Jack White
-
Posts
7,931 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jack White
-
-
Hello,
My name is Lia Kelinsky, I'm a 17 year old American student at the International School of Toulouse, France.
My question is rather open ended. It's been argued that Lyndon B. Johnson justified his involvement with the assassination because he wanted to prevent a Third World War. However, to what extent does the evidence available suggest his involvement? Afterall, he is said to have destroyed most of the evidence that would have implicated him with the assassination.
Lia... your question (3rd WW) really refers to LBJ's tactics used to convince Earl Warren to head the Presidential Commission. Look up references on Johnson's persuading Warren. He did not really believe it.
My research for more than 40 years indicates that LBJ knew the Russians were not involved... BECAUSE HE KNEW WHO THE PERPETRATORS WERE.
Lyndon, Dulles, Hoover, Nixon and their cronies were the chief plotters, and none of them were going to start a Third World War.
Jack White
-
In November, 2003 Judyth Baker appeared in the television programme made by Nigel Turner, The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Love Affair. In the film Judyth tells of her (at first, unwitting) involvement in an anti-Castro conspiracy. A young woman who had received specialized training in cancer research, she was invited to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner to aid Dr. Mary Sherman in a research project that was being developed to kill Fidel Castro.
In 1963, Judyth met Lee Harvey Oswald and became involved on the clandestine side of the research project. Both had unhappy marriages and were attracted to each other. She and Oswald began working together: they were both hired May 10, 1963, at Reily's Coffee Company, which provided cover jobs for them. Several labs were involved, including a tumor and tissue culture processing mini-lab, at an apartment owned by anti-Castroite Dave Ferrie. Lee Oswald was selected to courier the biological materials to Mexico City, but the project was called off due to Hurricane Flora. Oswald was ordered to Dallas.
Oswald kept in touch with Judyth: they planned to escape to Mexico after his major assignment - his voluntary infiltration of an assassination ring against John F. Kennedy. Oswald believed a highly conservative Texas-sponsored cartel was working with the Mafia and rogue elements of the CIA and the FBI in the plot against Kennedy. He suspected that David Atlee Phillips was his handler. After Kennedy was assassinated, Dave Ferrie called Judyth and told her she was being watched: if she talked, she would die.
Researchers are divided on Baker's story: a number of researchers have seen most or all her original evidence files and defend her (such as Jim Marrs, Martin Shackelford, Wim Dankbaar, Howard Platzman) while other researchers attack her story (Jack White, David Lifton, John MacAdams, Dave Reitzes). Baker points out that almost all the researchers who have attacked her story have never met her or viewed her original evidence files.
You can read the John MacAdams account below:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
I believe his account is full of inaccuracies. As Judyth Baker is a member of the forum I hope she will point this out for us.
John...I have not investigated Judyth's story in depth myself, because simply on the reading of her allegations, her story has the earmarks of fantasy. How convenient that in only three months she met EVERY MAJOR PERSON IN NEW ORLEANS CONNECTED TO THE ASSASSINATION! How unusual that Clay Shaw took such an interest in a teen romance that he furnished a fancy hotel room for their trysts! How unusual that she was mistaken by LHO friends as Marina, when Marina was 8 months pregnant! I could go on and on... but her tall tale simply is not believable.
HOWEVER, forget MY personal IMPRESSIONS. John Armstrong, the world's greatest authority on Lee Harvey Oswald, INVESTIGATED JUDYTH'S CLAIMS and found many errors and inconsistencies according to the official record. I urged him to write a paper debunking her claims, but he said it would be a waste of time BECAUSE HER CLAIMS ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to understanding the assassination, even IF she was briefly acquainted with one of the LHOs. If she believes that there was only "one" Lee Harvey Oswald, she did not know him very well. If anything she says about "him" is true, it may be interesting but not relevant to knowing the truth. Rich DellaRosa of JFKresearch Forum investigated
her claims for many months, and finally decided that her claims were not worth pursuing.
I trust the investigations of John and Rich. The story is worthy of The National Inquirer, but not of serious research. Even IF true, it is nothing more than an interesting anecdote unrelated to the assassination.
Jack White
-
When Mr. Simkin asked me to join this forum,
I agreed, but with these conditions:
1. I would not respond to challenges nor personal attacks.
2. I would not respond to "unknown" persons.
3. I would not engage in "debates".
4. My research stands on its own. I do not care whether anyone
(including "Mr. Peters") accepts or rejects it. I will not defend nor
promote it.
