Jack White

There are TWO different versions of this photo print. The provenance of both prints is unknown. I looked and cannot find my two copies nor my studies regarding them. The studies likely were three computers ago or lost in a computer crash. I strongly believe that LHO was added to the photo. For example, just look at the gray scale. LHO is the only person with a WHITE t-shirt. His whole gray scale differs from the rest of the photo. Was he the only one with BLACK hair and a BLACK belt, when no other blacks are in the picture? Jack

John is reading this thread and sends the following comments: Jack, Mr. Josephs is correct. Of course the items from Beckley and the Paine's were not the only items of evidence, but numerically these items were the vast majority of evidence on hand during the evening of Nov 22/23 and they were sent to Washington, DC without a proper chain of custody. The important issue, in my view, is that the FBI acquired and then manipulated this evidence (and a lot of other evidence in this case--rifle, minox, pistol, Klein's microfilm, etc) and we can now see how this happened. Researchers first need to understand that the FBI manipulated a lot of evidence in this case. Then when they look at individual items of evidence they only need to determine by whom, where, and when the item was found (initials), where the items was taken (inventory list), and the ultimate disposition of the item (continuous chain of custody in written form). If we (researchers) cannot reliably "track" a particular piece of evidence, then everything around that piece of evidence lacks credibility (example: Money Order allegedly used to purchase the ML rifle). My point is that all items of evidence should be questioned until properly verified. Every witness interviewed by the FBI should be shown their interview and asked if it is accurate. Warren Commission testimony should be read in an attempt to understand what questions were NOT asked or what testimony was LIMITED to specific questions asked by counsel (example: Klein's VP Waldman was not asked if the money order was deposited to the Klein's bank account). Transcripts of WC testimony should be compared to the written testimony that appears in the Warren Volumes for alterations/changes (example: changes made to James Cadigan's testimony). These people (FBI, WC) were on a mission to convict LHO in the mind of the public. We (researchers) have for many years, and will continue for many years into the future, worked tirelessly to understand and unravel their mischievious conduct. It is done one item at a time. John

There is NO WAY that Holt is one of the tramps. Jack Jack, I had a change of heart. I agree with you about Hunt being the little tramp. The tramp resembles Hunt more than Chauncey Holt -- I was trying to go by size. But Hunt could have said he was taller than he was. Men do that sometimes in my experience. What also changed my mind was the picture I have linked below. The woman in the picture, looking shocked, with her hand to her mouth is Dorothy Hunt. I compared her picture in 1963 to that of her in 1972, which Spartacus has. I knew she was CIA and realized she was standing only a few feet from her husband E. Howard Hunt, the short tramp. What a wonderful day, out and about on Nov.22, 1963. What a sense of accomplishment they shared. Also on the far right of this photo, see Billy Lovelady talking to a policeman on the steps of the TSBD. This occurred about 2 hours after the shooting. The photo provided in the first post above, the man in the trench coat and fedora could also be Hunt. To me, he looks like he's about to go up the Grassy Knoll. Did he play 2 parts in the Assassination? Kathy C Jack, I just watched this footage on C-Span -- material of Dealey Plaza, etc. that a news network had thrown out. Somewhere in the middle of it the police are taking a very short man -- at first I thought he was a kid -- into custody. I believe it was Chauncey Holt! And now I see he couldn't be one of the tramps. Then a few minutes later you see Oswald being led in. I wonder if they were going to use Chauncey as the patsy, but they zoomed in on Oswald. Chauncey is a weird-looking dude. Someone I knew used to ask rhetorically, What would have happened if Oswald missed work that day? Maybe Chauncey would become their patsy. I don't know where he was in Dealey Plaza. Does anyone know? He didn't work with Oswald. Can you imagine a Chauncey Holt lookalike? The woman with her hand to her face in the picture above is Dorothy Hunt. She looks like she's shocked, but actually, I think she saw the camera and put her hand like that to disguise her face. I know E. Howard Hunt made faces so as not to be identified. He was a clever rascal. I think he lied about his height. But Chauncey was a lot shorter than 5'4, as he claimed, if that was him in the footage I just saw. Kathy C The woman is a reporter....DMN I think.

