Larry Peters

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!

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.

If you consider the distance from the ground to the underside of the triple underpass and the distance to the camera - I am sure you'll see it is far too large to be a person. The picture quality in this print is not very good, but I take it to just be an artifact - possibly a fork in the tree standing just in the background.

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 personally think you are talking about a round hole that was seen on an autopsy Xray that shows the back of the head intact while the right eye socket is blasted out Vs. an oval hole seen as a notch on an autopsy photo showing the peeled scalp. Something is not right here. (See pages 81 and 83 of Groden's book called "The Killing of a President") What I can rely on is that there are not two missile impacts seen occuring on any of the assassination films. I just cannot see how a second missile slamming into JFK's already weakened head could do so without kicking up some noticeable debris and spray patterns as was done at Z313.

Jack, I have another question for you. Is there anything about the Willis number 5 slide that makes you think that it was aleterd? The Willis number 5 slide is shown below. Thanks!

Mr. White, you are not paying attention - please stay focused here an we can think this thing through. I NEVER said Jean Hill didn't step in the street. I pointed out that Jean said she stepped back out of the street before the first shot was fired. So please quit confusing the two moments in time because it is important to keep them straight and I know that you are quite capable of knowing the difference. So we are clear ... Yes, Jean Hill stepped into the street and has always said so, but she said it was BEFORE the first shot was fired. James Altgens number 6 photograph was taken after the first two shots had been fired and is a later point in time. Mr. White, please stay focused because we have already agreed that the Altgens number 6 photo that went out on the news wire at 1:03 p.m. did not have time to have been altered. You then said that later prints could have been altered, but I reminded you that we are talking about the print that went out on the Associated Press wire immediately after the assassination. Only now that you see the problem you are faced with by there not being time to have altered that Altgens number 6 photo that hit the wire service by 1:03 p.m. - you are now back pedaling and trying to say that it too was altered. This is exactly why it has been so hard to get you and others to sytematically walk through the evidence and be specific because you will commit to a something like there not being enough time to have altered the Altgens number 6 photo by 1:03 p.m., but then flip flop once you later see that it blows the hell out of your Moorman being in the street claim. Then rather than to admit that the point I raised is solid and one you had not considered before - you then fall back on the 'everything has been faked' and mention again about Jean Hill saying she stepped into the street after the car rounded the corner which has nothing to do with the point in time of Altgens number 6 photograph because Jean said to Len Osanic that she had stepped back out of the street before the shooting started. We both know that Altgens photograph number 6 was taken well after the shots were being fired. So even if the Zapruder film is faked in a hundred other places ... it has been shown by the timeline Altgens #6 hit the news wire and in Jean Hill's own words that the Zapruder film showing Jean and Mary in the grass is accurate. I have been Dealey Plaza and done what you have said. And even if I had not been there and seen it for myself, I can take your own alleged replica photograph and place it onto Moorman's photo and see that you did not have the correct location for Mary Moorman. If you had gotten the correct position, then your pedestal and gap to the pergola window would not shift back and forth when overlaid onto Moorman's photograph and let run as an animation. In the animation below - the left side of the west doorway wall from Moorman's photograph is aligned with your replica photo and the pedestal alone shifts from left to right between photographs. If you cannot see the difference in width between the gap in Moorman's photo and yours, then I really don't know how to help you.Click on attachment to start the animation. The DTH says Hill stepped into the street alright, but it doesn't address when that was. Jean Hill in her interview with Len Osanic does address it. That's the part that you are avoiding because you either have to say Jean Hill lied to Len Osanic and his listeners and has now told two versions of her story or you have misunderstood the timing issue she gave you. For the record: The affidavit taken on 11/22/63 (a whole day before) says they were standing in the grass. Jack - even if your studies were correct and these women were only just off the curb by two feet, you would still prove the point I made about Jean Hill not really being close enough to the limo to have touched it. Like I said, it was a figure of speech and nothing more. BTW, I knew Jill Hill, as well and I know what she always said about where she stood when the shots were being fired. As a matter of fact, I was near her when Mark Lane pointed her out to an entire plaza full of people on JFK's memorial in 1998 and she told each and every person that she stood in the grass. She also made it very clear to everyone who asked that she had stepped into the street before the shots were fired and had gotten back out of it before the first shot rang out. That crucial point of when she said she had gotten back out of the street, along with the 1:10 p.m. timeline for Altgens number 6 photograph to have hit the news wire is something that you seem to not want to deal with when you become aware that it disproves your Moorman being in the street claim. The important thing in this exercise has been to allow others to see the facts and to watch how you dealt with them. Thanks for the direct answers in the early stages of this particular topic.