5. I do not have time to educate everyone on all aspects
of the case.
6. I agreed to answer simple questions asked by members.
"Mr. Peters" refuses to reveal his identity, his occupation, his
JFK research credentials, his address, or any personal data.
He posts all hours of the day and night from the GMT time
zone, so we are led to believe he resides in GB, but that
is not necessarily true, since he could be posting from Langley
Virginia.
Unfortunately, this forum has no rules of conduct. Too bad.
I will no longer read ANY of his postings nor reply to ANY of
them. He has made himself a non-entity by his actions.
Jack White is not the issue here. Learning the truth about the
JFK coup is. In a phone conversation once, the late Col.
L.Fetcher Prouty once told me, "You are the researcher which
the CIA fears most. They will try their best to discredit you
because your photo research is easily understood by the
average person, and that is a threat to them."
Bye bye, Mr. Peters, WHOEVER you may be.
Jack White
-
My name is Doug Horne. I am an American citizen who served on the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) for the final 3 out of its 4 years of existence, from August 1995 through September 1998. The purpose of the ARRB was to identify, locate, and engineer the declassification of all records reasonably (or "arguably") related to the assassination of JFK, so that subject records could be placed in a special collection in the U.S. National Archives open to the public. I served on the ARRB's Military Records Team, and eventually became the head of this small team of analysts; I was "Chief Analyst for Military Records" from April 1997 through September 1998. My personal involvement was in locating and arranging for the declassification of military and diplomatic records related primarily to Cuba and Vietnam policy, and in a host of medical issues related to the autopsy of President Kennedy. The ARRB staff took the depositions of 10 individuals who either participated in the autopsy, or who developed autopsy photography. The Review Board staff also conducted numerous unsworn interviews of autopsy witnesses, embalmers, and persons involved in photography related to the autopsy. I was present at all 10 autopsy-related depositions, and served as principal research assistant (and aide) to the General Counsel during these evolutions. I conducted most of the unsworn medical witness interviews, and was present at the others. I also served as the direct ARRB liaison with the Kodak company in Rochester, New York regarding (1) digital preservation and enhancement of the existing autopsy images, and (2) an authenticity study of the Zapruder film. Both areas of work were performed "pro bono," or free of charge, for the ARRB by Kodak as a public service. Personal background: I graduated Cum Laude from The Ohio State University in 1974 with a B.A. in History, served on active duty for 10 years in the U.S. Navy as a Surface Line Officer, and then served an additional 10 years as a Federal Civilian in support of a U.S. Navy program in the Pacific prior to reporting to the ARRB in 1995. I am from a very middle-class, mainstream background, and yet, have come to the inescapable conclusion that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that there was a major government coverup of the medical evidence in the JFK assassination, and that the coverup was most likely not a benign one. I have been driven to these conclusions by the weight of the empirical evidence, by the data itself...not by a "psychological need" to "believe in a conspiracy." I am prepared to answer specific questions about evidence in the medical arena or the military records arena, to the extent that my knowledge and experience base allows me to. If I do not have an answer to a question, I will say so. If I have an opinion about what various debatable facts mean, I will express that opinion, and will try to differentiate between the data I am using and my own interpretation of it. Questions will be sent to me via the administrators.
Welcome to Doug...who is highly thought of among JFK researchers for
bringing impartiality to the JFK records review process, and refusing to
go along with the ongoing coverup. Perhaps he can answer appropriate
questions on this fine forum
Jack White
-
When Prof. Simkin invited me to participate in this education forum, I asked whether I would be allowed to present my many hundreds of photo analyses. He said he would create categories to allow such postings.
Attached is a test image of a typical analysis from Apollo 17, which shows the LEM, the LRV. and some "hills", all from a similar camera viewpoint, though not exact... but the same general direction.
Close inspection shows an extra hill was inserted. I have hundreds of these, and think they would prompt an interesting educational discussion.
I also have hundreds of photos of the events of 9/11, and have concluded that the OFFICIAL STORY IS FALSE. These would also be good for educational discussion.
I now want to know from John whether he still will provide different forums, or should I post them under the JFK discussion. Indeed, they are all related to the same Power Control Group.
Jack White
-
No I have not read the book. It has not been published in the UK. I have emailed the publisher and suggested I review the book on the forum and in my two newsletters. However, so far they have not sent me a copy.