Armstrong covers this in H&L. Jack Thanks Jack... as soon as I have a few hundred lying around I will get myself a copy... until then is it okay to post this and discuss it? Can you paraphrase Armstrong for us? Is this the only mention of the FBI taking ALL OTHER EVIDENCE that night? I forwarded your posting to John. Here is his reply: Now, this is from memory as I have not studied my research materials in over 7 years. "Oswald's possessions" were gathered, initialed, and dated by DPD officers from the Paine's and from Beckley. A handwritten inventory was made of items taken from the Paine's which, when typed at DPD headquarters, later became the Stoval A & B Exhibits. Items gathered from Beckley were listed in the Turner #1 Exhibit. These items (some 225 items ??) were taken to Washington DC the evening of the assassination. These items were, according to James Cadigan, photographed at FBI headquarters. Some, but not all, of these items were processed with fingerprint ink. But before FBI lab technicians had time to "de-silver" the fingerprint ink these items were returned to Dallas. When in Dallas the FBI and DPD jointly photographed and inventoried "Oswald's possessions." However, there were now 455 items of evidence (many more than the original 225 items sent to FBI headquarters on 11/22). While visiting the National Archives in the mid-1990's I was allowed to view these items. I placed the DPD inventories (225 items) on my left side and the joint DPD/FBI inventory on my right side. As I examined each item, in numerical sequence according to the joint DPD/FBI inventory, I looked for the original handwritten initials and dates by DPD officers. Each and every item listed on the Stoval and Turner Exhibits had the initials of one or more DPD officers and the date (about 225 items) and also the initials of an FBI official who received these items in Washington, DC. ALL OF THESE ORIGINAL 225 ITEMS WERE THEN LISTED ON THE JOINT DPD/FBI INVENTORY, BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE REMAINING 230 ITEMS LISTED (ITEMS THAT WERE ADDED IN WASHINGTON, DC) ON THE JOINT DPD/FBI INVENTORY HAD INITIALS OF THE DALLAS POLICE. THE ONLY INITIALS THAT APPEAR ON THESE 230 ITEMS WERE THOSE OF FBI OFFICIALS. THEREFORE, ORIGINAL ITEMS OF EVIDENCE SHOW THE INITIALS AND DATES BY DPD OFFICERS; ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN THE JOINT FBI/DPD INVENTORY THAT DO NOT HAVE THE INITIALS AND DATES BY DPD OFFICERS WERE THE ITEMS ADDED TO THE INVENTORY BY THE FBI. Apparently, someone at the National Archives was bothered or annoyed by my examination of Oswald's possessions. Now, researchers are not allowed access to these items. They are allowed only to view photographs of these items (which in many cases show only the front view and not the back view where most of the DPD initials and dates appear). But the remaining 200 items listed on the joint FBI/DPD inventory had not been initialed by DPD officers or dated (only initials by FBI officials in Washington). It was these items that were "added" to "Oswald's possessions" before being returned to DPD headquarters. To me one of the most significant items added were Oswald's w-2 forms allegedly showing his employment at Dolly Shoe, Tujague's, JR Michaels, and the Pfisterer Dental Lab in 1955-56. Not a single one of these items has the initials of DPD officers--only initials of FBI officials in Washington, DC. These items were added to help reconstruct the "official" biographical history for one Lee Harvey Oswald. After these items were photographed at DPD headquarters they were taken by the FBI back to Washington, DC. The FBI promised to give the Dallas Police photographs of the evidence, which they did but with many photographs missing. On 12/3/63 DPD Chief Jesse Curry wrote a letter to FBI agent Gordon Shanklin and said that items (photographs) 164-360 were missing. The FBI responded by saying items 164-360 were not photographically produced because of "faulty technique." A year or two after examining Oswald's possessions I made my once a year trip to the Archives and asked to examine some of the items, and was refused. Much to my dismay, I was given photographs of these items to examine. And then I asked to see all of the original photographs from the joint DPD/FBI inventory. As I examined the photographs everything was normal until I looked at item 164. Beginning with item 164 and continuing thru item 360 each item in the photographs contained small to large amounts of what appeared to be fingerprint ink. Then I remembered Cadigan saying that these items had to be returned to Dallas and they didn't have time to "de-silver" these items. Now I understood why the FBI never returned photographs of items 164-360 to the Dallas Police. These photographs showed that, when taken by the FBI/DPD in Dallas a few days after the assassination, these items had already been processed for fingerprints at FBI headquarters. In other words, these photographs showed clearly that Oswald's possessions had been secretly taken to FBI headquarters within hours of the assassination, examined, tested for fingerprints, and secretly returned to Dallas. There was no "chain of custody" and, as we have seen, the opportunity for the FBI to manipulate any or all items of evidence. Now, you may find it interesting that Cadigan (document expert), English (head of Forensic Science Laboratory), Kaylor (fingerprint expert), Belmont (Hoover's special assistant to the WC), Nichols (#3 man in the FBI and laison to the WC) all died in 1977. Sullivan (head of Div 59) died in 1978. All documents relating to the above, and in fact all documents in my JFK collection, have been copied by Baylor and should already be on-line soon.

