Jack White

Don asked:

....Do you know what the ASA rating was of the original polaroid film composition that MOORMAN used for capturing her #5? I seem to recall that in those days the Polaroid ASA rating was very high.

Answer: I do not know that for sure. I do not think Trask answers the question either.

After 50+ years in the graphics and photography business, I stand by my definition

of ENHANCEMENT as generally understood IN THE GRAPHICS BUSINESS. Dictionary

writers do not necessarily understand trade terminology, and are not necessarily

up to date anyway. ENHANCEMENT nowadays in photography refers to COMPUTER

ENHANCEMENT. Photographic enhancement means BRINGING OUT SOMETHING WHICH

OTHERWISE COULD NOT BE SEEN. Badgeman on a good print could be seen with

a magnifying glass. Using a magnifying glass is NOT enhancement. Simply making

an enlargement IS NOT enhancement, unless it brings out details which could not

otherwise be seen. Coloring a print is NOT enhancement, but is rather a COLOR-CODING

to provide easier understanding. It does NOT enhance the original in any way, but

rather CHANGES it to aid understanding. Graphics professionals understand what I

am talking about. Lay people do not. You are free to disagree, but then you are talking

about something DIFFERENT than I am. If you are to understand my research,

you must UNDERSTAND MY LANGUAGE, not substitute meanings which I do not intend.

Jack

Good Day Jack.... Your "beef," then, needs to be taken up and resolved with GARY MACK.

.....

I MIGHT HAVE SUSPECTED THAT GARY WAS BEHIND YOUR MISINFORMATION. THOUGH

HE STILL CLAIMS INTEREST IN BADGE MAN (BADGEMAN). HE PUTS OUT LOTS OF

MISLEADING INFORMATION. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY.

......

I received no definative answers (including none from yourself) until GARY MACK emailed me and specifically told me that the colorized, cropped, enhanced version of MOORMAN #5 seen in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" had been, in his words, "water-colorized" by you.

.......

I DO NOT RECALL YOU EVER ASKING ME ANYTHING ABOUT BADGEMAN. I WOULD NEVER

HAVE DODGED YOUR ANSWER, BUT WOULD HAVE STATED EXACTLY THE SAME AS MY

ABOVE POSTING.

......

Of course, Jack, compared to you, I (who still prefers using my olde' Rollei, Nikon, and a Pentax single reflex, etc., 35mm camera's to using my new digital camera) are the person with the photographic printing expertise.... but....

....No matter how you attempt to "spin" it, when a photo or its photo scan is studied and worked upon, and anything except enlarging or cropping is done to that photo or scan.... in my "book," that IS called "enhancing".

.......

SORRY, DON...BUT "YOUR BOOK" IS WRONG IN TERMINOLOGY...ESPECIALLY IN THE

AGE OF COMPUTERS. "ENHANCEMENT" IS NOW UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED AS BEING

"COMPUTERIZED ENHANCEMENT". YOU NEED TO UPDATE YOUR DEFINITIONS. CROPPING

AND ENLARGING ARE NOT "ENHANCEMENTS". MAKING THE BEST POSSIBLE PRINT IS

NOT AN "ENHANCEMENT". SOME HAVE BEEN CALLING MY OIL-TINTED VERSION AN

"ENHANCEMENT", BUT IT IS NOT. AN ENHANCEMENT IS A TECHNIQUE WHICH BRINGS

OUT SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE SEEN. IN COLORING A B/W PRINT ALL I WAS

ATTEMPTING TO DO WAS DELINEATE AREAS IN THE PHOTO SO THAT MY AUDIENCE

COULD SEE WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO. IT WAS MERELY A GUIDE...NOT RESEARCH...

BUT AN AID TO UNDERSTANDING. AGAIN, ALL I DID TO "DISCOVER" BADGEMAN WAS

TO MAKE AN "OPTIMUM EXPOSURE" AS I DEMONSTRATED, AND THERE HE WAS. I DID

NO MANPULATION OF ANY SORT WHICH QUALIFIES AS "ENHANCEMENT". ALL I DID

WAS MAKE A PERFECTLY EXPOSED COPY.

.....

Jack, do you recall the name of the NRA expert who said he saw shooter's glasses on BM? Are there ANY archived threads on "JFK Research" that have ever discussed shooter's glasses? (none that I can find are "googled" in any newsgroup thread or any other forum)

.....

UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT MAKE A RECORD OF THOSE PRESENT. I RECALL ONLY THAT

HAROLD WEISBERG WAS THERE, AND SEVERAL PERSONS FROM THE NRA, AND I THINK

A PERSON FROM THE NATL ENQUIRER. I DO REMEMBER THE "SHOOTER'S GLASSES"

COMMENT WHICH STUCK WITH ME BECAUSE I WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE TERM.

I REMEMBER HAROLD COMMENTING THAT THIS COULD BE A MAJOR BREAK IN THE

CASE. I DO NOT REMEMBER WHETHER THE NE RAN A STORY, BUT I THINK NOT. I

DO REMEMBER THAT THE CAB DRIVER WHO DROVE US TO THE HOTEL WAS A BIG

FAN OF THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS, AND WHEN HE FOUND WE WERE FROM TEXAS,

HE HARANGUED US FOR 15 MINUTES ABOUT WHY THE REDSKINS WERE SUPERIOR

TO THE COWBOYS. THAT IS ALL I KNOW. MAYBE GARY MACK REMEMBERS MORE

DETAILS. PERHAPS GARY'S MEMORY IS BETTER THAN MINE ON THIS MEETING,

OR PERHAPS HE TOOK NOTES. TWENTY YEARS AGO IS A LONG TIME TO REMEMBER

SMALL DETAILS THAT DID NOT SEEM IMPORTANT AT THE TIME. IF GARY GIVES YOU

ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT DETAILS OF THIS MEETING, LET US KNOW. I NO LONGER

HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH HIM.

.......

Anyway, I have no hard feelings, at all, towards you on a personal, non-JFK level, and have known and followed your work for the majority of my 29+ years researching the case (since your contributions for and to us all via the HSCA's partial investigation)

An aside.... I have been trying through the Dallas F.B.I. to obtain a print of the first "U.P.I." negative/MOORMAN photo that I have heard they have (or had, at one point) in the Dallas files. Their "help" and "responses" have been worth precisely "squat".... Any helpful suggestions, Jack?

....

I HAVE NO SUGGESTIONS ABOUT OBTAINING MOORMAN PRINTS. ALL THAT I MADE

COPIES OF WERE FROM PRINTS OBTAINED BY GARY MACK, WHO RETURNED THEM

TO THE OWNERS ONCE I MADE COPIES. I HOPE THAT YOU WILL ACCEPT THAT

I MADE>>>NO ENHANCEMENTS OF ANY KIND<<<TO THE BADGEMAN IMAGE. A

CORRECTLY EXPOSED PRINT IS>>>NOT<<< AN ENHANCEMENT. (SEE MY POSTED

STRIP OF EXPOSURES.)

CORDIALLY,

JACK

Don Roberdeau

Don wrote:

"I can just visualize the MOORMAN photo enhancer-artists that also think that “Arnold” is “seen” in MOORMAN now scrambling and having to alter their black and white and water-colorized enhancements to match this additional, “important” claim by Arnold to now “show” the, supposed, “badgeman” glasses with yellow-tinted lenses, and don't forget to add-in the glasses frame of these “shooters glasses,” and remember to trim “Arnold’s” gutt to appear as “nothing but muscle.“

Jack, the ONLY "Badgman enhancer-artist", responds:

Don, I do not understand this gratuitous insult. You are accusing me of fabricating

my Moorman research WITHOUT KNOWING anything about it (judging from this

totally inappropriate remark).

If you knew what you are talking about, you would know that in discovering

Badgeman I NEVER DID ANY PHOTO "ENHANCEMENT" OR "WATERCOLORIZED

ENHANCEMENT" NOR ALTERATION TO THE IMAGE FOUND IN MOORMAN. All I

did was OPTIMUM EXPOSURE of the image...no enhancement. (see attached)

I did no "watercolorized enhancement"; using totally transparent photo-tinting oils,

(for use in my slide shows to help viewers visualize) I hand-tinted certain areas

on a b/w print to help viewers see what I could see. You make it sound as if

I did something SINISTER to alter the image. I am very disappointed that

you pontificate on this subject as if you know what you are talking about.

The transparent oils DID NOT ALTER THE IMAGE...just added color.

