Larry Peters

Mr. White - The concrete wall that runs along the top of the knoll is also built with a camber and in Moorman's photo, Betzner's photo, the Willis photo, and any other photos taken of it, it will appear to be flat along the very top of it. The reason for this works in much the same way as the horizon line on the ocean. We can watch a ship sink over the horizon because we know the earth his curved, but the horizon line will still appear flat. The same can be said about watching a boat rising above the horizon line as it's coming towards you. Below is a crop from a Bond photo and it shows a bus driving across the field of view, as well as the pedestal in the background. The roof of the bus is cambered and yet the very top of it appears as flat as the pedestal in the drum scan. Once again you have attributed something not being seen in the Thompson drum scan as some sort of an alteration when it isn't even seen in any vesrion of the Moorman #5 photograph. Also, your vertical line in the post #78 photo example does not line up with the pergola window in Moorman's photo, just in your flawed recreation. That's why you never achieved the gap Moorman did.

No, Mr. White - the con game you're trying to run is doing that for me. You were flat out wrong when you said, "This "gap" does not exist on good copies of Moorman." You went from being in error to dishonest when you said something that you knew not to be true when you said it. Then you added to your dishonesty when you tried to pass off one of the poorer quality prints in your possession as a clearer copy than Groden's and Thompson's so to make it appear the gap had closed. I 'll demonstrate how that works below. So far, the only copy of the pedestal that I have seen where the gap didn't exist was on the picture that you had taken and you had to be at a different location than where Moorman was standing to get it to do that. These two events occurred when Josiah Thompson used a better quality photo to start with rather than the lesser quality image you have tried to pass off here as a "clearer" copy. Gary Mack, knowing about the various other copies you have in your possession, recognized what you were trying to do right off. All the rest of us needed to do was compare it to other prints like the one in Groden's book on page 34 of "The Killing of a President." Below is a comparison of your alleged clear print Vs. Thompson's drum scan. The things that you accused Thompson's drum scan of hiding are not seen in your alleged clear copy either. The fact is that Moorman's camera wasn't able to get the clarity needed to do what you have said should be seen in Thompson's drum scan. I also know why you used the lesser quality print, just as Mack knew why. You did it because it distorts the image and allows artifacts to come into play like the light spot that spills down from the pergola window. I've pointed it out with a green arrow as the transfer from Thompson's print to yours takes place. (see the attachment below) Thompson's drum scan is no more squared up on the corners as your alleged clearer print. If one overlays the drum scan onto any Moorman photo and does it correctly - the objects within the image will mirror one another. Your statement above is also false. Your claim was refuted and those who refuted were eventually banned from the pro-alteration site that you speak of. Quote from another researcher who has followed this alteration debate: "Have you noticed that EVERY TIME someone disagrees with Jack about pictures, he claims they are altered or that the other guy is an agent provacateur? Paranoia on his part, plain and simple."

What is your take on Mr. White's thoughts, Mr. Healy. Do you feel like someone was thinking about drawing in a line of people across Elm Street? Shouldn't Mr. White have offered everyone some facts and data to show how he reached his conclusion - showed his work - given us some sources to go on and so on as you are always saying needs to be done? Should he have jumped right to film alteration without doing any research first?