Just to clarify things Jack. Are you saying that NIX is not genuine. ? And that because it is a fabrication i am wasting my time studying it.. ? Robin. I am not addressing ANY particular person. All films should be studied, both their content and provenance. Among the things studied should be the authenticity. A careful such study shows the Nix film to be not genuine as shot by Nix. Once it is determined that such a film is inauthentic, it is only common sense not to rely on it as evidence, but rather to look into the alterations rather than what is shown, and try to determine what meaning, if any, should be placed on what is seen, what is changed, and what is removed. It is NOT a waste of time to study the films in this manner. It IS a waste of time to rely on altered films for evidentiary value. Jack

First, Armstrong is incorrect to claim the evidence was photographed on the 22nd. No such photos exist. The only evidence photos in the Dallas Archives taken on the 22nd were the photographs of the crime scene, building, rifle and trigger guard. No photos of the bag and boxes. No photos even of the lunch bag. The photos with all the evidence laid out on the floor were taken on the 26th, as the DPD prepared to send ALL the evidence back to Washington. (They, of course, forgot a few things.) As far as Cadigan, David, you reminded me... From patspeer.com, chapter 20: In 1992, a presumably unaltered transcript of the 4-30-64 testimony of FBI paper expert James Cadigan was released by the National Archives. As reported by Jim Marrs, this transcript revealed that, when asked if he knew why an identification card of Oswald's was damaged by silver nitrate, a chemical used to unveil hidden fingerprints, Cadigan responded "I could only speculate...It may be that there was a very large volume of evidence being examined at the time. Time was of the essence, and this material, I believe, was returned to the Dallas Police within two or three days, and it was merely in my opinion a question of time. We have a very large volume of evidence. There was insufficient time to desilver it. And I think in many instances where latent prints are developed they do not desilver it." Well, one can see how the FBI might find this embarrassing. But this was sworn testimony, supposedly taken to create a permanent record of the murder of a president and its aftermath. How can changing Cadigan's rambling answer to "No, this is a latent fingerprint issue", as was done, possibly be justified? This is false, as I recall. The police photographed all the evidence with a microfilm camera. John has the microfilm. He bought a microfilm reader specifically to examine the DPD photos. I think this is covered in H&L. Jack

All studies of films ASSUME that they are genuine. First establish that a film is genuine before using it as evidence. If the films are fabrications, then study of the fabrications is more important than what the extant films show. Jack

Armstrong covers this in H&L. Jack

More good studies of the faked document. This is NOT about RACE. It is about lying, deception, and ineligibility for office. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292457 http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292449 http://www.henrymakow.com/imaging_ex...s_obama_b.html It is also about the obvious FAKING of an official document, a crime. Study of this may lead to the cabal behind Obama...Rockefeller, Annenberg, Brezinski, Bildebergers, etc. Please do not say it is "political" or "racial"...or even trivial. It is criminal. Jack

do you know if the written material he removed from his book manuscirpt will be made available as well? I suppose you mean the original H&L draft, which ran twice as long, and underwent many editings to get it down to a thousand pages? I doubt it. What is being scanned by Baylor is all of John's original documents. However, those documents will include MUCH research not in the final manuscript, such as the Ziger sisters and Donald O. Norton. But I doubt that John's writings about those documents will be included. Jack

From John: Jack, Please advise interested parties that the first 6 of my volumes are now on line and 3 more volumes will be available within the next few days: http://www.baylor.edu/lib/poage/jfk/index.php?id=73168 John PS...Sorry, this is only a listing of the documents available. The online access is not yet operational.