It is interesting that you mention the subject of "shooter's glasses" being brought

up by Arnold (unknown to me). After Gary Mack and I showed the Badgeman

image to the National Enquirer, that publication in early 80s convened some experts

at a Washington hotel (some experts from the National Rifle Assn as well as Harold

Weisberg), and had Gary and me show them the Badgeman photos. I projected

the b/w slides (at that time I had not done the colored version). EVERYONE WHO

SAW THE SLIDES AGREED THAT IT WAS A SHOOTER IN A POLICE UNIFORM, and

one of the NRA experts even exclaimed "HE IS WEARING SHOOTER'S GLASSES!"

I asked what shooter's glasses were, and he explained they are large yellow-tinted

glasses used to see targets better. I had never heard of shooter's glasses. I have

never talked to Gordon Arnold, so he did not learn of shooter's glasses from me.

It is interesting that he described a cop wearing shooter's glasses, and that

20 years ago an NRA expert looking at the Badgeman image ALSO SAW

A COP WEARING SHOOTER'S GLASSES. I could not even see what he saw,

but took his word as an interesting observation by an expert.

Thanks for your interesting research and posting, but next time, be more sure of what

you are talking about before insulting honest research!

Cordially,

Jack White

After posting messages AROUND THE CLOCK ever since I joined this forum, Mr. Peters has suddenly withdrawn from our group. He has posted nothing for more than 24 hours!

Our condolences to his family.

Is it just coincidence that his alter ego joined the forum yesterday?

Jack White

We are all tired of the ravings of Mr.Peters/Miller/whoever.

He continues to ignore the obvious RETOUCHING of the so-called

DRUM SCAN, which was revealed at least 2 years ago or more.

He continues to beat this dead horse by calling me and others

liars and worse.

The drum scan RETOUCHING is very clear in the area of the

pedestal:

1. the pedestal top was cleaned up with a sharp straight line

2. the "gap" was significantly increased

3. the corner of the pedestal was "squared up", although it is not

4. and most obvious, the slant of the pedestal top was changed

from slanting down to right to SLANTING DOWN TO LEFT, to

further exaggerate the "gap".

This was posted on the JFKresearch forum years ago, AND NEVER

REFUTED NOR DENIED by Thompson/Mack/Lamson/Miller et al.

Here it is again, gang.

Now SHUT UP!

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Additionally, as I have always pointed out, the corner of the

pedestal is not square, but is offset by about an inch. The

"gap" advocates refuse to recognize this. When retouching

the "drum scan", they also were ignorant of the CAMBER

of the top of the pedestal (for shedding rainwater). It is

NOT A FLAT SURFACE, but is raised more than an inch in

the center. When they retouched the top of the pedestal,

they made it a STRAIGHT LINE, not a curve.

Give up, Peters/Miller. The hoaxers have been exposed.

Jack White

We are all tired of the ravings of Mr.Peters/Miller/whoever.

He continues to ignore the obvious RETOUCHING of the so-called

DRUM SCAN, which was revealed at least 2 years ago or more.

He continues to beat this dead horse by calling me and others

liars and worse.

The drum scan RETOUCHING is very clear in the area of the

pedestal:

1. the pedestal top was cleaned up with a sharp straight line

2. the "gap" was significantly increased

3. the corner of the pedestal was "squared up", although it is not

4. and most obvious, the slant of the pedestal top was changed

from slanting down to right to SLANTING DOWN TO LEFT, to

further exaggerate the "gap".

This was posted on the JFKresearch forum years ago, AND NEVER

REFUTED NOR DENIED by Thompson/Mack/Lamson/Miller et al.

Here it is again, gang.

Now SHUT UP!

Jack White

Lee Forman recently discovered the "Smith" version

of the Z film. It contains many interesting anomalies

which need further study. Here is the first one I

noticed on viewing the film.

Comments desirable, except from Mr. Peters.

Jack White

Has anyone seen the recent footage made  by Dale Myers in which he has using the Zapruder film recreated the scene in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963.

According to Myers it is now indisputable that the bullet which hit President Kennedy also hit Governor John B Connally. Myers asserts that the single bullet theory is now the single bullet fact.

His argument seems pretty conclusive.

Has anyone  seen this footage?