Mr. Healy - I see you're still trying to move on and keep Mr. White out of the spot light by continuing to beat a dead horse. Very well, here it is from someone who worked with Mr. White on the Badge Man project. Gary Mack has said, "Jack White not only has had access to all known Moorman photos - including an 8x10 print of the drum scan - he has copied all of them. Every single one! I was there. I gave some of them to him. He has them all, yet insists on using the WORST one to try to make his point." A CD that I was eventually given, as well. No - that is smoke and mirrors on your part and here is why. You can overlay every known copy of Moorman's photo over the top of one another and there will NEVER be one that shows the gap closed as Mr. White's so-called recreation photo does. Below is an example of two Moorman photos - One is Thompson's with the fingerprint on it and the other is Groden's without the fingerprint. Like with the pedestal, there is a gap between Jackie and JFK's head. When overlaid on top of one another - the gap never changes. The only way to get the gap to change is by lightening the photo until you start washing out the images and expanding the light colored areas. There is no Moorman print in TGZFH that shows the gap closed, nor will Mr. White ever be able to produce one on this forum. (see attachment number one) Mr. Healy - again you are trying to mislead someone. When enlarging an image after it has been reduced to 72 DPI it will cause it to pixel and become distorted with magnification. However, magnification can be achieved before posting an image to a forum such as this one. I can zoom in on the Moorman photo - capture it to where we can count the emulsion specs if you like. No matter how you slice it - the gap will not close. The transfermation to the Internet will not selectively alter any parts of the image being posted. In other words - it will not leave the some gaps like that between Jackie and JFK's head open while closing others like that between the pedestal and the pergola window. (see attachment number two) You mean the same resolution imagery that Mr. White didn't post? By the way - I did source my Moorman images, but you have to take the time to actually read the post thoroughly. That is the most honest statement you have made thus far. I believe you are talking about JFKResearch where no one can challenge alteration claims without being banned from the site. That brings us to the next question - If you are not here to share your opinions about photo and film alteration, then why are you posting in this thread at all? Interesting!

Actually the 12:15 p.m. time attributed to Carolyn Arnold was done by the FBI. That would be the same FBI who told Arnold Rowland that they weren't interested in the other man seen on the 6th floor, the same FBI that changed Mrs. Hartman's statement that the furrow in the grass leading back to the TSBD rather than the knoll, that would be the same FBI that discouraged O'Donnell and Dave Powers from mentioning they heard a shot from the right front of the President. In the one Carolyn Arnold statement that were of her own words - the time that she gave was 12:25 p.m., well after other people were being seen on the 6th floor - one if them holding a rifle. Mark Oakes filmed an interview with Ronald Fischer, an assassination witness, who told Mark that when he was telling Commission attorney Belin what the man with the rifle looked like, Belin would stop the deposition and complain that his description wasn't matching Lee Oswald. It seems Fischer described a man in a light colored or white polo shirt or T-shirt with light sandy colored hair. It should be noted that the Warren Commission used Dillard's photo of the TSBD taken just seconds after the rifle was pulled back into the window, but the Commission for some unexplained reason shows the photo with the far west window of the 6th floor being cropped off. Look below at the 6th floor westmost window of the TSBD from an ucropped Dillard print that many, including myself, believe the Warren Commission didn't want anyone to see. The clip comes from Lancer's site.

Mr Healy - I have said several times that it was Jack White who knowingly didn't tell the truth when he said that clear prints of Moorman's photo do not show the gap. Then instead of posting a clear print - he posted a poor quality print and it still showed the gap. Now about my conclusions: Some of the overlays you will find in this thread will be found nowhere on the Internet. The overlay of White's so-called clear print was made immediately after I read his post. The explanations and descriptions I have given are my own words and not just pasting jobs off the Internet as you have falsely stated. Unlike you, if someone states why something is a certain way - I can actually tell people why I believe it's right or wrong. As far as showing Jack White's material: If someone says that two poles along side each other in a photo are the same height - does one need to drive two more poles in the ground to test the observation or can one make a transparency and test the claim with an overlay by placing one pole over the other ... Of course one can. You make up so many stupid excuses in trying to defend poorly researched claims that you just cannot be taken seriously. I have yet to even see one post on this forum where you've detailed why you thought a certain film or photo alteration claim of White's was right. Instead of helping the alterationist position along, you have repeatedly showed the viewers of the this forum that you can't even say why you believe the photographical record was altered. I've heard Mr. White referred to as 'The Emperor who wore no clothes'. Never has anyone showed that comment to be more true than you have while on this forum.

