Jack White

Now if you understand from this explanation how the + marks got onto the film, then you have to understand

that SINCE THE LIGHT CAME THROUGH THE LENS AND THE GLASS PLATE ONLY ONCE, IT COULD CAST ONLY

A SINGLE SHADOW (+) ON THE FILM WHERE EACH CROSSHAIR WAS ETCHED IN THE GLASS.

Unless you happen to point the camera at a bright enough light source (the sun) that there are internal reflections within the camera (lens flare). Then there will be light passing by the fiducial marks from another angle, casting a second shadow.

Insides of cameras are dense black, which does not cast such light. Such diffuse light would ruin the image, and would not be sharp enough to cast an image.

There is no proof to back such an absurd statement.

Jack

If Miller shows up at any mention of Jean in the street, can Tink be far behind?

This pair shows up when something of importance is mentioned.

Jack

Edited:

Altgens 6 shows shadows said to be Brehm, Hill and Moorman (which could be faked)...but is the exposure

is taken while the limousine is still far away up the street, so does not preclude Hill and Moorman stepping

INTO THE STREET WHEN THE LIMOUSINE CAME CLOSER. Altgens telephoto lens appears to compress the

distances in the exposure. For instance in Zapruder we see Brehm quite far from Hill, but in Altgens they

appear to be right next to each other.

Jack

Jack, you ignore the fact that a photographic expert from Hasselblad has told you that you are wrong.

All you are doing is trying to smear them, trying to cast aspersions upon the person whilst you have not explained how he is wrong.

If you cannot provide scientific evidence as to why you are right and Mr Pettersson is wrong, then why should we believe you?

Mr Pettersson is the Product Manager and optics expert at Hasselblad. He is know world-wide for his expertise in photography, in particular Hasselblad cameras, and is the primary inventor in at least three photographic patents. His expertise and qualifications are known.

Please prove how he is wrong.

He lies.

That's getting very close to being libellous. Unless you have proof?

Nonsense. The truth cannot be libelous. You are uninformed.

Jack

Another point I fail to understand is, why do the fiducial shadows prove that the photos were shot on Earth? Jack? Anyone?

BECAUSE the crosshairs cast shadows, they CANNOT be in the camera film plane. They have to be on an overlay

over a photocopy print.

IF in the camera, the crosshairs ARE THE SHADOWS (keeping light from the film) and cannot cast an ADDITIONAL shadow.

Jack

You missed my point. I'll try to be clearer.

For argument's sake, let's assume you're right about the crosshairs not being in the camera. How does the overlay of cross-hairs on the images (yet somehow missing out the brighter/over-exposed areas of white) prove that the photos must have been taken on Earth? Why can't they have been taken on the moon, and the cross-hairs added later? (They weren't added later, I'm just playing Devil's advocate).

A reasonable question. Here is the reasonable answer.

According to all I have read about the Hasselblad Apollo cameras, they had a clear glass plate between the lens

and the film. I think it was called a Rousseau plate or something like that (immaterial). The clear glass allowed

the image photographed to pass through it with no loss in quality. The light passed through when the shutter

was operated to take a photo. It passed through ONLY ONCE (ONCE ONLY) when the shutter was snapped.

Etched into the glass plate, however was a series of small black+ marks evenly spaced over its surface, with a

larger central + mark. These were variously called fidicials, reticules, reticles or crosshairs. They were placed there

for photogrammetric purposes. Photogrammetry is a fancy word for taking measurements on a photograph.

When the light came through the shutter when it was opened the ONE TIME it was opened for each photo,

the BLACK CROSSHAIRS BLOCKED THE LIGHT FROM REACHING THE FILM BEYOND IT! On b/w film, this produced

a CLEAR area on the film, which printed as BLACK +s. On color film, this blocked light, so nothing was exposed,

leaving the color film with BLACK + marks.

Now if you understand from this explanation how the + marks got onto the film, then you have to understand

that SINCE THE LIGHT CAME THROUGH THE LENS AND THE GLASS PLATE ONLY ONCE, IT COULD CAST ONLY

A SINGLE SHADOW (+) ON THE FILM WHERE EACH CROSSHAIR WAS ETCHED IN THE GLASS.

Since each reticle cross could have only ONE SHADOW, it CANNOT have TWO SHADOWS. Therefore anyone

who says otherwise is either uninformed, practicing disinformation, or lying.

It is quite elementary and simple to understand.

Jack

Jack, you ignore the fact that a photographic expert from Hasselblad has told you that you are wrong.

All you are doing is trying to smear them, trying to cast aspersions upon the person whilst you have not explained how he is wrong.

If you cannot provide scientific evidence as to why you are right and Mr Pettersson is wrong, then why should we believe you?

Mr Pettersson is the Product Manager and optics expert at Hasselblad. He is know world-wide for his expertise in photography, in particular Hasselblad cameras, and is the primary inventor in at least three photographic patents. His expertise and qualifications are known.

Please prove how he is wrong.

He lies.