I protest this new UNDERLINING of words in our writings not intended to be underlined by the author. This is a new form of censorship and an infringement on freedom of speech. Jack

I have never believed the myth that all the dead dinosaurs that ever existed were responsible for all the world supply of oil. That is not logical and no proof supports it. The myth is perpetuated by those who profit from an artificial scarcity of petroleum. The abiotic theory of a "natural geological mechanism" which produces oil and gas makes much more sense to me. Jack PS...I resent the new forum policy of linking words in text that I write to articles which I do not intend! Is there any way to undo this annoying practice?

What is needed is a book on another TSBD employee...Carolyn Arnold. Claiming the WC misrepresented what she told them, she changed her name and job, and gave her lawyer a deposition to be released in event of the suspicious death of her children or herself. She became an executive at a high profile enterprise in the DFW area. Jack

You have squandered any remaining credibility.

Colby is wrong as usual. Here is the "video missile" path compared to the "AA77 official" path. Numerous witnesses described the "plane" coming over Arlington National Cemetery instead of over the Naval Annex. Pilots for truth did a video showing it coming north of the Citgo station, not the official south. Jack

In addition to the individuals listed above, there are a few others whose testimony indicates there was a different or "other" film of the assassination. Dan Rather saw the Zapruder film within two days of the assassination and reported that " ,,, the Presidents head went forward with considerable violence...". There is no way to reconcile Rather's observation with the current Zapruder film which shows JFK being knocked back and to his left. " Former FBI official and J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach recently provided further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film (albeit unintentionally and unknowingly, I'm sure). DeLoach recalls in his book HOOVER'S FBI that he watched the Zapruder film at FBI HQ the day after the shooting and that he saw Kennedy "PITCHING SUDDENLY FORWARD" in the film. No such motion, of course, is seen in the current film." Link from a post in another thread by Bernice Moore Abraham Zapruder gave an interview soon after the assassination in which he stated that he started filming as the Limo was turning onto Elm Street. The current film does not include the Limo turning. THANKS for bringing up these additional mentions of anomalies. Being from 1963, they are extremely strong testimonies! Jack

My opinion is that LHO is probably inserted in the picnic photo. Its provenance is unknown. Jack

For some reason the film is flipped horizontally, making it appear that the "missile" hits the WRONG side of the Pentagon. Flipping the image shows the correct orientation, striking just to the right of the heliport. I am attempting to attach, but am likely still blocked from posting images. Jack Oooooops, the image posted! You're right Jack the flipping of the orientation did confuse me but we are still left with the facts that: - the "missile" doesn't start at the edge of the frame - there are no reports of a helicopter in the area at the time - there is no explanation as to the provenance of the clip let alone why it took 9 years to turn up. - the clip is very low resolution and could easily have been faked with any number of programs. The clip IS very suspicious for various reasons. However, that alone does does not make it fake. It just makes it suspicious. Jack

For some reason the film is flipped horizontally, making it appear that the "missile" hits the WRONG side of the Pentagon. Flipping the image shows the correct orientation, striking just to the right of the heliport. I am attempting to attach, but am likely still blocked from posting images. Jack Oooooops, the image posted!

