Larry Peters

I heard the Ph.D Jim Fetzer is now saying Saddam Hussein is not who is in custody. I guess the DNA test that validated it being Saddam didn't mean much to him. I highight my text and click onto the letter "B" at the top of the response page.

Anthony - I understand exactly what you are saying. It just shows that for the alteration crowd - looking at any and every photo for anything that doesn't make sense to them will show photo alteration and promote a conspiracy. The problem is that just because it doesn't make sense to them, it doesn't mean it won't make sense to others. The Bond/Skaggs claim was just one of many examples. I don't know what the Bond/Skaggs idea was all about. I guess Jack thought the conspirators doctored the shadows on the wall for some reason - who really knows?

Bernice - you asked if I believed the Warren Commissions findings and I said I did not. This phrasing has nothing to do with your past question, but I will address it, too. I do not believe everything the Commission said, but some things into evidence they got right. The only people who have requested anything of me are the same three individuals that cannot understand what the shifting pedestal means when an overlay comparison has been made. Two of those individuals have yet to address a single point concerning the evidence I have presented. Maybe I should ask what are your qualifications that would lead me to believe that even if I told you everything about myself, that it would somehow make you more capable of understanding the evidence before you? As far as my only studying something for 18 months - you go find it and show me where I said it for I haven't got time to correct all your misstated information. So if I understand you right - you have nothing to offer and cannot address any of the photo and film alteration claims that you defend so much. Allow me to share something that was eamiled to me ... "So far, it seems to me, that you have argued your case rationally and have increased your standing as an obvious expert on the case. You talk like a paranoid nut! It seems that you have questions about everything but the evidence in the JFK murder case. This sentence makes no sense. That I do not doubt at all.

Great News about the hoaxers coming on to explain their work. The reason why Mr. White's claim have been brought to light is because his work made up most of the book = "TGZFH". Of course there was your section that said that it was possible to alter the Zapruder film only to admit that you have no proof that it was actually done. Then there is Mr. Costella talking about a 27 hour window that could have been used to alter Moorman's photo, while he obviously didn't know that Moorman's photo was placed on video within 30 minutes of the assassination while still in her possession.

Dale Myers 3D animation response Part Two Look at the first attachment in this post. When an overlay was done of the actual Zapruder frame that corresponded to that created by Dale Myers - please note the John Connally sitting height to the cross bar in the Myers animation against the same in the actual Zapruder film. This should give a good idea as to the amount of error that is going on in an animation that has said we should believe in the SBT. The next attachment shows some parallel references found in Myers 3D animation. These were shown in reference to the vanishing point discussion in the Part One post. Anyone wanting to know more about Myers animation and the critiques pertaining to it can type in the name "Dale Myers 3D animation" in the Lancer forum search engine to find the threads pertaining to this topic. http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...page=&mode=full

Dale Myers 3D animation response Part One Yes, your point is well taken. A researcher addressed some of his stuff on Lancer quite well. He checked one of the Myers frames and he found the limo had no vanishing point lines which would show that Myers had his images in the correct perspective. For those who might not know what a vanishing point is - a vanishing point is a spot on the horizon that an artist uses to keep his drawing in the proper perspective. I have offered a brief example below in picture one. Picture two shows how the side to side lines on the limo should all go to a vanishing point. The photo used is the Moorman number five photo. It was discovered in the Myers Frame posted on Lancer that his lines running from side to side across the limo were parallel to one another. This alone is enough to call into question the accuracy of Myers 3D animation. I believe it was also posted on Lancer that Tony Cummings (computer software expert) said that Myers admitted that his snipers window may be off by an inch or so. Anyone who has measured angles knows that the further away you are measuring something - an inch mistake at your starting point can cause a huge error at the end of your measurement.