As I recall, it was West's assistant Breneman who first exposed the mislocation of Station C.

Jack

Another point I fail to understand is, why do the fiducial shadows prove that the photos were shot on Earth? Jack? Anyone?

BECAUSE the crosshairs cast shadows, they CANNOT be in the camera film plane. They have to be on an overlay

over a photocopy print.

IF in the camera, the crosshairs ARE THE SHADOWS (keeping light from the film) and cannot cast an ADDITIONAL shadow.

Jack

My computer did this.

So Zapruder, Nix, Muchmoore, Altgens, Bronson, etc... were all altered????

Kind of hard to see how all of these were changed to obscure their being in the street, just to cover zapruder.

I have seen that interview with Jean/Moorman... Don't know what to tell you other than moving them to the grass in every instance

is a bit of a stretch... the mystery continues...

Yes...all were altered to match each other as closely as possible.

Jack

All of this is deplorable.

Part of the reason is the forum advertises itself as a DEBATE FORUM. That is at the root of the problem.

I want no part of "debating" anyone about my opinions, beliefs, research, or facts....or his.

Everyone should be able to do this, including Mr. Morrow and those who attack him.

It happens that I agree with many of his assertions about LBJ, whose evil may have been the greatest of any American.

Enough cannot be said about what a horrible criminal he was.

But I also disagree with many of Morrow's assertions, particularly that LBJ was the MASTERMIND of the assassination.

I have read all his postings. I have no desire to debate Morrow's opinions or judge his personalities. I find some of

what he says, useful, and some not. LBJ was ESSENTIAL to the assassination...but that is all. He was evil enough that

he embraced it to advance personally. He cooperated and facilitated it to the utmost. He may have even been the

guiding hand behind "assigned parts" of it...but look elsewhere for the mastermind. Start looking by examining

Allen Dulles and his handlers and work your way UPWARD to the real masterminds behind the puppet show.

Others ought to do the same.

Jack

Thanks for the clarification, Pamela.

To me, JVB is a pitiable character, regardless of what is true or false. If nothing else, she suffers from an unusual compulsion.

Jack

Why was Pamela TAKING INSTRUCTIONS from Judyth?

Jack

Barb sums up the absurdity of it well:

The tentacles of Baker's claims are everywhere, in nearly every facet of New Orleans that one tries to research, and into some things in Dallas as well.Name almost anyone in New Orleans who has ever been mentioned as possibly having something to do with the assassination and Baker knew them,knew their secrets,knew their activities...or worked with them on certain things herself. She was everywhere ... Marcello's hangouts,Bannister's office,the Trade Mart leafleting,assorted notorious clubs,Clinton,Jackson,etc. Haslam's books and claims are another area ... Judyth references Haslam for some things and refers to him as a witness as well as an author.She uses him to shore up parts of her story,but what really supports Haslam's story in the first place .... especially as regards Sherman's work,death .... and a "secret" linear accelerator?

This definitely does not belong in the JFK section.

It was JFK postings which were deleted.

I just got the email and immediately posted a message here to contact you.

We were both sending the warnings at the same time.

Jack

Bernice...I believe you email identity has been stolen by someone saying you are

stranded in Europe and to please send a large sum of money to your hotel.

Please respond so this may be exposed as a hoax.

I got the same email several years ago with the same sad story.

Beware.

Jack

Here is a very interesting handwriting comparison.

Note that OswALD and DonALD are virtually identical.

John colllected dozens of Norton signatures from public legal documents.

Jack

Are there any photos available of Donald O. Norton anywhere? I have looked and cannot find any except the one I have attached. Is this him? Thanks,

Zach

In this pic I see no resemblance to any LHO pics but in the two pics that Jack posted below I see an extraordinary similarity. Hard to believe the Norton Zach posted is the same person in the school pic. I suppose some people do change over time. But I can take a junior high pic of me and compare it to one taken last week and there is little difference, just a few grey hairs. Since grading much of Harvey and Lee I am now most interested in Norton.

Thanks Zach and Jack.

Dawn

Thanks, Dawn. I have lots more on Norton and will try to find some and post it. Armstrong spent

six months on Norton, including weeks spent in Ohio and Florida, checking public records. Norton

always seemed to have a large supply of money and many businesses which went bankrupt, but

he always surfaced again in a new enterprise. He seemed to have connections to intelligence groups,

even to being associated with "retirement homes" for government agents. He changed residences

frequently, often moving "in the middle of the night" (there one day, gone the next). John has a

notebook full of his investigations.

Jack

Excellent thinking, Daniel. The starting point in INVESTIGATING is determining WHAT HAPPENED, not how it happened.

Thus, if there were TWO CASKETS, wondering about HOW that was achieved is less important than the known facts.

If things are MISSING FROM FILMS that are known to have happened, that is more important than HOW it happened.

WHAT HAPPENED happened. How it happened is largely opinion and speculation.

Jack

However, that you and Horne "reject theories that we did not go to the moon (multiple times, I might add) or the 9/11 theories propounded on this board" are opinions

not supported by the facts. Those who know the facts of the cases you mention can successfully defend any point you object to, much in the manner that Z film alteration can be explained.