Would he be willing to discuss the book on the forum in the same way that Larry Hancock has been willing to with Someone Would Have Talked? In my opinion, the best book written on the assassination of JFK.
By the way, I have three degrees (BA, MA and MPhil but not a PhD). So I do not deserve the title of doctor.
MASTER Simkin (sorry for the assumption)...John Armstrong self published his book at his own cost (close to $100,000). It is for sale only on the internet. Go to...
http://armstrong.jfkresearch.com
or
There you will be able to read the first chapter, find full information about the book, as well as ordering info.
Only 2000 copies were printed. There are no review copies.
Jack
PS...attached is Gov. Jesse Ventura holding the book on the Grassy Knoll.
another PS...John is "retired" from JFK research after 12 years of intense research. He has returned to his occupation of building luxury homes in California, after spending a year in China.
-
I am using a random image to test what is allowed here.
I will keep reducing it till it is accepted.
It shows Dr. Mantik sitting on the ground using a theodolite
to establish the lens line of sight.
It show Dr. Fetzer measuring the height of the lens at
gutter level.
It shows Dr. Costella standing two feet south of the curb,
telling me that the line of sight was at the second button
above his belt.
It shows Mary's lens positioned on the line of sight.
What more is needed to show where the lens was?
Jack White
PS...the attached image is 2.0mb; I had been told that the max
image size is 200kb. I am glad to see that this size is permissible.
I have no idea why TWO THUMBNAILS APPEARED. I only attached
it once.
-
I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS MESSAGE POSTED TWICE,
AND I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DELETE IT. I ONLY POSTED
IT ONCE.
I am using a random image to test what is allowed here.
I will keep reducing it till it is accepted.
It shows Dr. Mantik sitting on the ground using a theodolite
to establish the lens line of sight.
It show Dr. Fetzer measuring the height of the lens at
gutter level.
It shows Dr. Costella standing two feet south of the curb,
telling me that the line of sight was at the second button
above his belt.
It shows Mary's lens positioned on the line of sight.
What more is needed to show where the lens was?
Jack White
-
John:
1. Have you read John Armstrong's epic HARVEY&LEE?
2. What is your opinion of his research? (forget that he is not a professional writer, and self-published his manuscript)
Thanks.
Jack White
-
During the Garrison/Shaw trial, many large photo enlargements
were produced as exhibits. A very large copy of Willis 5 ended up
with J.Gary Shaw, JFK researcher. It is perhaps 36"x24". Gary let
me copy it...the full image and closeups. Here is a closeup of the
area called Blackdogman.
Jack White
-
I am Jack White of Fort Worth, Texas. I live just 25 miles from Dealey Plaza, the scene of the crime.
I have studied the assassination intensively since 1963. I developed a slide presentation which I showed to many groups in the 60s and 70s. In the 70s, the HSCA enlisted me as a photographic consultant, and I testified before the committee regarding the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and the backyard photos. I wanted to testify about the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald, but was prohibited.
As a professional artist and photographer since 1950, my main interest in the murder evidence was and is in the area of the photographs, both still and movies. After many years of study, I have concluded that much of the photo record has been tampered with or altered. I have more than 500 books, 100 videos, hundreds of magazines, and 20 file boxes of clippings on the case. I have produced several videotapes including FAKE, THE SEARCH FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD, and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. My research has been published in The 3rd/4th Decade, The Continuing Inquiry, Coverups, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX.
I assisted with and appeared in Nigel Turner's THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY, and was a consultant to Oliver Stone in the production of JFK. I have appeared in several documentaries, including Russian and Japanese, and have assisted numerous authors of JFK books, particularly Jim Marrs, Robert Cutler, Robert Groden, and Tony Summers. For more than 2 years, I assisted Penn Jones with publication of THE CONTINUING INQUIRY. I have made presentations at numerous JFK symposiums such as ASK, COPA, JFK LANCER and The Gallery Symposium, The University of Pittsburgh Conference, and the Duluth Zapruder Conference.
I believe that the coup was engineered by Lyndon Johnson, Allen Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, and Richard Nixon with the assistance of the military, the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, and certain intelligence agents including David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, Lucien Conein, and Ed Lansdale, plus certain police, Cubans, mafiosi, and assorted others. I believe "Lee Harvey Oswald" was a name used by the CIA for two men involved in a false defector program, and that one of these men was later manipulated by Phillips into being blamed as the assassin. "LHO" was unwittingly involved in the plot and falsely named the lone nut killer. I believe that the real Oswald is alive today, and living persons know his whereabouts (Robert Oswald, Marina Oswald, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, E. Howard Hunt, and others).