I'm not sure what all everyone has said to have seen, but the Moorman photo shows that no one is there. I know one person thought he seen a figure of a man against the wall, but it turned out to be the shadows of the leaves from the tree above and I marked that shape with two blue arrows. One arrow pointing to what looked like a head and the other the lower body. In versions of Moorman's photo that are dark, it does take on the shape of a person somewhat, but in lighter versions it disappears. The red dotted box is the area where you thought something was going on. The dark dotted circle is the line of sight near the pergola that would travel above the car seen in the parking lot. Because the street is so low, the view from the where Moorman stood does not allow anyone to see the car in question and all that is seen in the very top of a tree located across the RR yard. The point I was trying to make was not to tell anyone what an alleged assassin might possibly aiming at, but rather what he could not be aiming at. The South pasture slopes uphill from Elm to Main and someone from that location could see Nix, but not Moorman because the wall would block her from their view. Kennedy being even lower to the street than Moorman's camera was would also be out of view from that parking lot location because of that wall. I hope I explained it better than I did the first time. There is no red mist on my copy at the point in time of your example frame, but my grass is green and not a burnt brown like your frame appeared to be. I am certain that the grass in the film version you are seeing is giving the illusion in places that its a reddish mist you're seeing as JFK passes by them. Kennedy's head was between Nix and the pedestal when the fatal shot killed JFK. Well before the limo rolled to the point that your frame shows, the gusting air current had already dissipated the mist cloud.

Eugene - the area you are talking about is seen in the Moorman Polaroid within 3.6/18s of a second of the head shot and there isn't anyone there. If one lightens the Nix film - there isn't anyone there. The particular frame you showed was well after the head shot for the frame below equates with Z312 and the limo is further East than your frame shows. There is one observation that a few researchers have made in the past where they think there is an assassin near a car seen in the parking lot between the fence and the shelter. I had to smile when one researcher looked at this observation and immediately noticed that if there was a shooter there, then Nix was the only thing he could have seen. You see, the Moorman photo shows this area over the wall and out of view from her position. It was pointed out that if Moorman cannot see the car and it's alleged assassin, then the assassin couldn't see Moorman either. Knowing that JFK was lower to the street than Moorman's camera was, then it can be logically deduced that no assassin had a shot at the President from that location in the RR yard.

Eugene, I hope this image below helps.

Mr. White - most everyone here are students and won't know what the 'Smith version of the Zapruder film' is. Don't you think you could have offered them some basic information? By the way, this latest observation of yours looks like something Vincent van Gogh would have posted just before going the rest of the way insane and cutting off his ear!

Anyone interested in knowing about the Thompson Drum Scan and how it came to exist can do so at the link provided here. http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/drum_scan_gap.html

You must not have communicated enough if you didn't know the facts about the making of Thompson's Drum Scan. I can certainly prove that the alteration claims in TGZFH was nothing more than faulty research. But this thread is about the 'Great Zapruder Film Hoax' and has nothing to do with Lee Oswald. If you look a little bit - you may find a thread on that subject. You have only copied and pasted my remarks about the false allegation several times over, so what is the mystery? I am starting to understand why you can't debate the evidence with evidence. Just more healy nonsense and evading the issue. I thought you were the expert! I copy and pasted White's image that he posted - I referenced Groden's from his book and I used the White, Fetzer and Mantik replica photo. I did nothing but overlay them. If any sharpening or fakery was done, then take it up with the above parties. And checking my work is easily done just by looking in Groden's book and studying the images White provided. As I have said before - that's the beauty of all this! One doesn't have to create their own images because White's work doesn't even support itself. This is what Gary Mack had to say when shown White's so-called clear image - "Jack White not only has had access to all known Moorman photos - including an 8x10 print of the drum scan - he has copied all of them. Every single one! I was there. I gave some of them to him. He has them all, yet insists on using the WORST one to try to make his point. My goal is not to impress you, but to show others the mindset of the alterationist when confronted with the evidence. You and Mr. White have succeeded in helping me do that.

Greg - I thought the Williams hand written statement wasn't that detailed. And if Williams was being guided to make Oswald look guilty, then why did he say he heard only two shots? The WC testimony is interesting, but Williams had mentioned being on the 6th floor to the FBI on 11/23/63. Unless he misspoke on his 11/22/63 note, it certainly appears he added an extra shot by going from hearing two shots to three.