Duplicate message deleted

I think that the entry wound you are talking about is a spot of blood on the cowlick in an already altered autopsy photo. As I recall, they couldn't decide if that was the wound or the one Humes referenced further down on the lower head/neck area. But in either case - this was being done by way of a photograph being shown or referenced to the doctor. I don't know anything about a shot hitting the right temple of JFK's head. The entry wound had to be along the bone plate that was dislodged from the top right side of the President's head. That wound is shown below and seems to still be attached by a small strip of scalp. The missing hair on the top part of the head is where that flap came from and along it's border somewhere has to be where the missile entered the skull. The information concerning the bullet entering along the bone plate in nearly every instance is something Dennis David said was taught at Bethesda. Click on the first attachment below to start animation.

Drew, that's a great question. The person that stabilized that two frame clip and first brought this information to light had also done some later clips showing the moment that the head had started it's way backward. What this person said was that we all can see the result of what a bullet strike to JFK's head looked like at Z313. That if we inch the frames forward to the point where the head starts backwards, then we will notice that there isn't another sign of a missle impacting the head because with an already weakened skull - a second missile impacting the head should have caused even more damage than the first bullet. He pointed out that not one drop of splattered blood is seen when the head starts its way backwards. It was that lack of further debris being blasted from the head that showed many of us that a second shot to the head just didn't happen when following the evidence before us. His initial two frame clip showing the violent shoving of the shoulders to the rear seems to be why the head was snapped backwards after if had rocked forward and bounced off Kennedy's chest. There is a better clip over at Lancer that details this event, but I think the one I have available from their site may do just as good. Watch the clip at the frame switch when the head starts backwards and should notice an absence of a second impact. No second explosion, no debris flying up into the air, no further damage to the skull. See what you think.

Forgive me, but that doesn't deserve a reply. I agree with you here - the window is not positioned right, but you failed to see that it was not I that positioned it ... it was Jack White. This reminds me of the story as to which came first - the chicken or the egg? If you go back and start from the beginning - you will see that had the answers have been forthcoming and to the point, then things would have went a lot smoother. Constant stonewalling can be very frustrating to some of us. Bernice, some people like to brag about their qualifications - I do not. Some folks try and claim a higher degree of education as if that should mean something, but it doesn't. Some folks might say it just took them longer to learn something it took others less time to do. A person can be smart enough to transplant a heart from one person to another, but if he or she doesn't know the facts surrounding the JFK assassination, then his or her intelligence is of little value here. Go to the "Loony Toons loose" thread and watch the discussion going on between Mr. White and I, just maybe my qualifications and knowledge of the case will come shining through. I have also presented some of my own research as I have tested Miller's work and given detailed explanations as to my conslusions, so it should be obvious that I have spent considerable time looking at these issues. I might also add that I presented some of Jack White's research as well. Please try and pay more attention to this topic concerning photo and film alteration for it can be quite interesting if stay focused on the issues being discussed. I expect that what you say is true, but if those people cannot tell whose overlay is which like you failed to do with the pedestal example that I posted showing the alleged missing windows, then maybe some of that email you speak of as to my being in error has been wrongfully misplaced.

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

Mr. White - I think we have finally started down a new pathway where you are seemingly trying to stay focused and attempting to give direct answers to the key issues surrounding the possibilities of photo and film alteration, so please don't start regressing backwards. It would be nice to keep the photo a film alteration replies in one thread. So far, the first precise and to the point response from you has been made in the "looney Tunes" thread. The thread name should have been 'photo and film alteration claims', but regardless - I think we should try to keep our points on that particular topic in just the one thread. I look forward to some more on point responses.

Thanks for the specific and to the point response. Now let's consider what you have said. At 12:39 p.m., Altgens is across the street at the Dallas Morning News 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 Associated 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 Associated 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 Associated Press would remove Jean Hill and Mary Moorman out of the street and place these womens shadows coming from the grass?

Here is a direct question for Mr. Jack White to answer ----- 1) Jack, How long do you recall after the assassination did the James Altgens number six photograph showing the famous TSBD doorway in its background go out on the AP news wire?