My specific areas of expertise are the backyard photos, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and ballistics, Lee Harvey Oswald (both of them) and LHO photos, the Zapruder Film and related subjects, the mystery people of Dealey Plaza (umbrellaman, Cuban, blackdogman, etc.), as well as all the photos of Dealey Plaza. My specialty is photoanalysis, which I have done for more than 40 years. My chief interest is explaining the mystery of the case to the younger generation... to equip them to carry on the search for truth and justice.
I will be glad to answer SHORT SPECIFIC questions. Please, no GENERAL questions requiring essay answers, like who were the shooters, where were they, and how many shots were fired, or please explain why JFK was killed. I would prefer questions related to photography and my areas of expertise.
Jack White
-
I'll be posting a URL for the NEW main page - one with animated .gif's that even Mr. Peter's can understand... I might learn to like this guy, once I meet him. If he's been around as long as he say's, I don't understand why nobody knows who he is?
Mr. Healy - there are many people who have studied the JFK assassination and I bet that before you heard of this site - you had never heard the name John Simkin before. Besides, it's not the researchers who are usually remembered for being in the spotl ight, but rather the show boaters.
Once Mr. Peter's reviews the website, get's up to speed sort of speak - we can dialogue about the possible alteration of the camera original Zapruder Film - which is why he's here in the first place.Mr. Healy, I have seen every claim of photo and film alteration mentioned in TGZFH and let me remind you that it has not been I that has evaded getting into the specifics of these claims. When you feel that you can address the questions put to you or can at least explain why you believe an alteration claim is valid other than just saying 'anthing is possible', then I'll be happy to go over the evidence with you, as well.
I find it interesting that Mr. Peters responds at 4:22 a.m. in the time zone
from which he posts. Does the man NEVER SLEEP? I check the times he posts
and they are AROUND THE CLOCK, and to judge from his voluminous writings,
he appears to spend ALL OF HIS TIME composing messages for this forum.
Is he really posting from the GMT time zone...or somewhere else?
Why is he reluctant to reveal anything about himself. Does he have an
occupation or ever go to work? Is he employed to make postings here.?
Or is he a composite team of people that he constantly quotes?
Jack White
-
Another question for Jack White -
Jack, maybe you missed this one, but in another post I had asked a simple question whether you had any problems with the Phil Willis photograph, the seventh in his sequence of photos that corresponds with Z202, of being faked. I am sure you are quite familiar with this photo, so is this one photograph that we can assume to be legitimate in your mind when it comes to Mary Moorman or Jean Hill? I would appreciate a direct response like the one that took place over the time stamping of the Altgens number 6 photograph.
Thanks!
I assume you must mean Willis FIVE, not Willis 7, from your description.
I believe Willis 5 may have been tampered with in some areas,
specifically Blackdogman and some spectators. I believe that
there probably was NO Blackdogman, except in Willis 5 and
Betzner. I believe that possibly (theory) that Willis 5 and Betzner
may have shown a soldier with a camera in this location. and
that the tampering was done so nobody would raise questions
about the unknown soldier and camera. I believe Betzner was
tampered in the same way.
There is no proof for this theory. But neither is there any evidence
for a real Blackdogman.
Thanks for your reasonable question.
Jack White
-
Congratulations, Mr. Peters...YOU HAVE SCORED A DIRECT HIT. Good find.
I was misled by the relative position of the sign, the bus, and the walking man.
Thanks for your correct observation.
Jack White
Jack - I respect your honesty in admitting the error.
I respect your VERY SHORT MESSAGE. Short is better.
Jack White
-
I now see why Mr. Peters is so bad at photoanalysis!
He is visually challenged and has no comprehension
of what photos clearly show. I did not realize he was
a handicapped person.
Oh, Mr. White - Just like I did with the timing of the Altgens number 6 photograph by getting you to first admit that a 1:03 p.m. CST placement of that photo on the news wire would not leave time to alter it, I sat back and allowed you to expose your cards once again before now showing you just how much I do Know. Let the lesson begin, Mr. White.
The first thing I have learned about you is that you like to crop photos in making some of your alteration claims. More often than none I have noticed that the information that you crop out of the picture is what is needed to see the error in your observation. Below is just another example of you doing this.