Mr. Healy - I am not going to run up yet another post by duplicating every single off the wall thing you said for none of it addressed a single issue being discussed. I'm not really suprised that you would think up an excuse not to contact the man who in your words has always been so polite to you in the past. The questions that you thought were important earlier tonight are obviously not important enough to send Mr. Thompson an email. Of course we both know that you really didn't want those questions answered in the first place. You have become very predictable when forced to actually look at the facts. You did however mention one thing worth addressing when you said, "How in photo research analysis can you make a "false" statement, you present what you find the other side does the same -- bingo, your done!" You make a false statement when you present something as fact that you already knew to be false. That's what Mr. White did when he made his statement about there not being a gap in the better Moorman photo copies. In reality, what Mr. White said would work just the opposite because the poorer the copy - the less the gap would be noticed. The sharper the image, the more defined the gap would be. Below is yet another example of Mr. White representing something he had to of known to be false. Mr. White posted an image of the pedestal from a print that he claimed to be of better quality than Thompson and Groden prints, but a quick glance shows that if anything, Mr. White used a print of equal or lesser quality. He certainly didn't use the print that was utilized for the Badge Man discovery which would have been the most desirable Moorman copy to use. I took the time to align four places in Mr. White's replica photo to that of the Moorman photo that he now claims to be of such better quality than the ones used before. Because this copy that Mr. White has now provided us with is said to now show that he got his replica photo correct - there should be no shifting of the pergola window to the pedestal taking place. I meticulously went to great efforts to get Mr. White's image aligned in those four places with the Moorman photo he provided. No matter how one cuts it, there is is still a gap and considerable shifting between the two. Mr. White and those who assisted him failed on all counts. (See the attachment below)

Mr. White - placing a cross over the gap doesn't actually count as far as pushing the pedestal and pergola window closer together. And if you are going to try and be deceitful about it, at least be smart enough not to show the same photo with no lines sitting right next to it, thus exposing the gap. What you have done reminds me of what a little kid does by covering his eyes and thinking you can't see him.

Jack White claims it what faked - can't you read? I bet that cirlce is made up of of a handful of people who didn't know when Moorman's photo was first shown following the assassination or wasn't sharp enough to see the gap problem - Mr. Thompson isn't hurt any by some small circles in my opinion. You seemingly aren't reading these post very well. Jack said the gap was faked on the Thompson Drum Scan and I said that every Moorman photocopy dating back to the assassination shows the gap, so White's saying there was no gap before the drum scan was made can easily be shown to be a blatent lie. Did you not see the gap in Groden's copy which was in his book many years before the Thompson Drum Scan? Are you just spouting off without looking at the photo examples provided with these replies? Stay focused Mr. Healy! I have once again provided the gap as seen on one of Groden's copies of Moorman's photo found in his book "The Killing of a President". Now after showing the gap again from Groden's copy - I can only hope that it will keep you from trying to pretend that you had not seen the image so to try and make it look as though you don't understand what Mr. White did wrong. (See the attachment below) Wait a minute - you're the person who thought he knew all about the drum scan, it is you who should contact Josiah or Mack and get the facts before spouting off. After all, that's what I did! The copy Mr. White used for the Badge Man discovery didn't raise questions from you as to it's pedigree. His photo shows the same gap as Thompson's Drum Scan, so check on White's pedigree while your investigating Josiah Thompson's. I know that doing your homework is something you guys aren't known for doing, but give it a try next time before you start replying to subjects you obviously haven't investigated beforehand. Groden also had access to two of Moorman's original photos - one of them being the #5 Polaroid. Groden made copy negatives from her original photograph, too. Groden will also tell you that the gap is the same in each copy. The bottom line is that Jack White made a false statement about there being a Moorman photo showing the pedestal and the window touching. Such a photo would blow the lid off the assassination by showing true hoaxing of the photographical record and yet White has never produced such a photograph - WHY? The reason is obvious - there is no such photograph and White made it up rather than to admit he had made a mistake concerning his recreation photo. White used such a Moorman photo copy to discover the Badge Man and Arnold. That Badge Man copy will show the gap just as Thompson's Drum Scan does and Mr. White knew that before he made his malicious statement. Asking for me to answer questions that should have been answered before such an accusation of fakery was made against Thompson's Drum Scan is something that you should be criticizing the accuser over. I'm starting to wonder what simple minded gofer would want the topic of White's mistakes to be set aside, only to then keep inciting replies that keep White's blunders in the spot light. I'm not doing your homework. As the guy to help you that storied to you when he told you that he created the drum scan. You said earlier how polite Joaish has been to you, so contact him and get straight from the horses mouth. --------Not everyone, Mr. Healy. Please stay focused here! I didn't make Mr. White make up that story about the drum scan being faked by adding the gap between the pedestal and the pergola window. I certainly didn't invite you to get involved in the topic and by trying to make excuses for White's behavior. If trying to get to the truth by exposing a falsehood derived from malice is making a fool out of myself, then call me "The Joker".