I would like to put something to rest so we can move on. It seems that to rather address the questions and points that are being raised in these threads concerning photo and film alteration claims, Mr. White and Mr. Healy have opted to not deal with the specific issues and tell the forum that they are being attacked by "provocateurs". I thought it would be interesting to get the eact definition of the word they like to throw around and here it is - Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural agents provocateurs /'ä-"zhän-prO-"vä-k&-'t&r, 'A-j&n(t)s-prO-/ Etymology: French, literally, provoking agent Date: 1877 : one employed to associate with suspected persons and by pretending sympathy with their aims to incite them to some incriminating action Let me make one thing clear - I do not and have not shown sympathy for those people who make claims of film and photo alteration and then evade specific oberservations and points detailing their mistakes. It hardly seems right that they welcome questions and observations to only then call anyone who points out their mistakes a provocateur. It's almost as if they have done the provoking by by taking the position ... I WILL ANSWER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS SO LONG AS IT DOESN'T EXPOSE ANY MISTAKES I MADE IN MY ALTERATION CLAIMS. If this method of forum participation is going to be their approach, then why bother making the offer in the first place. Would it then be appropriate that those who ask the appropriate questions and make the points needed to test these claims of photo and film alteration to call those who don't follow through with their original offer - Welshers? Main Entry: welsh Pronunciation: 'welsh, 'welch Function: intransitive verb Etymology: probably from Welsh, adjective Date: 1905 1 : to avoid payment — used with on <welshed on his debts> 2 : to break one's word : RENEGE <welshed on their promises> - welsh·er noun So please, in the future just answer the questions and stop evading the issues being raised and we'll all get through this together. Here is a little inspiration to help you do this ... Let justice be done though the Heavens fall.

I was afraid that this topic would get lost in a thread that was over photo and film alteration. Below is a two from stabilized clip showing JFK's body movements at the moment of impact. As I said elswhere - only a missile traveling downward would cause the spatter seen in the Nix film, the avulsion seen in the Zapruder and Nix film frame examples showing the back right side of the head in profile and the body movement where the head rocks forward on impact while the shoulders are driven rearward at the same time. Click onto the first and third photo to activate the animation

I suspect competent scientific researchers will correct errors made by Dr. John Costella, Dr. David Mantik - David Lifton, etc ... Someone on the OTHER side of the alteration argument needs to provide PROOF of a clean *chain of evidence* summary regarding the alledged Z-film and 3 optical film prints of. Oh but Mr. Healy, does it take a scientist to know the standing height for a Dallas police motorcycle at its highest point is taller than Moorman's alloted camera lens height - of course not! Does it then take a scientist to see that her camera is looking over the top of a Dallas police motorcyle - of course not! Does it take a scientist to find out how long after the assassination did James Altgens number 6 photograph went out on the news wire - of course not! Does it take a scientist to see Jean Hill and Mary Moorman's shadows coming from the south pasture in Altgens photograph - of course not! Just from memory I can tell you about two of the optical prints you speak of. One was made by Robert Groden and the other was a copy of Groden's copy which was given to Lifton. Now see, had you of made a simple call to Gary Mack or Robert Groden, then you could have known these things. I am certain that if you contact either of these men that you can also find out what you need to know about the other two prints in question. But yet he couldn't see the mistakes in the Moorman in the street claim - interesting. They are also the same PhD's who think rain sensors are listening devices or write in TGZFH about this large window of time that Moorman's number five Polaroid could have been altered, while not checking with anyone first to know that her Polaroid was shown on National TV (NBC) within 3 hours of the assassination. They are the same MD's who missed the points that so many others noted about Moorman's photograph. If I get a cold, then I will not hesitate to consult Dr. Mantik, but if I want to duplicate a photographers filming location, I'll pass on using him to find it. Mantik, Fetzer and White's recreation overlay is presented below. I'll let the scientist and fellow researchers judge their accuracy by clicking on the clip and letting it run. You seem to do the Education Forum and have avoided every opportunity to address Miller's critique when examples of it has been presented to you. Now I recall reading your name on several of the threads on Lancer that were part of the critique concerning allegations of photo and film alteration, but I don't recall you rebutting anything that would cause Miller to have to hide behind any skirts. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that I can copy and paste every one of your replies on the Lancer critique threads to a single post here and I do not believe anyone can find a single factual point of rebuttal that you offered. I'd be willing to bet that your answers on Lancer will mirror your answers on this forum.