First of all, the angle from each photographer to the pergola is slightly different, but more importantly you have matched the wrong pergola sections up to one another and that is why your shadows do not match and why the tree is different over the top of one cropping compared to the other. Please look at the example I made below offering everyone just a little more of a wider view than you were willing to give. You will see one section of the pergola marked with a green box and the other section marked with a blue box. Do you not see the shaded areas inside each box ... now don't they look awfully familiar? Do you see the tree line over the top of each section ... now don't they match the two photos that you said proved alteration! I not only know where your mistake was, but I know how you made it. You believed that the two photographers were so close to the same line of sight that a view over the top back corner of the bus in each man's photograph should connect to the same background, namely the same section of the pergola. In this particular instance that was a fatal mistake on your part, Jack.
In the future Mr. White, you may wish to get your reply back before you start throwing stones. The reason we disgree so much is because of things I just raised in the past two alteration claims we have discussed. Once again you have made a small error that has allowed you to make a claim based on false information.
When all is said and done, maybe you'll have to admit that I am not as bad at analyzing photographs as you first believed. Of course that will mean that you'll have to admit that you weren't as good at it as you thought you were, so I won't hold my breath.
Congratulations, Mr. Peters...YOU HAVE SCORED A DIRECT HIT. Good find.
I was misled by the relative position of the sign, the bus, and the walking man.
Thanks for your correct observation.
Jack White
-
I am told the following were involved:
TSBD:
Herminio Diaz Garcia (shooter)
Tony Cuesta (spotter)
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgarciaH.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcuesto.htm
DAL-TEX:
Virgilio Gonzalez (shooter)
Eugenio Martinez (spotter)
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgonzalezV.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmartinez.htm
ELM STREET:
Felipe Vidal Santiago (Cuban Man)
Roy Hargraves (The Umbrella Man)
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsantiago.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhargraves.htm
BEHIND FENCE:
Steve Wilson (shooter)
Dick Whatley (spotter)
Ed Collins (radio)
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwilsonS.htm
CORNER OF MAIN AND HOUSTON
Gerry Hemming
Rip Robertson
David Morales
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhemming.htm
If all of the IDs of James Richards are correct,
it further solidifies the participation of Eduardo
(Hunt)(Knight) and Maurice (Phillips)(Bishop) who
were heavily involved in the recruitment of
Cubans.
Jack
-
Hi Jack,
I'm no photo expert but there seems to be far more shadow in the background of Skaggs. The train is clearly seen in Bond but not Skaggs.
James
Very observant, James! Also note the tree
above the pergola. The pergola shadows and
the train are the main differences.
Jack
-
Why would these particular photos be faked?
What is the picture of a bus relevant to in the first place?
How does this picture factor into the assassination or the cover up?
I now see why Mr. Frank is so bad at photoanalysis!
He is visually challenged and has no comprehension
of what photos clearly show. I did not realize he was
a handicapped person.
I do not know why one of these photos was faked.
The bus is NOT THE RELEVANT FEATURE of the photos.
The foregrounds are the same; the backgrounds are not.
If an innocuous photo like Bond (or Skaggs) is altered, it
must have shown something to dispute the offical story.
Jack
-
Here is one of my comparisons which leads me to
believe some/many evidence photos were altered.
These two images are cropped from Bond and Skaggs
at virtually the same instant ON THE SAME LINE OF
SIGHT. They should match...but do not. Which is
genuine?
Jack
Jack - there are no signs of fakery between these two photos that I can see ... please explain why you think one or both is faked?
I now see why Mr. Peters is so bad at photoanalysis!
He is visually challenged and has no comprehension
of what photos clearly show. I did not realize he was
a handicapped person.
Jack White
-
Here is one of my comparisons which leads me to
believe some/many evidence photos were altered.
These two images are cropped from Bond and Skaggs
at virtually the same instant ON THE SAME LINE OF
SIGHT. They should match...but do not. Which is
genuine?
Jack
-
I have only been a member for a week...I am surprised at the factionism - although I WILL say, that since the age of 5, I have been fascinated by the subject. My mother NEVER cried, about ANYTHING, and this was the first time I had seen HER grieving, SOBBING (AND she was NOT a Kennedy fan!).
