farts, you yell it wasn't me.... Who the hell do you think your kidding..... when the GANG squeaks you're looking for something to oil..... Pass the foamcore.... What was that NASA control number again.....? roflmao! I see you are at a loss for words again davie...mind all blocked up with silly ct things. Come on davie deal with the Armstrong shadow. You have all of the information, including the answer. Be a man and not a mindless robot for White and crew. You do have a mind...right? Don't you know that shilling for them has destroyed what little of a reputation you had left? I hope dealing falsehoods was worth it for you.

Jack White has repeatedly demonstrated knowledge about events surrounding President Kennedy's murder that borders on the encyclopedic. He is one of the few researchers left that have been there from the beginning, fighting for the truth. His familiarity with others' research extends far beyond just the photographic evidence, even though that is his area of specialty. In addition, Jack has spent his life in the DFW area, which has helped give him certain unique insights into the case. The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion. I agree with Robert Charles-Dunne when he said, ...."the Z-film issue is secondary and has been superceded by other evidence in the case." As usual, Robert quickly gets to the heart of a matter. A few weeks ago, Jack was going to give his thoughts on Donald Norton. I suspect he got sidetracked. Sigh, Hogan spews again.... Jack is a flake, that much is known for a fact, as witnessed by his total failure to understand the very basics of the subject he claims expert status...photography. This has been proven over and over and over again...his work is the work of a fool. Jack also cannot tell the truth, again as witnessed by his last post on this thread. Jack is highly confrontational. I play by HIS rules which he established on the JFK cult forum many years ago. I was attacked by Jack and his cohorts while pointing out in a civil manner that Jack was mistaken about his photographic claims. Since thats the way he chooses to play I am more than happy to play in the very same manner. Period. He gets no free ride. Am I obsessed with Jack? No. He is simply a very ample and prolific target. That so many of the loon squad find his work compelling only adds to the target base. This place is what one might call a "target rich environment". I am however obsessed with facts and in case you have missed it, Jack offers very little in the way of facts. It's actually the opposite, Jack stock in trade is disinformation. And thats a fact. what did you do to deserve monitoring Jack White and his internet posting regarding "conspiracy" related photo's for all these years? Miller, I can understand, for him its avocation/obsession, wanting to fit in, you on the other hand have a professional reputation to uphold. You actually think this case is going to be determined by altered or NONE altered film/photos? In the recent past over 75% of the American people polled think something is wrong in the way the JFK case was handled, including we were lied too [for whatever reason]. Where do you fit in this equation, other than a self appointed hall monitor? Do you have a vested interest in preserving [as it is today] the photo/film record of Dealey Plaza, 11/22/63? Oh davie, how many times....sheesh. I do it FOR ENTERTAINMANT! Its as simple as that. You fools are better than the sitcoms! And it actually improves my photography knowlege. Now, how about dealing with the pesky Armstrong shadow? What are you afraid of davie? If you could prove me wrong I know you would do it in a heartbeat. Problem is you can't prove me wrong. All you can do is prove White and that nutjob Costella wrong and thats just not something you want to do is it davie? Your failure to deal with this shows just how dishonest you are.

Jack White has repeatedly demonstrated knowledge about events surrounding President Kennedy's murder that borders on the encyclopedic. He is one of the few researchers left that have been there from the beginning, fighting for the truth. His familiarity with others' research extends far beyond just the photographic evidence, even though that is his area of specialty. In addition, Jack has spent his life in the DFW area, which has helped give him certain unique insights into the case. The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion. I agree with Robert Charles-Dunne when he said, ...."the Z-film issue is secondary and has been superceded by other evidence in the case." As usual, Robert quickly gets to the heart of a matter. A few weeks ago, Jack was going to give his thoughts on Donald Norton. I suspect he got sidetracked. Sigh, Hogan spews again.... Jack is a flake, that much is known for a fact, as witnessed by his total failure to understand the very basics of the subject he claims expert status...photography. This has been proven over and over and over again...his work is the work of a fool. Jack also cannot tell the truth, again as witnessed by his last post on this thread. Jack is highly confrontational. I play by HIS rules which he established on the JFK cult forum many years ago. I was attacked by Jack and his cohorts while pointing out in a civil manner that Jack was mistaken about his photographic claims. Since thats the way he chooses to play I am more than happy to play in the very same manner. Period. He gets no free ride. Am I obsessed with Jack? No. He is simply a very ample and prolific target. That so many of the loon squad find his work compelling only adds to the target base. This place is what one might call a "target rich environment". I am however obsessed with facts and in case you have missed it, Jack offers very little in the way of facts. It's actually the opposite, Jack stock in trade is disinformation. And thats a fact. [

