Jonathan Cohen

As has been discussed on numerous prior threads here, the photo enhancements Wilson claims to have been able to produce have never been peer-reviewed and are outlandish beyond belief.

Altgens 6 was transmitted over the wires 25 minutes after the assassination. That alone should disprove any speculation that it was somehow altered to include such things as "face masks" ...

On 10/16/2019 at 4:39 PM, Ty Carpenter said:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wisconsin-man-ordered-pay-450k-sandy-hook-father/story?id=66318604&cid=social_twitter_abcn

 

It's heartening to know there are consequences for what Mr. Pozner so accurately describes as "the pain and terror" Fetzer "purposefully inflicted" on him and other Sandy Hook families.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The most shameful thing you and Mr. Parker are doing is to besmirch the name and memory of the late, great Jack White, in my opinion the most important researcher who ever graced the pages of this forum.  Shame on you both!

Jack White may have been the nicest guy on planet earth, but his theories have been authoritatively proven wrong time after time, be it on the "Moorman in the street" issue, the moon landing "hoax" or his support for the preposterous and insulting claim that no actual airplanes hit the World Trade Center on 9/11. This is someone in whom you expect us to trust?

So the entire thing is ... a fabrication? For what reason?

30 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I think the original post asked a relevant question, but the predictable response is to sidetrack the discussion with "Forget about that - look at this other stuff that shows H&L isn't as silly as you'd like to think!"  Armstrong believes "Lee" and "fake Marguerite" survived the assassination, but has NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in attempting to determine what became of them?  Really, after delving into the minutiae of their pre-assassination lives to the extent reflected in Harvey & Lee?  At least on the surface, that suggests to me:  You have no interest in what became of them because you know damn well they never existed.

This is the best illustration possible of the complete and utter nonsense that is duplicate Lees and Marguerites. But I'd still love to hear Armstrong defenders explain what happened to all these extra members of the Oswald family.

Paging Paul Trejo....

This looks like something constructed for the autopsy scenes in the movie "JFK," as does the quite implausible/almost assuredly fake "new" photo in the recent Groden book.

Make it 15-6.

Great point, Larry. Just because the film was at NPIC doesn't mean it was altered in the way that so many believe.

Bumping this up since not a single person replied. Tracy, thank you for joining the forum and for your work setting the record straight on the errors and illogical conclusions inherent in the Harvey and Lee theory.

But we can know that she's lying, and she surely is. As Stephen Roy has demonstrated time and again, "she did not have a relationship - ANY relationship, ever - with Oswald, Ferrie, Sherman, Shaw, Ruby, etc. The whole story is untrue."

Robert quote..''Did the perps hire a Hollywood crew, replete with actors, extras and props? Where did they find 8 footers to stand in the grass and a "dwarf", Mary Moorman:-) Where did they stage this production? It would have been tough to pull it off in DP, without being seen""......

As you are well aware, the man ''Jack'' who could have, would have had replies to the references you have expressed above, is no longer with us,therefore '' not available'', let the man rest in peace and imo stop making any snide remarks in reference to perhaps work he did look into at one time,some years back..as you are aware the work was not done by the rest of us, so do not be surprised if you do not get any answers your looking for, but i am sure no doubt, you can make them up ...your entitled to your opinion, so are others, your not going to change so why do you think others should.people are the way they are period....??.b..imo

Bernice,

Not to take this thread off-topic, but Jack White consistently refused to offer any substantive, specific evidence as to how the assassination films could have been altered in the manner he said they had. Moreover, his experiment attempting to prove that Mary Moorman was standing in the street when she took her famous Polaroid has been shown to be completely incorrect.

Never in my life have I read such utter bollocks...

...since the last time Ralph Cinque's "evidence" was posted here.

Complete and utter TRIPE.

Could not agree more. It is baffling and incomprehensible that people actually believe this.

>New research by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and others have established that none of the four crash sites was authentic, which means some kind of video fakery was taking place in New York >that we are now able to explain. (See “Fraud and Fakery in the ‘official account’ of 9/11”.)

Why anyone continues to take absolute, utter nonsense of this ilk seriously is beyond me. It is an insult to the thousands of people who died that day.

Professor Fetzer:

Is it your claim that no planes hit the Trade Center towers that day? If so, how do you respond to the thousands upon thousands of people who saw the impacts with their own eyes? What did we all see, if not real planes? And do you also propose that the passengers on both planes are not actually dead?

It is Burton, Lamson and Colby that are always out of line with personal attacks. They all came here to attack my Apollo

moon hoax studies, from a vicious website called BadAstronomy.

I can remember when Burton's signature line on all his postings was LITTLE WHITE LIES...implying all my postings were lies.

All he has done ever since is harass me. There were the long episodes after he was made moderator where he repeatedly

put me on moderation for using the word CRAP.

I have a long memory. Some here do not.