I certainly didn't KNOW what was going on at that time, I just remember the moment and event being INDELIBLY impressed upon my mind FOREVER. Then on one BRIGHT June morning in 1968, school had just gotten out for the summer, I came downstairs, and my mother was crying again (NEVER HAPPENS, trust ME!); she said, and I quote: "THE godd*mn b*stards did it again!!" and threw the morning paper on the table - RFK shot and killed at the Convention...headlines as "big as a HOUSE..."
I followed what PUBLIC aspects (regarding the JFK assassination) which were "allowed" to come to light via the newspapers' "tightly controlled coverage" of the "Warren Commission's Investigation" - and have since READ books and THOUGHT (proleptically, I might add!) about the whole assassination, the theories, possible conspiracies or conspiratorial factions, viewed what evidence and photos which the Misters Livingstone and Groden could convey in their book: "High Treason" and I respect the fact that THEIRS was NOT the ONLY monumental undertaking about this subject.
IF there are ANY former CIA agents, Secret Service people, and the like...(from that specific era)... who are willing "tell what they know," they should DO IT HERE (and could do so in RELATIVE ANONYMITY!) ..enlighten us, PLEASE? It would be far more porductive that the personal "salvos" which I see being "fired" herein...am I incorrect?
I came here for EDUCATION, and information, NOT to witness or participate in the
interpersonal attacks and factionary divisivism...Lily...don't despair. There are only two or three provocateurs on
this otherwise fine website who are causing all the stink. Do not
pay any attention to them. Virtually all their postings lie or twist
the truth. You will soon recognize who they are. They only deal in
personal attacks. Just ignore them. There are many good members
here, most of whom also post on JFKresearch Forum run by Rich
DellaRosa. You may want to check it out. Rich does not allow
such behavior.
Jack White
Thank you once again Jack, for the clarification - since I have ADHD - the adult onset form, it has been hard for me to learn how to IGNORE the 'irrelevant' and to 'stay on track' - thus wading through the distractionary comments, once I get the hang of WHO knows WHAT, will become easier, as it ALL comes down to sifting through the CHAFF to get to the 'wheat'...
Just y'day, I went to "Borders Books" and ordered an out-of-print, first edition copy of "A G-man's Journal: A Legendary career inside the FBI--From the Kennedy Assassination to the Oklahoma City Bombing" by Revell and Williams; it is purported to be in very good shape, and I should have it within a week.
It might some good information which I hope to be able to contribute to the various forums, ESPECIALLY the JFK assassination debate.
At the same time, I also received a print-out of OTHER "Books in Print PLUS, with book reviews, a 1 1/2 page printout of the Titles, Authors, Prices, Dates of print as well as ISBN #'s.
Bear in mind that "I" am not a "Joiner", so my appearance in this forum is for this specific reason: to find out WHO knows WHAT information which may prove useful in answering (and hopefully, RESOLVING) the lingering questions. My plan is to cull through this list of books to find those which are most helpful and accurate (via the library first - if the book proves itself worthy, then I will add it to my budding
collection).
Again, many thanks for your kindnesses...
Lily
Lily...I am not familiar with Buck Revelle's book, but I suspect
it is disinformation, since the former FBI head in Dallas supports
the lone assassin theory. I would be interested in his take on
the OKC bombing. I am sure it will support the official story,
however.
Thanks.
Jack
-
Point 2 is a very DUMB question...nobody has claimed that the Altgens photo
was retouched IMMEDIATELY. Indeed, I would be the first to opine that such
was impossible given the circumstances. I have studied the photo for 40 years
and have never detected any SUSPICIOUS retouching. But almost ANYTHING
is possible.
However, as I said, this is a phony issue. The shadows of Hill and Moorman
in Altgens do not preclude Hill and Moorman stepping off the curb
after the Altgens exposure. Indeed, Jean told me many times that as
the LIMO DREW EVEN WITH THEM, she JUMPED INTO THE STREET.
She never wavered from saying "I COULD ALMOST TOUCH THE CAR".
Mary said she also stepped OFF THE CURB. This is a settled issue.
Go to the Plaza and see for yourself the line of sight of the photo.
Or read the reaction of Dr. Mantik on p 344 of MIDP.
Thanks for the courteous questions.
Jack White
Jack - I am not referring to any copies of Altgens photo that were made at a later time. I am talking about the Altgens number 6 photo that went out on the UP news wire at 1:03 p.m. CST. Would you not agree that Moorman and Hill's shadows coming from the grass in that news wire picture is exactly what must have occured because there would not have been time to have done any alterations at that point.