For more information on Dale Myers' theories go to:

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id65.htm

For the counter argument go to:

http://abclies.com/myers_mc_1.html

EBC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't trust Myers and his phony computer work. His book, however,

though full of errors, does have SOME useful information. But

since he supports the LONE NUT ASSASSIN THEORY, what more

need I say?

Jack White

dgh04: may of been within 24 hours, actually - sooner! If it was altered! Double standards?

If it was altered? I thought TGZFH said it was altered!

dgh04: Groden is commenting? roflmfao! He still hawking pictures in Dealey Plaza -- He probably has the time, according to David Lifton piece in HOAX - ole Moe Weitzman wasn't  happy about wayward protege Groden and his escapades with the Zapruder 35mm optical prints under his [Weitzmans] care (you can read all about that, Pig on a Leash - in HOAX...)

I often wondered why the book acted like it was a mystery where the different versions of the Zapruder film came from. Did Lifton forget that it was Groden who supplied him with his copy?

dgh04: ...  send Dr. Costella a email, ask him about Moorman...

What would I ask Mr. Costella? Why he didn't know that Moorman and her photo was taped for airing just 30 minutes following the assassination and then shown on TV within 3 hours? Would I ask him if he knew that before that taping that Mary was the only person who had possession of her photo? Would he then tell me that maybe Mary Moorman possibly altered her own photo within that 30 minute window of time? The bottom line is that Costella screwed up and you're still trying to make excuses for him. Maybe it is Costella that should email me if he has any questions about Moorman's photograph. I'll be happy to walk him through the gap difference between Mary's photo and the alleged recreation that White, Fetzer and Mantik did. I have put up the Moorman and White example again. Maybe if you look at it long enough and follow the arrows closely - you will spot the gap difference between the upper left corner of the pedestal and the lower right corner of the pergola window in the background. Once you finally get that far - I'll then try and explain to you how that shows that White, Fetzer and Mantik had their camera too low and to the right from where Moorman stood. I will also explain how that incorrect line of sight is what Costella not only failed to see, but allowed him to say Moorman's standing height on that LOS only brought her up to his shirt button. The example shown below leaves three possibilities as to how White and three Ph.Ds made such an error. One option is they made it on purpose to promote Zapruder film alteration. The other possibility as they didn't know what they were doing. The third option is they were all blind as bats to not see that gap difference between their recreation photo and Moorman's. I've added an animation and I'll let everyone choose which ever excuse they think best fits these four alterationist. See the Attachment below

dgh04: they did? Who did they talk to? Why are there more rainsensors in Dealey Plaza than most PGA rated golf courses?

Let me answer this question with another question. How many PGA golf courses can you name that is under a water restriction ordinance that says wasting water during a rain is illegal? A rain sensor would not be needed unless such an ordinance existed and in Dallas, Texas such an ordinance does exist. The reasons for the rain sensors in Dealey Plaza was explained and should have been easily understood. I will repeat it once again so maybe the second time reading it will allow you to make some sense out if it.

The rule is part of a conservation plan they implemented. The Plaza is divided up into sections and each section is set on a timer that tells it when to water a particular area. Common sense would tell someone that shaded areas may require less water than those exposed to direct sunlight. An area that has plants may require a different amount of watering than areas where there is just grass. An area where the ground slopes causing a quicker run-off would absorb less water than a section that would have a slower run-off or possibly be flat and would have a higher absorption rate. No, Mr. Healy, all it takes is a little effort to seek out the answers before going overboard and thinking that the world is out to get you.

dgh04: you may be onto something here Mr. Peter's, we'll reserve a special place in history for you. It's amazing - the manpower, time and effort that goes into debunking a rainsensor claim.

It's not just amazing, but rather a needless shame! Anyone can just spout out claims. The term is called throwing crap on the wall to see if anything sticks. These claims take no effort to make up off the top of one's head. The shame of it is that manpower has to be wasted to expose the errors in these claims so people with less knowldge of the Plaza and the assassination photos won't be taken in by people who are supposed to be responsible researchers.