Jack, Your reputation and legacy is fine - don't let these bastards bother you....best to [if you can] ignore them as they are as meanspirited as they are out, in the end, to denegrade the best of your work - while 'posing' as critical of the lesser of it. Character assassins only.......snipers from their internet lairs. OH Peter, I see you are a member of the LOON squad. Jacks works have been shown TIME AND TIME again with COLD HARD FACT to be nothing more than ignorant ramblings. So for you to say that his legacy is intact can only mean one thing...his legacy of photographic disinformation and downright falsehoods IS intact. You are among the most ignorant of the bunch of LOONS ( Shanet is a very close second) when it comes to the photography of JFK. Your stupidity allows you to wallow in the gross incompentence of Jack White and somehow (maybe due to the lack of functioning brain cells) tag along with the disimformation, calling it truth. You too it seems are incabable of truth. (big suprise) WOW! I'm thinking YOU just might get to go right to the head of the LOON class! Keep up the good work there donnie....

No Jack it is YOu who is incapable of truth...you prove it to the world every day. That Groden would disown your z film alteration work and your feeble attempts at "photo interpretation" is simply the wise thing to do. After all anyone who finds your works compelling is nothing more than a loon.

Yes, the alteration claims were tagged nonsense alright ........... within seconds of seeing them and the ridiculous mistakes that were made that helped create those claims. As far as 'some not being sure about alteration' ... those would be the people who don't know why a first generation Life copy of the Zapruder frames would be sharper than a multi-generation MPI version of the Zapruder film. To thoser people - they will always not be sure about anything pertaining to the photographical record. Bill Miller ahh.... the mantra seems I just saw a post on this board that numbered LIFE Z-film frames (even those that were published within the first week). Perhaps one of these wonder boys can tell this forum who assigned numbers to the Z-frames and why the frame designations were not asigned when the issue were published? Why no Z-film frame of Mary Moorman *on the grass* in the Nov 29th 1963 issue of LIFE, or the Memorial issue? Same for the October 2nd 1964 issue, NO Z-film frame published of Mary Moorman *on the grass*. Surely the Zapruder frames were numbered, why didn't LIFE published the Z-frame numbers when publishing the frames in the October 2nd 1964 issue selling the WCR and its conclusions.... No Mary Moorman *on the grass* in Z-film frames, LIFE issue November 25th 1966. The magazine title/cover story: Did Oswald act alone? A MATTER OF REASONABLE DOUBT. Now, we see in LIFE published frames being assigned Z-frame designation numbers. Did Moorman EVER appear in a Z-frame LIFE published the first 3 years after the assassination? Well, well davie, you supporting the Moorman in the street nonsense? Why not, you are ignorant enough to think that stupid idea is possible. Your hole keeps getting deeper and deeper...here let me give you another shovel! Comment on the Armstrong shadow issue that was raised in another thread (you know the one where you told us all you would look into this) and lets see if YOU are a joke when it comes to dealing with issues photographic. Or are you just a loud mouthed loon who has read a book or two ? You and White make quite the pair, shilling for the wack job Fetzer and his all porpose "PhD" Costella! Those two go down in flames everytime they show up in public! White can't open his mouth without proving once again that he has no clue regarding the principals of photography and you...well lets just say you are a miserable failure as a guard dog and even worse as any kind of photo/film expert. Truck on davie, at least you are entertaining.

You know Allen you really should take some photography courses or at least study how a simple change in camera angle can effect how things look in a photograph. There is NOTHING wrong with the placement of the Caddy driver between Willis and Zapruder,. They are absolutly consistant wit h one another. Period. End of story. You would not know an altered photo if it smacked you in the face. You might want to re-evaluate your #2 in Willis...you blew this one big time. BTW, where is your bio and photograph? Do you have any formal training in photography or are you just terminally ignorant like Shanet? If you did study photography you need to ask for a refund because the instruction was a complete failure. Use your refund to BUY A CLUE. Have a nice day.

What is this now pick on Jack White day? When any of you has contributed the amount of time, energy and dedicaton of Jack White, then chuck your wad but til then plese stay on topic. Dawn Time, energy and dedication are for naught IF your skill set is lacking, and Jacks skill set is more than lacking, it's MISSING IN ACTION. Jack has no "wad". He has been shooting blanks. And btw Len WAS on topic. wad, shooting blanks -- skill sets? Next you'll be challenging NASA photos -- pass the foam-cor, drygoods photog, roflmfao! Well lookie here..davies back. You ever gonna deal with that Armstrong shadow issue, you know the one you said you would "look into"? Cat got your tongue? Know you will have to step all over White and Costella? Afraid? Or just plain stupid? Step on up davie and put it out there for once in your life. IF not then might I suggest you just STFU.