As far as the time Altgens got back to Associated Press - the news wire was time stamped at 12:39 p.m. Trask also referred to an interview conducted with James Altgens dated 11/21/85. The time stamping of the news wire alone at 12:39 p.m. tells us Altgens cannot still be out in the plaza.
I might also add that Jean Hill obviously used a figure of speech when she said she almost could have touched the car. Please allow me to explain why that is because there is plenty of evidence to support this observation. Jack, first of all you have to know that had Jean Hill literally of been so close to the limo so to have almost been able to touch it as it was passing her, then the cycles would have had little choice but to have ran over her. In Jean's book, she said that she caught herself and thought better of her stepping in the street because the Secret Service might not like her getting so close. On Black Op radio she said to a specific question as to her where-a-bouts and when ... Jean said she stepped into the street to try and get the President to look her way and had stepped back up over the curb before the first shot was fired. Hugh Betzner said the first shot was fired right "after" he took his photo and Phill Willis said the first shot was fired right "before" he took his picture. Those two photos equate with Z186 for Betzner and Z202 for Willis. That means that Jean stepped back out of the street by Z202. The Bronson slide seen on page 207 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President" shows Jean in a stepping motion which must be her moving back from the curb just as she said she did. Bronson's slide was taken less than 1.5 seconds after Willis took his photo. You may recall Jean saying why she stepped into the street - "in order to get the President to look her and Mary's way so Mary could get the President's picture." Even more proof of this timeline coming together comes by way of the Zapruder film where we can see Clint Hill and Kenneth O'Donnell looking in the direction where Jean had stepped in the street before Z146. By Z146, JFK is now looking to the south side of Elm Street as Jean said he did after she yelled out to him. By frame Z162, JFK has turned to look back towards the north side of the street and never looks to the south side of the street again. By Z255, James Altgens has taken his number 6 photograph. So lets go over this timeline again ...
JFK rounds the corner and is looking to the north side of the street according to Jean Hill in her book "The Last Dissenting Witness" - Jean Hill then steps into the street and yells for JFK to look her way and according to Jean, JFK did look to her side of the street at that time - then Jean says she thought better of being so close to the limo and stepped back onto the curb before the first shot had rang out - the first shot is ear marked between Z186 and Z202 by Betzner and Willis - Bronson's slide is taken around Z225/26 and shows Jean in motion as if stepping backwards from the curb as she had claimed on Black Op Radio in her interview with Len Osanic - about 1.5 seconds later James Altgens takes his number 6 photograph from the street which shows Jean and Mary's shadows coming from the grass south of the curb.
Between the films and photos, combined with Jean Hill's own words and considering the timeline of Altgens number 6 photographing hitting the news wire by 1:03 p.m. CST - it doesn't seem probable at all that anything was altered as far as Altgens number 6 photograph goes. Jack, does it not now seem more likely that maybe with the passing of time that you may have had a small error in memory as to what you recalled Jean saying to you so long ago?
For Jean Hill's interview:
Black Op Radio
... Show #8 Featured Guest: Jean Hill. Author of "The Last Dessentting Witness.
Part One Jean Hill. Part Two Jean Hill. Part Three Jean Hill. http://www.blackopradio.com/archives.html
I talked to Jean Hill dozens of times. You never did as far as I know. It was not "long ago".
She consistently OVER MANY YEARS said she and Mary stepped into the street. What
she said was not a figure of speech. She NEVER changed what she said. Using photos
to back your claims means nothing, since the photo record has been tampered with.
Using the Z film to back your claims is absurd...BECAUSE IT IS FAKED. Treating it
as genuine to support your claim amounts to a non sequitur.
Go to Dealey Plaza with a copy of Moorman. Find the line of sight for yourself, two
feet south of the curb. As have dozens of researchers, you will find yourself on your
knees, about 41 inches above ground. Report back to us and tell us you were wrong.
The Dallas Times Herald presented an interview with Mary and Jean on November 23.
Their memory of where they stood was just hours old. Judge for yourself.
Jack White
PS...the "hit by motorcycle" argument is specious. Each lane
of Elm is 13.3 feet wide. A motorcycle is about 2 feet wide.
Studies show that Moorman was only 2 feet off the curb, leaving
more than 11 feet for the motorcycle.
-
Trask, p 318, says 1:03 pm 11-22-63 (three photos) on AP wire.