For anyone wanting to read about the rain sensor fiasco, they can do so at - http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejoejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm

dgh04: that the same Joe Durnavitch that made the claim the Stemmons sign was NOT changed? He the guy that proved it with a 3d program called Povray? If so, might want to ask him if he recalls, we communicated about the Povray source code (a version of C++) he used. I explained to him I'm quite familiar with the program, have been since early 90's. Requested he send me the exact code he used and the topo .inc file of Dealey Plaza so I could verify his findings -- never heard from him again

I am guessing that Mr. Durnavitch probably figured that someone who couldn't see the gap variance between the pedestal and the pergola window in Moorman's photo Vs. White, Fetzer and Mantik's recreation, or someone who couldn't reason out why the Dealey Plaza had rain sensors installed across it, just didn't have the common sense or ability to understand his 3D program.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ORDINARILY I DO NOT READ NOR RESPOND TO MR. PETERS/MILLER'S RAVINGS,

BUT I NOTICED HIS POSTING OF THE LONG-AGO DISCREDITED "GAP" IN THE

MOORMAN PIC, AND I MUST PROVIDE AN ANTIDOTE. It was several years ago

that the GANG created a FAKE GAP using their famous DRUM SCAN. This "gap"

does not exist on good copies of Moorman. Just setting the record straight for

those who might fall for this discredited disinformation.

Jack White

The identification of the man on the left in this comparison below was said to be Jim Braden aka Eugene Hale Brading. I have not seen this to have been ever seriously challenged.

Having said that, I would like to offer an alternative. For those who have never heard of Dennis Harber, check out this link as a starting point.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKharberD.htm

During the Garrison investigation, Gerry Hemming offered Harber as someone of interest.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

James...check the ear shapes.

Jack

Hi Jack,

I did see that excellent analysis you did which motivated me to do the following. I do think that the man in Dealey Plaza and the man with Robert Oswald could be one in the same. Whether or not it's Jim Braden I think is in doubt.

BTW, about 18 months ago, I sent that photo of Robert Oswald and the mystery man, plus 2 others to a person (claiming to be a researcher) who will remain nameless. A little while after that, the images appeared on eBay.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to what I have read, Robert, Marina, and Marguerite

were "in custody of" THE SECRET SERVICE for several days

or weeks. This leads me to presume that the man is an SS agent...

definitely NOT BRADEN, nor your candidate either. I think

that he could be identified in SS agent mug shots. Same guy

in DP and also escorting Robert. A very interesting coincidence.

Jack

The identification of the man on the left in this comparison below was said to be Jim Braden aka Eugene Hale Brading. I have not seen this to have been ever seriously challenged.

Having said that, I would like to offer an alternative. For those who have never heard of Dennis Harber, check out this link as a starting point.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKharberD.htm

During the Garrison investigation, Gerry Hemming offered Harber as someone of interest.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

James...I guess you have not seen my analysis.

Jack

Miller took the Zapruder film and placed the sounds of rifle shots at four places that were supported by the photographical evidence alone. The first shot between the Betzner and Willis photo when JFK immediately starts his right hand coming down to a defensive position (Z193/94/95), again at Z223/24 when Connally grimaces in pain, again at Z312/313 when the head explodes, and once again when Moorman takes her photo at Z315/16 capturing the flash of the Badge Man's rifle. He has said he'll email anyone the clip if they ask him for it. You can contact him at IMSJLE@AOL.Com.

It's interesting that the last two shots are so close together that they could be thought of as one shot during one playing of the film or the sonic boom effect that Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman described hearing when listening to it another time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the email address. I will follow up on that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Zapruder film with the sound of shots was produced by Robert Groden (not Bill Miller). Groden originally produced it to show to the HSCA. He did two different versions. Later, one of the versions was included in a documentary WITHOUT EXPLANING that the sound was DUBBED by Groden. Zapruder's 8mm camera DID NOT HAVE SOUND. This is unfortunate since many people now believe that the sound was on the Zfilm.

Jack

Were the autopsy photos actually published? And if yes, were they analysed by any other organisations except the Warren Commission?

Officially, the autopsy photographs and X-rays remain classified, and are only available for examination by researchers who have Kennedy family permission to examine them. This has been only a trickle over the years.

Unofficially, some autopsy photos have leaked out, and have been published. Robert Groden published five color autopsy photos. Mark Crouch obtained ten black and white copies of autopsy photos from retired Secret Service agent James Fox in 1982. Some of these were first published by David Lifton in an edition of his book Best Evidence in 1988, and have since been published in other books. The set is also available from the research journal JFK/Deep Poliltics Quarterly, as photos or on a CD-ROM.