As usual you can't seem to stay focused. Josiah Thompson is part of the group the alteration believers call "The gang" and Josiah Thompson supplied the photo that was used. Josiah Thomspon has sinced wrote about that Drum scan and validated it being legit. Anyone claiming the Drum scan is a sham is slandering Josiah Thompson's credibility. What is even worse is that someone like yourself doesn't seem to be bothered by the false statement Jack White has made, but thinks instead that it's more important to blame the person who actually did the scan who you don't have correct at that. Josiah Thompson had the original copy negative done in 1967. The Drum scan of a few years ago was done at Gary Mack's request. And the work was carried out at a commercial lab in San Francisco in the presence of Josiah Thompson. Your reply needs to be more to the point on on target for I cannot follow your off the wall ramblings about water brigades. The information about the drum scan has been stated above. The work was done in Josiah Thompson's presence. That information was obtained through Gary Mack during a conversation he had with a JFK assassination researcher. Unless you know differently and can state it here, I will assume that this is just more erroneous supposition on your part. You are probably right for it takes character to admit when you are wrong, but in fairness to Mr. White, you should give him the chance to do the right thing before telling people not to hold their breath waiting for that to happen. The important thing is that Jack White purposely made a slanderous comment that he had to know or should have known to be false and it can be shown to be false by comparing the Thompson Drum Scan against copies of Moorman's photos that were in existence dating back to the 1960's. There is only one thing lower than someone purposely making such a false accusation in my view, and that is someone trying to defend it.

But that is coming from a guy who couldn't either see the gap between the pedestal and the window or did see it and didn't know what it meant. That's coming from a guy who didn't even bother to see if Moorman's photo was made public before he wrote a chapter dealing with a 27 hour window of time that has been shown to have been closed within 30 minutes of the assassination. That's coming from a guy who jumped to the conclusion the CIA tampered with his cordless electric razor so to make it come on in his luggage at the airport. That's also coming from the same guy who never bothered to find out why Dealey Plaza had rain sensors on it's grounds before coming up with notion that the plaza was bugged so to spy in on their ground breaking Moorman being in the street work. Yes, Costella says the Zapruder film is a fabrication - so what! Saying it and showing it is two different things and you of all people should know that.

Mr. White - They say there are intelligent people who make mistakes and there are ignorant people who make mistakes - the difference being that an ignorant person doesn't know when to admit he or she has made a mistake. You just accused Josiah Thompson of creating a faked image rather than you admit your own mistake. The charge is a serious one to say the least. Below is the Moorman photo that appears in Robert Groden's book on page 34 of "The Killing of a President." That particular Moorman photo Groden used is not from the Thompson drum scan and is clearly seen without the fingerprint on it. It too, has the same noticeable gap on it as the Thompson Drum scan. Are we to finally hear you say that you totally screwed up or are you going to now accuse Robert Groden of faking the gap so many years earlier and well before your 'Moorman in the Street' claim was invented? Some of you people have taken the low road at every turn and there can be no doubt that for you to believe Josiah Thompson faked the drum scan to create a gap, you'd be the first one to post your copy of the Moorman Polaroid that shows "no" gap present. The fact is there is no such photo - is there Mr. White! You certainly didn't show such a photo in TGZFH. Instead you placed your replica photo next to a crop from the Moorman photo and that's what Bill Miller used to check your work. It was your own evidence, your own example images of alteration that was used to check your claim of photo and film alteration to see if it was valid or not. Dating back to when Moorman's photo was first seen on NBC just hours after the assassination there was a gap present. You may think I relish in pointing out your deceitful ways, but it actually shames me. You did such good work in the early years and now you have opted to blame your mistakes on everyone else, but yourself. You owe Mr. Josiah Thompson an apology the next time you see him in my opinion. All scans below are from page 34 of Groden's book 'TKOAP'.