To answer your obvious next question about the Hill and Moorman
shadows, Altgens 6 does not preclude them stepping off the curb,
since the limo is still far away. I have never detected retouching
of this photo, but that does not mean some minor retouching did
not happen. However, if it was retouched, they forgot to retouch
the hole in the windshield.
Thanks for the specific and to the point response. Now let's consider what you have said. At 12:39 p.m., Altgens is back at United Press and has just told of what he had witnessed and it's now being typed into the news wire (page 318, Trask, POTP) It was at this time that Altgens said his camera was taken so to get the roll of film developed. If we allow a minute or two to get from one place in the building to the other ... that means that they had less than 20 minutes to go develop Altgens negatives to see what James had captured on film and get something on the news wire. Robert Groden has said that about 15 to 20 minutes would then be needed to get a print ready to be sent out on the news wire. That covers the processing and drying time. This means that United Press, if they were part of the assassination plot, had around five minutes left to see which photo of Altgens they wanted to use, decide what they wanted to alter on it, then alter it ... and do so without seeing any other films and photos that were taken during the shooting. And let's not forget they had to do all these things so to get Altgens number 6 photo out on the news wire by 1:03 p.m. CST. Now I have to ask this all important question to you, Jack. Does it now seem reasonable to you that United Press removed Moorman and Hill from being in the street? Even if we pretend that Jean Hill never said to Len Osanic on Black Op Radio that she had stepped into the street and had gotten back onto the grass before the shooting started and obviously Altgens photo was taken after the shooting started - does it really seem reasonable that United Press would remove Jean Hill and Mary Moorman out of the street and place shadows coming from the grass?
The above message raises two points.
Point 1 is a very GOOD question...the matter of the time available to do what
Trask says is true. In my opinion Trask's claim is far-fetched. Photos show
Altgens lingering along Elm Street for many minutes after the shooting. Indeed
his "final exposure" allegedly shows Zapruder and Sitzman getting down from
the pedestal. He appears in Grant, Cancellare and other scenes well after 12:35.
He had to go back across Elm to retrieve his camera bag, which he did not
take with him when he crossed the street. His office at the DMN was about
7 blocks away...a good ten-minute walk. Developing, fixing and washing a 35mm
negative takes a minimum of 15 minutes. Printing a contact print of the negs
after they dry takes another minimum 5 minutes, and making 8x10s of
each neg takes at least another 10 minutes. Looking at the prints and putting
one on the wire service telephoto would take 5 minutes or more.THERE WAS NOT
TIME ENOUGH TO DO WHAT TRASK CLAIMS...in my opinion. I would admit that
there might be factors I am unaware of which could have shortened the time.
Point 2 is a very DUMB question...nobody has claimed that the Altgens photo
was retouched IMMEDIATELY. Indeed, I would be the first to opine that such
was impossible given the circumstances. I have studied the photo for 40 years
and have never detected any SUSPICIOUS retouching. But almost ANYTHING
is possible.
However, as I said, this is a phony issue. The shadows of Hill and Moorman
in Altgens do not preclude Hill and Moorman stepping off the curb
after the Altgens exposure. Indeed, Jean told me many times that as
the LIMO DREW EVEN WITH THEM, she JUMPED INTO THE STREET.
She never wavered from saying "I COULD ALMOST TOUCH THE CAR".
Mary said she also stepped OFF THE CURB. This is a settled issue.
Go to the Plaza and see for yourself the line of sight of the photo.
Or read the reaction of Dr. Mantik on p 344 of MIDP.
Thanks for the courteous questions.
Jack White
-
Most researchers have assumed Santos Trafficante had John Roselli murdered. There are several reasons for this:
JACK SEZ:
For the sake of accuracy, it is SANTO Trafficante...not SantoS.
Ask an Italian like Rich DellaRosa.
Jack
Question: Did LBJ cover up the assassination?
in Life and Death of JFK
Posted
Hello, Eugenia (as it is said in the USA). I have a friend by that name.
The whole "Communist connection" was a scheme by the CIA to blame Russia/Cuba for the assassination. The Russians had no motive, means or opportunity to commit the crime. They could not control the coverup.
Oswald was a low level CIA agent who was a false defector to Russia for an unknown spying assignment. Later his CIA handlers implicated him in the assassination as a cold war effort to blame Communism (Castro, Kruschev) as an excuse to invade Cuba.
There is no single source to prove this. It took me years of studying many sources to reach this conclusion.
Welcome to the forum.
Jack White