Jesse is strongly influenced by Jim...good on most things except JVB. Jack

I'm not that surprised by the fact that in your opinion everything add up. But since you are asking, let me then point out a few more things: (1) Why would this other film have been aired on a TV-station? Having in mind your own arguments, you don't find this odd? And why can it not be established which TV-station and when this presumably occurred? Perfectly explainable to you? I'm all ears.. Mili Cranor is the only one who saw it at A TV NETWORK OFFICES IN NYC, not aired on a TV station. The name of the network is known. (2) Again, having your own arguments in mind - why, for what reason, would anyone be invited to watch this film, much less well known JFK researchers? And why can those who claim to have watched it not disclose the details about those events? Oh, I agree, it's very easy to speculate about it, but I prefer to know, not speculate. All of these people except Reymond saw it in the 1960s or 70s. At that time none of them were well known JFK researchers. Most saw it as part of a training session. Reymond saw it because he is a journalist, and was shown it by a retired intelligence agent. (3) Among all thousands of photos and films taken this day, this other film would no doubt be the most sensational piece of them all - if it really exists, and if it's authentic. You don't find it strange that despite people having watched it and a TV station allegedly aired it - it's still nowhere to be found today? No leakage? Does that make sense? It existed at the time that these credible persons viewed it independently at different times and places. What they viewed was evidently one of many copies available within the governmental settings where shown. (4) Judging by some of what's been said in this thread and the other one a couple of weeks ago, it's "unlikely" that this is the unaltered Z-film. So, from where was it shot? The Pergola? Of those people in close proximity to the Pergola during the shooting, how many have stated that there was another film being taken during the event? And for what reason would anyone be hiding somewhere in order to film the Presidential Limo when it passes by? Does any of this make sense? The film is NOT any form of Zapruder film. It is called THE OTHER FILM very similar to the Z film. At the time in the 1960s or 70s when the persons saw it, they THOUGHT they were seeing the Z film. ONLY in retrospect years later AFTER seeing the Z film did they realize that they had seen a DIFFERENT FILM...better quality, limo turning corner, limo stopping, etc. It is unknown where the photographer was located; he was not necessarily hiding...but all evidence of him is missing from the official record. Even a possibility is that a remotely controlled camera could have been used. Evidence DOES exist that Zapruder was not on the pedestal filming...so the photographer could have even been on the pedestal. (5) Burnham, Cranor and Dellarosa. As I understand it, all three of them have different recollections. If nothing else, that's a good reason all by itself to determine which alleged version is the correct one. Different people seeing such a film at different times and places naturally will not have the same recollections. Their versions are "correct" for the film they saw. The striking thing is that ALL remember the LIMO TURN and the LIMO STOP. It is natural that those who have not seen the other film are skeptical. Jack

I assume you are referring to the assassin... and not the Camera... the camera starts over Zap's shoulder and moves horizontal as it pans slightly to the right with the limo... if the camera was from Arnold's POV I'd think the angles be completely different right from the beginning. DJ I only looked at it once. I did not know the man in the foreground was supposed to be Zapruder. I had the sound off. The latter parts with the end of the wall and men on the steps would be from the Arnold position. The film does not have the "look" of most computer graphics. I do not know what you mean by "the assassin". I saw no assassin. Was I supposed to? Jack

Whatever this is, note that it is from the GORDON ARNOLD location. Jack

Fair enough, Jack. And the perplexing reality is that, as an answer to your question of where do we go from here, this has not been followed through. I could think of a whole range of different questions to ask: (1) Who is in possession of this film? And why? (2) What's the secrecy all about? The Z-film has been out in the open for years. (3) Which television station aired this film, and when? (4) If, as indicated by what I understand, Intelligent Agencys (US/Abroad?)are in the know about this, then why would we believe them in this instance? What would be the reason to think that this film is authentic? (5) How can it be verified that this film exists? As has been stated many times, exceptional claims demands exceptional evidence, sayso's are certainly not enough. To name a few. With all due respect, doesn't your theory beg the question that the 'other film' is actually the unaltered Zapruder film? He didn't present a theory he pointed out logical flaws in an unlikely one. Doesn't your question "beg the question" that the Z-film was altered and that an alternate has been circulated? Then this theory is that a copy of the Z-film(s) was altered to include things that point to conspiracy and that the relatively grainy version(s) that we currently have available, replete with obvious splices and odd anomalies, is actually 'the original'? This IS NOT A THEORY. Several believable people have reported seeing another film (different from the Zapruder film). That is why it is called THE OTHER FILM. It resembles the Z film, but shows events not seen in the Z film. Most saw it BEFORE they saw the Z film, but THOUGHT it was the Z film at the time they saw it. Only later ON SEEING THE Z FILM did they realize the two films were different. They knew they had previously seen the LIMO TURN and LIMO STOP. Jack