Part two If we take the two frames showing Kennedy first coming out from behind the road sign, we will see that he was already reacting to being hit - his hands are now directly in front of him in a defensive posture and his moth is already open. With JFK's image being seen like this gives a false impression that he is just now starting his reaction, but as I said before - the evidence points to that as being an illusion. JFK's reaction seemed to have started just before going behind the road sign at around Z193/194/195. The next film clip attached below is a wider view and I can tell you that a bullet traveling around 2000 feet per second will have passed through these men in less than a fraction of one film frame. Yet as JFK is emerging from behind the road sign ... his hands are already in a reactive posture - one more frame and his face is visible and it too his distressed and his mouth is already open. Between Frames Z223 and Z224 is when we see John Connally react to the bullet slamming into his back. So there was more than just a trajectory problem with the wounding of both of these men with the same bullet. Why was the Z193 to Z195 wounding a JFK a problem for the Commission? It was because the alleged Oswald rifle needed a minimum of 2.3 cycles to recycle a shot. Form Z193 to Z223 when Connally is starting to react - we have a little over 1 1/2 seconds being used before the next shot is fired and it simply was not enough time for the Oswald rifle to have done the job. So the Commission moved the first shot back to around Z163 - Z165 and claimed that bullet missed the car altogether and struck the curb near James Tague. The problem here is James Tague said it was not the first shot that stung him on the cheek. But the official version ignored Tague and the two photographers who locked the first shot in between the moments that they had taken their photographs. Gerald Ford moved the wound from JFK's back to the right rear side of the President's neck to get an alignment that would make the SBT plausible. It was an all do or die attempt to make the SBT work because without it - there was a conspiracy and our Government was doing everything in their power to avoid admitting there was a conspiracy. I will let you digest what I have shown so far and I'll try to answer any specific questions you may have. The film clips are found at Lancer and Miller is the one who posted them there and went into more detail that I have provided here. The Croft photo example was one I did for you. I hope this material has helped in some way in answering your question.

Part one Evgenia, Let me see if I can help you better understand what happen without making it too complicated. Connally was indeed sitting lower in the car than JFK was and the first picture below gives you a side view of their seating heights. The photo was taken on Elm Street by Robert Croft. On the drawing located at top left center of the picture is a Warren Commission exhibit that shows a hole on the rear right side of Kennedy's neck. I have taken a red dot and placed it where the actual hole was on the President's back as seen on the autopsy photo and added a red arrow pointing to the new erroneous location the Warren Commission created. Gerald Ford is said to have been the author of the moving of the wound location on the Commission exhibits. I placed on the Croft photo a red dotted line that shows the needed trajectory to have a bullet pass through JFK without hitting any bones and then travel on to Connally unmolested. A trajectory heading downward and hitting JFK in the back where his actual wound was located would mean that the bullet had to have been deflected to exit out near the President's Adams Apple and then that would have caused all kinds of problems for the Commission to get a one shot trajectory to account for all the wounds to both men. Let's try and see why that wound needed to be raised on paper in order to make the SBT work by what is shown on the Zapruder film. Click on the second picture and watch it run. We see as JFK is coming out from behind the road sign that he is bringing his hands up to his opened mouth while Connally is grimacing in pain at the instant a bullet is ripping through his torso. Because the President has been hidden behind the road sign, it appears at first glance that JFK's reaction to being hit starts at the same time Connally first reacts to being hit. To understand what is happening as JFK is behind the road sign for that fraction of a second before he emerges, we need to go back and watch the President before going behind the sign and apply that to what the actual witnesses had stated. If you click on the third attachment and let it run, you will see JFK looking to his right and waving to the crowd. Halfway through the clip you see JFK immediately start his hand moving inward towards the middle of his person. Assassination photographers Hugh Betzner and Phil Willis seem to have locked the timing of the first shot in between their photographs. Betzner's photo equates with Zapruder frame 186 and the photo Willis took equates with Zapruder frame 202. Betzner had said he had just taken his photo just before the first shot rang out and Willis said he took his photo just after he heard the first shot. The halfway mark in the clip posted below is when JFK flipped his hand over and started it inward to a position directly in front of him in less than 1.5 seconds. I believe that every witness that heard the first shot and could see the President had stated that this first loud explosion was the shot that hit Kennedy. (go on to part 2 of my answer)

I'm curious about something. Are these just a photo cropping like what was done in the Bond/Skaggs thread because if anything was learned from that claim - cropped photos can be very misleading. For instance, has the rover been moved between photographs so that the angle to the hills has changed, thus the extra hill is now partially visible? After all, the LEM is closer to the Rover in one photo and also seen from a slightly different angle. Another quick observation tells me that the rover is loaded differently with equipment between these photographs, which would also imply that these are not pictures of the same rover taken on the same ride? I guess what I am getting at is this ... wouldn't it be more logical to try and recognize these photo variations and how they effect what is seen in each picture before jumping to the notion that distant hills have been moved around like giant stage props?