I think the problem is that you do not have the best Moorman copy negative to work from. I have seen this time and time again where people have asked the same thing, but there is a big difference in the quality of the Moorman photo that we seen in most books and on the Internet Vs. the one that was sent to MIT. I regret than I no longer have the full version, but below is an example of the quality difference beteen Groden's copy negative and most prints that are being seen in books and so on. (See the attachments) I don't know if this is the same reference or not, but someone did put on a website that people could be seen southwest of the walkway in Moorman's photo, but they too didn't use a good print. Furthermore, the area this person had mentioned could be seen quite easily in Muchmore's film and no one was there to be seen. The copy of the Nix film that I have seen shows the man who was standing next to Hudson, turning and running up the steps and into the deep shadows. The man who was on the lower step moves up to a position just under Emmett Hudson.

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

Having two Negros being the source of his alibi may not have been all that comforting to him IMO in Dallas and in 1963. And I can understand him being a Negro that he could be coerced into saying something that wasn't true, but within 24 hrs he is telling about being on the 6th floor, so is it not possible that his notes were vague and just left that part out?

I see what you mean for the undated affidavit is attached below. I don't know what to think of Williams. I notice that he said he only heard two shots when he wrote the note. One reason for his omission of being on the 6th floor when he did the affidavit might possibly be that a Negro of the South in them days may not want to stir the waters by saying he had just been on a floor where Police are saying an assassin took shots at the President of the United States. By the following day the whole world was being told that it was Lee Harvey Oswald who committed the crime and that might be why Williams was now saying that he had been on the 6th floor at one point before joining his friends on the 5th floor. The Hughes film does show three people in the 5th floor windows, which supports what Williams said about where he was when the shooting took place.

When did the alterationist have contact with the original Zapruder film? You seem to run a crooked game with double standards. You first complain that test were not run on the original Zfilm to show there was no alteration that took place, but support alteration claims that were not run on the original Zfilm either. You are a seller of snake oil and when confronted with evidence - you call it noise because you have no other way of dealing with it. I know what a matte is for Groden and I have talked about it many times when he is telling me how much of a nut he thinks you are. You can't even keep it straight as to whether you believe the Zapruder film was altered or not. You say in this reply that it "could" have been altered and the reply before you said, "I'm definitely leaning in the alteration direction" - you sound more like a politician than a researcher. Credentials don't mean anything if you don't know the evidence and that's why I withhold mine. The evidence speaks for itself. Costella can have all the degrees known to mankind, but if he doesn't know Moorman's photo was shown on TV within hours of the assassination - his writing chapters about it having a 27 hour window for alteration is a fallacy on his part based on not having his facts straight. Fetzer and Mantic can also have degrees out their ying-yangs and it doesn't mean much if they think their recreation photo showing the pedestal corner touching the pergola window is what is seen in Moorman's photograph. Again, look below at the attachment and tell me how White and two Ph.Ds tested this LOS on several occasions while thinking they were recreating where Moorman stood and never once noticed that they didn't have the distance between the pedestal and window corners correct? Better yet, explain how it was that even after their error was pointed out to them that they allowed their faulty alignment to go into print several years later as if it promoted Zapruder film alteration? I know ... instead of you explaining it - just call it more noise! Yet you have not been able to give one example to this forum of an alteration claim of Mr. White's that you believe to be correct and why. You appear to be one of those people who might be considered more of a help by not trying to help at all. The info discussed was presented to it's viewer by putting up a clip of the Zapruder film that is being played too fast. A fair minded person would say that the author of the claim should state the speed at which his clip is playing and why he used a speeded up version in that particular case. One of the things that you guys are noted for is not researching the facts before speaking. Upon hearing these nutty paranoid remarks in TGZFH - some researchers actually called the city to gather information on the sprinkler system in Dealey Plaza and found that there was a city ordinance that prohibits the use of water when it is raining and this explained the need for rain sensors. 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 even 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. For anyone wanting to read about the rain sensor fiasco, they can do so at - http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejoejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm

Greg - You are leaving out one other possibility in my view ... the police of 11/22/63 report misstated what Williams told them. The very next day (11/23/63) Williams spoke to the FBI and said that he had been on the 6th floor only to go down to the 5th floor after eating his lunch. Williams addressed this to the Commission and even corrected the FBI report where they had him using the stairs and not the elevator.