Jack

To "attack" your studies? So anybody who disagrees with your theories is automatically attacking you? I guess I'm not surprised you view it like this, considering the Clavius Web site (http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/) has authoritatively refuted every single point that Moon hoax theorists like yourself believe is true.

>Over at Lancer there has been discussion about Moorman being altered to hide the BOH exiting of a shot while some have even tried to show what may be 2 different >versions of the photo, pre and post alteration....

David, I don't think this photo could possibly have been altered. It ran over newswires within hours of the assassination, if I'm not mistaken, and there are also photos of the original taken that day. I'd love to hear from a pro-alterationist how it could have been tampered with in the time allotted.

From today's New York Post:

Gerald Posner is joining forces with fellow JFK assassination author Mark Lane to battle further claims of plagiarism. Lane and Posner took opposing views over Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. But now Posner has hired attorney-author Lane in a bid to sue New Times Miami owners Village Voice Media, who claimed Posner ripped off passages from Frank Owen's 2003 book "Clubland." Posner says, "Although I'm convinced Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy, I've always believed that had Mark Lane represented Oswald, he would have won an acquittal. That's why Mark Lane was the obvious choice as my own attorney."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/odd_couple...J#ixzz0nozROlUH

>But as a subscriber to the COVERT ACTION INFORMATION BULLETIN before its

demise, I was studying the AIDS virus more than 30 years ago, and the information

presented strongly indicated that the mutated virus was created by the biowarfare

goons at Fort Detrick Maryland as a part of PROJECT GLOBAL 2000, which was

a eugenics campaign by the Pentagon to reduce world population. It was introduced

in Africa to kill off people of color. If you are not familiar with GLOBAL 2000, you

need to read up on it. It was to KILL OFF UNDESIRABLE people (non-white) through

disease (AIDS), small scale limited wars in ethnic countries, famine in poor nations,

and drug addiction. THE PROGRAM IS STILL IN EFFECT. Read up on EUGENICS.

The Bush family and SKULL AND BONES all promote eugenics. So while Haslam

offers some interesting information about AIDS...it is not ACCIDENTAL as he

purports. It is an instrument of global population control at highest levels to rid

the world of undesirables...blacks, homosexuals and arabs.

Jack, seriously? Just when I was thinking how admirable it was for you to be standing up to Fetzer, you drop this little nugget. AIDS as a "weapon" created by the Pentagon??? Isn't that a little far-fetched considering scientists overwhelmingly agree that HIV jumped from primates to humans between 1884 and 1924?

That being the case, how do we know which of the two is incorrect, or whether it is neither or both that is (or are) incorrect?

More to the point, how was any of this done without the knowledge and/or cooperation of the photographer(s)?

Were Phil's negatives modified and then returned to him? If so, what other changes were made to the other images? If none, why not?

A Polaroid Land camera did not, of course, have any negatives. Is that, together with early publication, a reason to eliminate Moorman from being an alteration candidate?

How do chains of custody figure into any of this? What do other images of this area show? At least one point in this brief study (the bushes) can be attributed to perspective; would need a clearer image to determine if the shade issue is another.

Duke, all very astute points, but ones which Jack will no doubt not address. I have on a few occasions asked to discuss and/or speculate how any of these alterations could actually have been accomplished, but he refuses.

I do not make this stuff up. I am just showing it. You can believe your eyes or whatever you want.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I do not want to engage in arguments about what

the images show. Form your own opinions. If you think it shows something at odds with what I think

the images represent, show us your research on it, instead of just challenging me. I do not have time

nor energy for challenges or speculations about alternative possibilities. Show us.

Jack

Jack, I know you don't make this stuff up, and I'm not trying to argue with you. I just don't happen to agree with what you think you are seeing in these images. You see a policeman wrestling another man to the ground. I do not. You see a little girl materialize out of thin air. I do not. You chalk these things up to massive fraud in the photo record of the assassination. I do not.

Bell captured a very clear montage (thanks to Chris) of the people on the east curb.

Altgens ought to match person for person. But something odd happens in Bell that

is not shown in Altgens. A policeman wrestles a man to the ground.

What's happening?

Jack

(I have not yet compared the Bell people to the other films and photos. Maybe one of

you would like to.)

Jack, wrestling a man to the ground? Huh? Wouldn't this have caught they eye of the many Secret Service agents in the motorcade just feet away, much less any of the dozens of people standing nearby?

One frame anomaly.

Jack, that "yellow object" sure looks to me to the building on the right side of the street that the car is passing. I'm with Robin on the "little girl" analysis too. That doesn't look like any little girl I've ever seen before.

Bingo!

One frame anomaly.

Jack, that "yellow object" sure looks to me to the building on the right side of the street that the car is passing. I'm with Robin on the "little girl" analysis too. That doesn't look like any little girl I've ever seen before.