Mr. White - Here is what Mr. John Simkin asked of me ... "Larry, It is clear from your postings that you know a great deal about the research. It is not necessary to have done your own individual research (although it seems to me that you have). I think this system will work better. The students will ask the questions and both Jack and you can answer the questions. Then the students can see which answer makes the most sense." Mr. White - I am growing tired of your childlike tantrum throwing. If I was agreeing with your studies, you would care less about who I am or if I reside in Europe or not. If you alteration believers spent more time on addressing the evidence and less time whining about things that are irrelevant to your claims being made about photo and film alteration, then possibly people would have a chance to learn something based on which presentation of the evidence is the more detailed and makes the most sense. The fact is that you are seeing your mistakes being brought out into the open and you don't like it. If you felt that I was in error, then you would sit back and be enjoying my making a fool of myself. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what you did when you made some cracks about my analyzing abilities over your Bond Vs. Skaggs post, but you soon found out that it was you who was in error. John Simkin had the right idea as to how this site could best serve the students he is trying to reach, but his approach will not work if people like yourself just sit back and require that only the simple questions be asked. The JFK assassination was not a simple matter that has a simple answer. If you want to take your ball and go home, then fine ... just quit making up excuses for doing it. For the record: I am middle aged - have spent 25 years studying the JFK assassination - I live in the state of Washington - I like long walks, hiking, fishing and contemporary music - I like animals - I don't smoke - I snore when I sleep - my favorite food is pizza and my favorite color is blue. Now does that information make the details of my postings seem more or less accurate to anyone? Mr. White - You have sat silent as I have had post after post thrown at me that were just ramblings that had not one thing to do with the JFK murder case and you didn't mind that type of conduct then. As a matter of fact, you even participated in it a couple of times. One might want to know where was your concern about the rules then? I take by it your saying "by his actions" - that means my offering detailed explanations showing how a film or photo alteration claim was in error instead of keeping things simple. I certainly agree with the above statement even if hearing you saying it rings rather hollow after the remarks you made above in your opening post. Telling people that the most important thing is learning the truth about JFK's murder doesn't mean as much if your replies are not focused on the evidence being presented, but rather more your concerns over my wake/sleep cycle or at what time of the day I'm able to share evidence with this forum. The way I see it .. If I have misrepresented the evidence, then I expect someone to bring it to my attention because as you stated - trying to learn the truth about the JFK assassination should be the real issue here.

Part two Picture attachment number four shows the transit position that Mr. White referenced in his intial post as found in TGZFH. In the same photo is the actual picture taken of the pedestal alignment that Costella, Fetzer, Mantik and White came up with. They have claimed that they found Mary Moorman's actual location and line of side to the pedestal by replicating what is seen in Moorman's number five Polaroid. Please note how close the left top corner of their pedestal is to the lower right hand corner of the window seen in the background. (see picture four) So far I have referenced where and when Jean Hill said she did step into the street when JFK had first rounded the corner from Houston onto Elm, but then stepped back up in the grass before the shooting started. Next, I then pointed out to Mr. White that the James Altgens number six photo, which was taken after the shooting had started, shows Jean Hill and Mary Moorman not in the street, but rather standing south of the curb just where the Zapruder film shows them to be. After Mr. White agreed that there was not enough time to have altered James Altgens number six photograph before it went out on the news wire at 1:03 p.m. CST, Mr. White then said that there was still the possibility that Moorman and Hill had stepped into the street after Altgens took his photograph. The Bronson, Nix, Zapruder and Muchmore films all pick up the action within a second of when Altgens took his number six photograph and none of the films show Moorman and Hill walking to the street. If I remember right, I believe Jean Hill said to Osacic on Black Op Radio that she never stepped back into the street after the shots started being fired. I have also pointed out that Mary Moorman's camera lens height is looking over the top of the Hargis and Martin motorcycle windscreens which would mean that Moorman would had to of had her camera up over her head to have achieved this view had she been in the street. Furthermore, had either of these women of been in the street they would have cast shadows over Martin and his cycle as he passed their position, but this didn't happen. So all that is left to show now is to compare the gap between the top left corner of the pedestal to the lower right hand corner of the pergola window in Jack White's replica photo to that of Mary Moorman's gap and pedestal to see if they match correctly. If there is no shifting between the two when an overlay is ran, then Jack White and his assistants got Moorman's position right. If there is shifting taking place, then they got it wrong. So far I have yet to meet anyone who has said that the gap between the pedestal in White's photo matches that of Mary Moorman's Polaroid, thus Mr. White and those who assisted him were not on the alleged correct line of sight. I can even tell by watching the shifting taking place that Mr. White's camera was to low and to the right to match Moorman's line of sight and that's why his pedestal rises up and to the left when they are overlaid and then animated. (Click on picture five to start animation)