What is this now pick on Jack White day? When any of you has contributed the amount of time, energy and dedicaton of Jack White, then chuck your wad but til then plese stay on topic. Dawn Time, energy and dedication are for naught IF your skill set is lacking, and Jacks skill set is more than lacking, it's MISSING IN ACTION. Jack has no "wad". He has been shooting blanks. And btw Len WAS on topic.

You know Jack, for once I actually agree with you. You obstruct justice almost every day by posting misinformation and outright disinformation concerning the photography from JFK, 9/11 and the Apollo program. Here's hoping your day of justice will come. (changed on edit: I am sorry that my original words were too strong)

This is, as usual, a ridiculous attack upon a critical thinker with courage and an open mind. Remember, respected FORUM member JACK WHITE was the first to notice the KEYSTONE aspect of the backyard photos and he was the first one who brought out the fact that the easel upon which the backyard photos were created was tilted --- thank you JACK WHITE !!! Which is of course simply horsecrap. That you find this crap convincing speaks volumes about YOUR lack of critical thinking skills.

Bump for davie....are you a man of your word? Ever going to deal with this or are you gutless? Ah... what word might that be? Don't see where there's any Lone Neuter's I'm looking to impress with my truth? Certainly not slumming for new clients. Who do I have to impress with ANY word, hell this is the internet... If you can't convince me, the guy that can't prove the Z-film is altered, you got dog-pokey, champ.... nothing but white noise so deal with it.... Now, where's a functioning NASA link! NASA's inventory control number would be nice, special, SPECIAL NASA Apollo photo... if you cropped the image an overlay of the crop OVER the original -- we'll go from there, You don't have the time, be a man; have Miller do it! Try post 56 in this thread davie, it appears that among your other faults, reading is one as well... Can't wait to see exactly HOW you deal with Armstrongs shadow, seeing as how White and Costella say impossibe but simply taking a camera ouside in late afternoon proves them wrong! Have fun there sport, lets see if you are honest. Another bump for Healy....still waiting davie... Bumping again...ever gonna respond like you said you would Healy? Man of your word or not?

Not anymore maskboy... And exactly what is a "positive discussion"? Parroting the idiotic posts of Jack White?

Bump for davie....are you a man of your word? Ever going to deal with this or are you gutless? Ah... what word might that be? Don't see where there's any Lone Neuter's I'm looking to impress with my truth? Certainly not slumming for new clients. Who do I have to impress with ANY word, hell this is the internet... If you can't convince me, the guy that can't prove the Z-film is altered, you got dog-pokey, champ.... nothing but white noise so deal with it.... Now, where's a functioning NASA link! NASA's inventory control number would be nice, special, SPECIAL NASA Apollo photo... if you cropped the image an overlay of the crop OVER the original -- we'll go from there, You don't have the time, be a man; have Miller do it! Try post 56 in this thread davie, it appears that among your other faults, reading is one as well... Can't wait to see exactly HOW you deal with Armstrongs shadow, seeing as how White and Costella say impossibe but simply taking a camera ouside in late afternoon proves them wrong! Have fun there sport, lets see if you are honest. Another bump for Healy....still waiting davie...

Jack, I wasn't going to put anyone on the spot, but you leave me no choice. Yes, you used to be invited to speak at those conferences, but when you started in with all those bogus alteration claims - the people who put those conferences on have said that they will never allow you to speak in front of their crowds again. I was present during one of those conversations and heard it with my own ears. Since that date you have never been asked to speak in Dallas again .... END OF STORY! Bill Miller Yeh, only Jack would tell us that a camera lens cannot make objects further away look much closer to the camera than they really are ... especially when we have several assassination photos showing a train car that is clear across the RR yard looking as if it is parked just behind the fence. I then posted such a photo of a statue whereas a building that is a block away looks like it is just beyond the statue, but who cares - Jack says it cannot happen. Move over David, we now have 'Baghdad Bob Jack White' in the house! Bill Miller I just wanted to make sure you didn't get the last word Bill LOL!

You can repete it until the cows come home White, its not going to make it true. Did they use a LENS on the dolly camera? Of course they did, another "Jack White Impossible" thats totally possible. Now deal with the REST of your mistakes as detailed in post 29.