Officially, the Warren Commission never saw the autopsy photos, though reportedly Earl Warren looked at them and decided not to make them a part of the record. The photos were examined by the Clark Panel in 1968, a Justice Department-appointed panel, and later by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which published portions of some of the photos, and drawings based on some of the photos.

Martin Shackelford

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Martin...that is a very accurate and concise summary.

Jack White

I have read Jack White's section in "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" with his A-Z slides.  Jack, you claim that there were two Oswald's, "Lee" and "Harvey."  You show pictures of the two.  But how do you explain the fact that forensic anthroplogists working for the HSCA determined that the men that you show were in fact Lee Harvey Oswald?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/penrose.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Thirdeye...They lied.

It takes no expert to look at the photos of Lee and Harvey

and see that they are not the same person. Their skulls

are not shaped the same.

Jack

Short-time lurker, first-time poster... have been reading every book on assassination science for 20 years...

Something I've always wondered... Is there not an obvious concave, bullet-sized wound on the president's temple in the stare of death photo? I apologize if this has already been discussed here...

See attached

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Welcome, John K. White. My father was John N. White!

At the moment I do not have access to my 8x10 sets of autopsy pix. Tomorrow I will scan a giant enlargement of that area for you to look at. I am attaching the only image of that pic that resides in this computer. The red oval was on it for another purpose... but it is slightly larger and better than the one you

attached. I believe:

...the body was altered

...the photos were altered

If so, your observation may have little evidentiary value.

Greetings from your Texas "namesake".

Jack White

My Year 10 (aged 14-15) are now starting on a piece of coursework: 'Why is JFK remembered so positively?'. I have attached the questions they came up with in groups. Answers and different views from experts would be great for when we start back in September or for pupils to look at over the Summer.

Question: Was JFK about to ‘drop’ Lyndon Johnson? If so, why?

Background details of the people answering this questions can be found at:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1169

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lyndon would likely have been indicted in the Estes and Baker scandals, making JFK's removal of him a no-brainer.

Jack White

Bernice asked me to put this little compilation together.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am glad to see this confirmation of what Ed always said...

he parked his car on the freeway shoulder and climbed

up to the RAILROAD BRIDGE over the freeway.

Jack

Thanks a lot for all these posts! That was really interesting to read and I think that this topic seems a bit less confusing to me, although it does stay interesting.

Can I ask a follow-up question? In his post Mr Simkin posted the following phrase of Cyril Wecht: ''I believe that Gov. John Connally was struck by a bullet, and I believe that another bullet completely missed the car. I think that there were four shots most probably fired. I eagerly await with extreme anticipation the results of the consulting firm that I understand your committee has retained in Boston, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, concerning their interpretative studies of the motorcycle policeman's tape from that day; as to whether or not they have definitely found evidence of four shots having been fired.''

What were the results of this study? Was there evidence found about the number of shots? (I know, Mr White asked not to ask about the number of shots, as that would be an essay-type question, but what about just this particular study? What conclusion was reached there? And where could I find these results?)

And thank you very much one more time, that was really fascinating reading!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eugenia...GOOGLE will answer nearly any question you have.

For instance, type in ACOUSTICS REPORT HSCA and you will have

179 choices to read. In fact, click on this and you can find the

entire HSCA report:

www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/contents.htm

Jack White

Hello Dale:

One aspect of J.F.K that I shall always recall, was how he gave the younger generation the ability to see themselves as achieving any goal they set for themselves, anything was possible.....he gave that feeling of encouragement, and support....the older generation at that time, I believe, the feeling that they were in very safe hands and so were their children....That whatever happened he was extremely capable...

He made the people feel good about themselves, and their country....when visiting other countries he gave those people of the world the ease of mind that a capable and fair man was in charge of the most powerful nation of the world....and a feeling of peace within....and perhaps most of all he made them smile..

I believe that is what a President or leader of any country should be able to do.

I have not seen this appear since....and it had been greatly missed, during all these following years.

Thankyou for your wonderful question...

Bernice

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Bernice...I forgot to mention the young...and the PEACE CORPS,

Jack

My Year 10 (aged 14-15) are now starting on a piece of coursework: 'Why is JFK remembered so positively?'. I have attached the questions they came up with in groups. Answers and different views from experts would be great for when we start back in September or for pupils to look at over the Summer.