Part one There are some really crucial errors in the approach that was used in the 'Hoax' examples used above and I entend to walk everyone through what they were. These mistakes have been detailed on Lancer and I am fully able to understand how they were made and to explain what went wrong. Let's start with the Costella overlay. The caption says that Mr. Costella mathematically placed himself along side of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill. While he doesn't explain how his mathematical work was computed, I can see right off where he may have gotten off the correct path before getting started. Zapruder's camera was elevated well above the street as he stood atop of a pedestal located on the knoll. The view of Costella is seen from ground level. I have not a clue what was used for scaling himself against Moorman and Hill, but critics have said many times that there are differences in how tall someone looks against other objects when seen looking downward at them Vs. seeing the from ground level. (see picture one) What Mr. Costella should have done was have his photo taken from the same pedestal that Zapruder stood on and by sizing the curb in both his test picture and the Zapruder film the same, he could then see how tall Moorman and Hill were compared to his standing height. (Remember that the test image that White and Costella used in the above post has nothing to show how they scaled Mary Moorman and Jean Hill to Mr. Costella) Mr. Costella has claimed his height to be about 6'1" and it has been reported that Charles Brehm was 5'10" tall. By taking the Mary Moorman and Jean Hill seen in the Zapruder film and sizing them to match their own images in Costella's test overlay ... we should expect to find that Costella should be close to the same size as Charles Brehm, but what we find is that Brehm too, is dwarfed by Mr. Costella. This means that by Mr. Costella not using something from the Zapruder film for scale has allowed a sizing error to have taken place from the very beginning of the project. (Click on picture two to start animation) If we look at the third picture I have attached to this post - we will see that Jack White did take a photo of a known 5' tall woman standing next to the very spot where Moorman was during the assassination. This time Mr. White did not take his test photo from ground level as in the Costella overlay, but rather from atop of the same pedestal that Zapruder stood on. Unlike the Costella overlay, in this instance Mr. White correctly cropped part of the curb from the Zapruder film and sized it accordingly to his picture. When this is done properly as Mr. Whitie did on this occassion, we see that the same 5' tall Mary Moorman from the Zapruder film is actually the same height as the 5' tall woman in Jack White's test photo. (See picture three)

I have said many times that I believe there was a conspiracy, so a reasonable person would then say that I do not agree with the Warren Commissions findings. What work have I not shown? I have walked Mr. White through the timeline that would have been available for the Altgens number 6 photograph to have been altered. By the way - Mr. White didn't mention that timeline in the book 'Hoax' because he failed to consider it. I believe Mr. White has admitted that from 12:39 p.m. CST to 1:03 p. m. CST would not have allowed enough time to have processed Altgens roll of film, make prints and do any alterations before going out on the news wire. Next there was the Skaggs/Bond comparison and Mr. White has also admitted that he errered in that observation, as well, so what are you complaining about concerning my showing my work or detailing how I reached my conclusion? Your comment saying, "This 40 years alone of Mr. Whites compared to yours of 18 months is astounding and overwhelming ..." is just more of you making a fool of yourself for I stated I had been studying the JFK assassination for over a quarter of a century. Now if you have any specific film alteration claim that you would like to have addressed, then please tell me which one it is and we'll all investigate it together if you like. I am prepared to fully explain what I discovered when I weighed the claims being made on both sides.

Please note the persons image in the side of the Secret Service Follow-up car. The shaded side of the curb where it meets the street can be seen just under the door molding. (Click on the picture for a larger view)

I have written every detailed observation on my own, so I don't know why you think it is not my research. If someone says for instance that Elm Street is straight and I say it is not - do I need to go to Dealy Plaza to take my own photo of Elm Street to make my point or am I not allowed to use someone elses? Your comments make absolutely no sense to me. That's probably a good idea if you have no JFK related information to offer, but if you should ever think of something factual that pertains to the evidence being discussed - I would welcome it.