Jack

Still waiting for you to clarify whether you believe the missions were faked or only believe the photos were faked, you have made contradictory statements in this regard.

I have made clear many times: The PHOTOS of the Apollo missions are NOT GENUINE. Whether or not men reached the moon and returned seems beyond actual proof.

However, opinions can be drawn from many inferences of sophisticated fakery.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

Another inference may be drawn from the "successful" missions of 40 years ago and the NASA admissions of today that present technology is not sufficient to permit

moon missions for another "20 years". If they could do it 40 years ago, why is it NOW IMPOSSIBLE?

Jack

Just to spell out my own position on these matters. . . :

Jack’s heart is in the right place, but I disagree with him on certain specifics.

1. I agree completely that the limo stopped. There is no question (in my mind) about the validity of that statement. I interviewed the key witnesses back in November, 1971, and I believe what they told me. (Moreover, if that is true, then more than one film must have been faked). The films of Dealey Plaza must have been accessed, reviewed, and edited—and in making this statement, I am not claiming to know how the particulars, just that something of this sort must have occurred, to explain the fact that the “car stop” was removed from more than one film.

2. Because of that, I understand (and am very sympathetic to) the idea that “altered reality” is a legitimate way of describing what happened. How else should one describe a situation in which multiple film records were altered?

3. One place---an important one--where I disagree with Jack White: I do not believe that Zapruder was not up on the pedestal, and did not take the film (or “a” film).

4. The alteration of films—notice, I said films (plural)—in Dealey Plaza was a critical (and central) part of the plot to kill President Kennedy. The autopsy had to be falsified, but also bystander film had to be dealt with. Exactly how this was accomplished is as yet unresolved—at least, from the standpoint of published information.

5. It is my personal opinion that, starting later on Friday evening, Zapruder –who was not previously involved in any plotting or any collusion--was figuratively (if not literally) given a tap on the shoulder and brought into collusion with others, along with some explanation as to why his cooperation was needed; and that further, from that point onward, he knowingly (if not intentionally) participated in this operation. He did so by surrendering his film to those he believed to be legitimate reps of “the government” which then led to a situation in which an altered film was back in his possession by Saturday morning, for sale to LIFE magazine.

6. Did Zapruder know that the film he was provided back (for sale) did not have the same image content as the one he took? That is a most interesting question.

7. I do not claim to know Zapruder’s state of mind on Friday night, or what he thought he was involved in; just that he was “cooperating” with legitimate authority, and was –very likely—paid handsomely for his help. We know the contract price jumped from $50,000 on Saturday to $150,000 on Monday, 11/25/63 (a fact that was concealed from the public for years); and I would assume there was probably unacknowledged cash, possibly a lot of cash, that was paid, as well. (This latter statement is my personal opinion).

I am truly sorry to see that the puzzle of how the film was “altered so fast”—which is truly the heart of the matter if one is to attempt to “solve” the Kennedy assassination---has led to (what I believe) are incorrect hypotheses as to how it was altered.

Personally, I find it ironic that those who are smart enough to think “outside the box” on this issue of film alteration happen to entertain hypotheses in other areas which I do not believe to be true. Specifically, I am referring here to theories that we did not go to the moon, and/or theories re 9/11—i.e., that the World Trade Center was the result of controlled demolition, or that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane.

In my opinion, neither the media nor the public will ever take seriously claims of Zapruder film alteration if those who propound them also are tied to conspiracy theories about faked moon landings and/or 9/11. However, I realize that those who subscribe to these theories are sincere, and so there is not much that can be done about this awkward situation. Jack White has meticulously reviewed the Dealey Plaza films and many of his observations are important.

I know that Doug Horne feels much the same way. We both believe the Z film was altered (although we do not agree as to the particulars of how it was done) but we also reject theories that we did not go to the moon (multiple times, I might add) or the 9/11 theories propounded on this board.

Happy New Year.

DSL

1/01/2011; 11:45 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Thanks, David...I agree with nearly everything you say UNTIL your last paragraph. All your comments regarding the DP films are "reasonable", most are "probable, and a few are "debatable."

For instance NO PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD supports the allegation that Zapruder was on the pedestal. The man seen on the pedestal is seen to be as small as less than 5 feet, while Abe

was nearly six feet tall.

However, that you and Horne "reject theories that we did not go to the moon (multiple times, I might add) or the 9/11 theories propounded on this board" are opinions

not supported by the facts. Those who know the facts of the cases you mention can successfully defend any point you object to, much in the manner that Z film alteration can be explained.

Jack

Yes. That is a scan I made of Norton from a brochure he produced for one of his "businesses".

Jack

Here is a comparison I made of LHO marine pic and DON high school yearbook pic.

Jack

Here is another.

Yes. That is a scan I made of Norton from a brochure he produced for one of his "businesses".

Jack

Here is a comparison I made of LHO marine pic and DON high school yearbook pic.

Jack