Mr. Healy - I am taking the evidence presented by Mr. White and testing it by using the same data that he presented. Nowhere did Mr. White say to make allowances for optics and one does not need to be a specialist to follow what he had wrote. Mr. White overlaid his photo onto Moorman's Polaroid and said that by using his overlay we can see that the windows should be seen sticking out behind Abraham Zapruder. I merely took his Moorman cropping and slid it over onto the Moorman cropping Mr. White had placed his photo over. If Mr. White's cropping was accurately done, then when overlaid onto Moorman's photograph by way of his own example, then there should not be any shifting taking place. Now if you feel there is lesson in optics you would like to address that Mr. White didn't account for, I am sure he'd be happy to hear about it. I am sure that the entire forum wants to hear about it. You see, that's the beauty of all this. One can use Mr. White's own work to show his mistakes and all the excuse making on your part isn't going to divert attention away from it. In fact, your grandstanding only draws attention to the errors being referenced.

dgh01: Thats Adobe Photoshop Bill for you, can't make up his mind even today -- have 'em post a .jpg of the cancelled check - better yet a animated .gif... Mr. Healy - If I email Miller and get him to scan a copy of his canceled check and email it to me so I can post it - will you promise to start addressing the alleged photo and film alteration issues put to you instead of just posting nonsense and wasting everyone's time? How about another alteration claim gone bad! Below is just another example of a poorly researched approach that claims proof of photo and film alteration. In this overlay, Fetzer, White and Mantik claim to have found Moorman's exact position. Please pay attention to the shifting gap between the pedestal and the pergola window between their photo recreation and Moorman's to see just how exact these guys settled for. The first photo is a crop from Mary Moorman's number 5 photograph and the gap between the pedestal and the pergola window is cirled in red. The next image is an animated overlay of an alleged recreation photo that has been overlaid onto Moorman's photograph so to test for any gap variance between the two photographs. If the recreation photo is accurate, then no shift between the pedestal and the pergola window should take place. You can be the judge whether they got it right or not. Enjoy! (Click on the image on the right to start the animation)

Here is an example of a faulty approach that was taken by the alteration crowd to see if Moorman's photo had been altered. Notice how the windows in the cropped overlay do not match. To better see this - place your mouse arrow on the right hand side of the Moorman window and watch the overlay run. You will see that alterationist photographers window shifts to one side, thus he was not even standing at the right angle to the pedestal when he took his test photo. Had the camera of been exactly where Moorman was standing, then there should be no shifting seen between the cropped version of his photo and Moorman's photo. You will also see the vertical walls between the photographer's photo and Moorman's Poaroid go back and forth like a set of windshield wipers in partial motion. There are two possible reasons for this. One is that Moorman had her camera tilted lightly downward and looking at the President and the alterationist photographer had his camera angled upward. Once a camera lens falls below the horizontal plane it will cause vertical lines to lean in one direction. The more below the plane the camera angle is - the more the vertical lines will lean. When a camera leans is tilted upward above the horizontal plane - the vertical lines will lean the other way. The other possible cause for what were are seeing may be that the photographer didn't align his cropped overlay properly. Regardless of how the mistake was made, it is quite noticeable when seen in motion. (Click on the image to start in motion)

The Nix film showing the moment of the head shot seems to have been exposed a fraction of a second sooner than Zapruder's frame #313 was. If you watch the film closely - you should be able to pick up on the skull bone that is seen in Z313 that flew upward and to the front which may have landed near Altgens feet. Nix picks that bone up in flight just as it is leaving the immediate area around JFK's head. You should also see a piece of bone flying towards the rear at the same instant which seems to have possibly been the bone that landed at the curb near assassination witness Charles Brehm. That bone and debris was already out of the frame when Zapruder captured the head explosion. The blood spatter at impact and the coning effect that it left behind will be in the next photo. Note that the back spray seen at impact in the photo example is just what is seen in the Nix and Zapruder film, while the much narrower debris pattern follows the bullets path. (Click on the Nix frame to start in motion)

Yes, and that brain matter was traveling close to the speed of the bullet. By the time Zapruder frame 313 was exposed - the skull flap was already off the head and the spray in midair. The back spatter moves much slower than the bullet did and by the time that frame was exposed - much of the debris coming out of the back of the head through the avulsed bones was long gone out of the film frame. The mist that came off the top of the head was slowed down because of the air flow and it was allowed to be seen for two to three film frames until it dissipated. By the way - I have seen enhancements of Mrs. Kennedy's face and there is bloody debris stuck to her face.

Photo attachment test was unsuccessful.

If you are refering to the MPI version of the Zapruder film which is somewhat dark and blured - I can see your point only in part. The back of the head had to be split open because of the coning effect that is seen of the back of the head. The back portion of the head as seen on the Zapruder film has been described as looking like the butt end of a watermelon by some. For the head to reach that shape - it has to split open. The fact that the Zapruder film doesn't offer us clear and complete images does not mean the back of the head is not open. I'm not sure that a rocket scientist would stand up in court with a forensic pathologist. I know that Cyril Wecht and the medical people Miller spoke to did not share this man's opinion. I would had to of been there to see how they explained the angle of the shot and how the body absorbed the impact so to know he was told the same things the doctors had said to Miller when he spoke to them.