I think the answer to that question is obvious by your making yet another post that has nothing to do with a specific JFK related question. I have carefully read all your newest remarks and if what you're attempting to do is not grandstanding, then I do not what else to call it. Main Entry: [2]grandstand Function: adjective Date: 1893 : done for show or to impress onlookers

Mr. Healy, If you spent more time reading the information being discussed between Jack White and I instead of trying to draw attention away from the dicussions, you would see that I am addressing an authoritive voice. If you have a particular photo or film alteration claim that you want discussed, then put one up and tell us why you believe it is legit and we can all take a close look at it together. Why you keep posting such things like saying that I cannot refute challenegs when that is exactly what I have been doing when I can get someone to actually make one, seems to be a total fabrication on your part. What I find even more amazing, other than the sites administrator tolerating your intentional childish interruptions, is that you make these claims when the postings I have made are still available for reading and speak for themselves by the level of detail I provide with each one.

For discussions sake I should have called the photo in question Willis five. The fact is that what is known by most everyone as Willis five was actually the seventh photo he had taken. It was when Phill Willis had a series of slides put together for sales purposes that this photo of JFK between Willis and the knoll was the fifth slide of the set. In the future I will try and remember to call it Willis five so there will be no confusion. On Lancer's site there is a researcher who investigated the BDM (Black Dog Man)and was able to show some pretty interesting proof that it was the soldier (Gordon Arnold). Arnold had said he tracked the limo with his camera and it could be that his movement as he turned his body or shifted his position had caused the figure to be somewhat out of focus in the Willis and Betzner photos. Let me share with you a little of what this man found that even the HSCA experts hadn't bothered to notice. Gordon Arnold had never mentioned anyone standing in front of him so to be blocking his view of the President coming down the street. So what this researcher had done was look for any similarities between the figure seen in Mary Moorman's Polaroid and compare them to the figure seen in the Betzner photograph. He found that the sun was shining off both individuals right shoulder and torso in each photo and even more interesting was the fact that the sun spots were basically the same shape. (Click on the first picture below to start the animation) Next, he says that he wanted to do an transparency overlay to see what these two individuals looked like against one another. He understaood that each photographer had used different cameras and that the things inside the photographs would not be scaled to one another, so he took the BDM from Betzner and scaled his image to fit the individual seen in Moorman's Polaroid. (The result was quite stunning in my opinion. Click on the second picture to start the animation) One thing that he claimed that he didn't understand was why there was this dark shading over each individual, but because it matched in shape and general outline over each figure, he felt that there had to be aseconary source involved and he found it. It appears that some walkway footage taken immediately after the assassination showed a shadow coming from the tree just behind Emmett Hudson and it passed right over where Gordon Arnold had said he stood as he filmed the President coming towards him. By finding this tree shadow on the ground he was able to see why the left side of the BDM had some sun hitting him, but in Moorman's photo his left side was completely within the shaded area. He realized that Gordon Arnold was panning with the limo and turning his body to the right and by the time the limo got to where it is seen in Moorman's Polaroid ... Arnold was no longer facing Betzner, but rather now turned facing Mary Moorman because the limo was by then between himself and Moorman. (Click on the third picture to see his diagram and a walkway film frame showing the tree shadow) There is much more this person discovered from the photographical record that tends to support everything Gordon Arnold claimed to have happened and where. I have followed everything he wrote about his discovery and in my mind it quite good. There is no doubt in my mind after reading everything he uncovered and posted on Lancer that Gordon Arnold was on the walkway during the assassination and that he was the figure known as the Black Dog Man.

Bernice - I now wonder what the largest letter size is for if you think the middle size is for hollering. Some people believe using capitol letters is hollering. Would using the largest letter option on this site with capitol letters then be considered screaming bloody murder? To be honest with you - I used the middle sized letters to give my message a title. This forum, unlike others, doesn't seem to have a title option where we can title a post inside a thread and if it does have such an option I just didn't find it yet. I feel somewhat confident that the person who opted have a selection of letter sizes didn't have hollering in mind. If you should see me use capital or medium sized letter options in the future, please remember that they were not placed there to holler, but were utilized for another purpose altogether. I will however try and remember how sensitive you are to the medium sized letter usage and will try to use them sparingly.

Jack, the reason why I asked you about the Willis 5 photo is a because it too seems to support Moorman being in the grass. Just as the timeline for Altgens number 6 being altered before 1:03 p.m. CST didn't seem probable, it doesn't seem probable that anyone noticed that Mary Moorman can be seen in the Willis #5 photo so to alter her image.