Question: How do people in America today view JFK? Is he seen as a hero? Is his reputation growing/declining? Why?

Background details of the people answering this questions can be found at:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1169

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

JFK is well remembered because:

1. He was young, rich, handsome, glamourous, intelligent, intellectual

2. He was a real war hero

3. He was popular with people in general, but not big business

4. He made some popular moves...pull out of Vietnam, Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.

5. He was a master of rhetoric and public speaking ..."Ask not, etc."

6. He had a beautiful young wife and children, and appealed to women

7. He was popular with blacks

8. He had glamorous friends (Sinatra, Monroe, etc.)

9. He was popular tabloid fodder

10. He had good speech writers

11. He had written books

12. He loved sports and sporting, like sailing

13. He was not a typical politician

14. He had very good public relations.

...But he made MANY POWERFUL ENEMIES, who conspired

to kill him.

Jack White

I found this aerial which shows Ed Hoffman's

location and what he could see. He was atop the

RR bridge.

Jack White

Bernice --

Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving the case for alteration. In refusing to address Mr. Peter's concerns regarding film alteration, of course all he can move on is JWhites work - discredit him [meaning Jack White], by default - possible alteration of the Zapruder film goes by the wayside  ... yeadada, yadada, yadada...

And the beat goes on...

Nice to see you posting, lady! Hope all is well with you and your's.

David Healy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi There David:

"Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving

the case for alteration."

Well isn't this always the plan? I don't see anything that has changed in this regard over many years. Been done before and shall again.

As you say the yada will continue..

Did you hear anything about The Sixth Floor Museum losing it's lease because the owner's have raised the rent and they will not pay it...and possibly moving it into a large trailer type vehicle, and taking it to different schools around the country..??

Thanks and I hope all is well at your end.. :

B...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bernice...that is THE CONSPIRACY MUSEUM in the Katy Building

which has lost its lease. They are month to month till they

find a new location. Robert Cutler, the chief backer of the

museum, is in very bad health.

Jack

Bernice --

Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving the case for alteration. In refusing to address Mr. Peter's concerns regarding film alteration, of course all he can move on is JWhites work - discredit him [meaning Jack White], by default - possible alteration of the Zapruder film goes by the wayside  ... yeadada, yadada, yadada...

And the beat goes on...

Nice to see you posting, lady! Hope all is well with you and your's.

David Healy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi There David:

"Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving

the case for alteration."

Well isn't this always the plan? I don't see anything that has changed in this regard over many years. Been done before and shall again.

As you say the yada will continue..

Did you hear anything about The Sixth Floor Museum losing it's lease because the owner's have raised the rent and they will not pay it...and possibly moving it into a large trailer type vehicle, and taking it to different schools around the country..??

Thanks and I hope all is well at your end.. :

B...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bernice...that is THE CONSPIRACY MUSEUM in the Katy Building

which has lost its lease. They are month to month till they

find a new location. Robert Cutler, the chief backer of the

museum, is in very bad health.

Jack

Hello to everyone!

I was recently reading some information about JFK assasination and was particularly interested by the Single Bullet Theory, perhaps because this topic seemed to me very controversial and quite confusing.

As far as I understood, the statement by Warren Commission that so called ''Magic bullet'' wounded JFK in the throat and also Connally in the shoulder, is now believed false if the President and Connally were sitting at relatively same heigths, one in front of the other. The reason is that if bullet was fired from the Book Depository, it would have such a flight path that it would not hit Connally. (Correct me, please if I am wrong, I may have misread the information).

So, can we suggest that the bullet that wounded both the President and Connally was still one, but was fired from the Grassy Knoll? I read that some witnesses claimed to see/hear the shots from there too, but would it be the right trajectory and is there any evidence that would prove it?

Thank you very much!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eugenia... the problem with your question is that it is based on incorrect information from the Warren Commission report. It is impossible to give a short answer to your question as phrased. There is much more involved than shooting sites and trajectories. Whole chapters in many JFK books are dedicated to this subject. I suggest that you use Google search engine and type SINGLE BULLET THEORY, and you will have 163,000 entries to choose from, and most of them do a better job than I can give in explaining it.

Remember... Google often provides easier answers than asking us. It is like having your own private library of JFK books.

Jack White