Mr. White, I find it more interesting that you show more concern about the time of day that I post rather than addressing the evidence of the alteration claims that you've made. So to put your mind at ease - I spend a lot of time researching and writing. I also am conditioned not to need a lot of sleep. I am retired and I live quite comfortably. I research on my own and I don't belong to an elaborate dream team created to make around the clock postings here if that is what you are most concerned about. I have not asked anything about your private life, nor does it interest me. What interest me is to be able to better understand what happened in Dallas on 11/22/63. If the films and photographs have been altered, then I want to know about it because it would be BIG NEWS! I have yet to see a photo or film alteration claim of yours that will stand under its own weight. Maybe I have missed something along the way and this is why I want to address the evidence in detail with you. So far it has been like pulling teeth, but I am optimistic that we can stay focused on the more important issues surrounding these claims of yours and possibly you or I can learn something from the other along the way.

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 spotlight, but rather the grandstanders. 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 can appreciate your desire to advertise for TGZFH book and Mr. Costella's web page. The first three URL's discuss "The Gang" which is more grandstanding that I have little interest in. Mr. Costella does have a piece written about a 27 hour window of time before Mary Moorman's number 5 Polaroid was ran in the newspapers whereas he claims that left time for her photograph to have been altered. What Mr. Costella didn't know or bother to find out before hand is that Mary Moorman, her camera and her camera original photo were filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination, but the film wasn't shown on NBC until 3:15pm Dallas time on the very day of the assassination. When filmed, the picture had not yet been out of her hands. Like with the Altgens 6 photograph going on the Associated Press news wire by 1:03 p.m. CST and before any time could have been allotted for altering that photograph, it's really waste of time talking about what could have been done to the photgraph at a later time for the window of opportunity was closed when the photo was shown publicly. Unless Moorman altered her photograph herself within the first 30 minutes following the assassination and before it was taped to be shown on TV in a few hours, then what occurred over the next 27 hours after that is meaningless. I cannot stress the importance of this enough and I am sure you are intelligent enough to see the problem here for Mr. Costella. Maybe had Mr. Costella had known all the facts to start with, then maybe he would not have even written the piece on Moorman's photograph to start with, but he did and he wasn't aware of all the details. Now with all that said - there can be no logical purpose for reading what Mr. Costella wrote about the possible altering of Moorman's #5 Polaroid over the next 27 hours following the assassination. On the other hand, if he should ever write about how Mary Moorman altered her photograph within the first 30 minutes following the assassination, then that would grab my interest in seeing how he explains it was done.

Jack - I respect your honesty in admitting the error.

Bernice Moore, your statement is false. The only thing I have demanded is that if someone is going to promote photo and film alteration, then they should be prepared to answer specific questions about them. When certain people choose to skirt around those specifics and just want to handle the advertising aspect of photo and film alteration with their grandstanding, then I have no patience for them. At the moment there as been some attempt by Jack White to answer questions in a more specific way and if you have anything to add of substance to the inquiry into the accuracy of these alteration claims, then I would welcome it. Bernice Moore, please stay focused for I am the one who did the overlay comparison of Jack White's missing windows that was posted on this site. I tested it before I replied about it. Then I explained the error and how it is quite noticeable. Furthermore, even if I had not created the overlay, I certainly understand its purpose and how there should not be any shifting between the pedestals. Bernice Moore, I take it that you have not even bothered to thoroughly read the threads that I have participated in. I have asked for specifics and only recently in the James Altgens number 6 photo post did I finally get such a response. So no one has been forcing anyone to reply, nor did anyone answer and then be aksed the same questions over and over, unless being asked if someone was going to keep evading the specifics of an issue would fall into the realm of things. I have spent many years researching the JFK assassination. I have researched and studied the photographical record and that should have been obvious when I walked Mr. White through the history of Altgens number 6 photograph and how it applied to the timeline of events as described by Jean Hill on Len Osanics Black Op Radio Show. I am sure that if you will spend a fraction of your time insisting that those who have made these photo and film alteration claims be specific in how they reached their conclusions when asked questions and not evade the issues, then you will better see my qaulifications at work. Your are wrong again, I have been at this for over a quarter of a century. I am here to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy. If someone has done a study by building a clip that shows JFK's head exploding at Z313, then I, nor anyone else needs to duplicate the clip to intelligently discuss what has just occurred. Just like with Mr. White's Bond Vs. Scaggs claim - one doesn't need to do an indepth study to see his mistake. However, if it makes you feel any better I did go to Groden's book "TKOAP" and looked at a wider view of one of the photos Jack used to see that he had two separate sections of the pergola confused as being one in the same.