Larry Peters

In the event that some other people may have gotten the wrong impression, I want to clarify some things that Mr. Healy did not. Zavada had been asked to authenticate the Zapruder films authenticity in ways that had nothing to do with comparing it to other films and photos. When Zavada learned what the Deluth Conference was about, he had no choice but to bow out because he had not done any film and photo cross-referencing for signs of alteration. By no means did Zavada ever mean that he was not qualified to have done the job, just that it was not part of the process he had undertaken in his previous work. So at that point in time he may have felt out of his league to discuss Jack White's claims at the conference, but not in the way Mr. Healy portrayed it to mean.

Without the ability to post images at the moment this may be tough for some to follow, but I'll give it a shot anyway. First of all, I am not sure why you'd think that a bullet cannot cause JFK's head to snap back and to the left? Some of the top leading forensic pathologist, regardless of which direction they believe the shot came from, have attributed JFK's head movement to being shot in the head. I think I have already said that there is evidence that the bones on the back of JFK's skull were sprung outward. I called attention to this with profiles of Kennedy's head as seen in both the Nix and Zapruder films. On Lancer there is a two frame clip showing a stabilized view of JFK at the moment his head rocks forward and then explodes in a backward direction. That clip shows JFK's head tilt forward while his shoulders are driven backwards. The author of that clip stated that when he consulted some medical personnel that he found that a blow to the head from the front and on a downward trajectory, while in the same forward posture as JFK, would do exactly what was seen in the clip that was presented. An easy way to test this observation is to sit with your head bowed to the front as JFK was at Z312. Next, have someone hit you in the back of the head and see what happens. You should find that your head and shoulders move forward. Now if someone hits you in the head somewhere on the top of the skull from where the bone plate came loose and with a front to back downward impact as the bullet would have done - you will find that your head rocks forward and your shoulder's are driven backwards. This causes a type of whiplash effect in reverse and the force of this effect is what snapped JFK's head back against the seat. This stabilized clip and data was then presented to Al Carrier who then shared it with some of the experts he works around. Al is a 20+ year officer and has a CSI background. Al Carrier then posted on Lancer his findings and they were supportive of the events described here for you. A search on Lancer under the name "head shot" may pull up the threads that dealt with this issue. I hope this has been somewhat helpful. I think it is better described and detailed on Lancer.

So far the agenda seems to have been to avoid dealing directly and specifically with the issues concerning their claims of photo and film alteration when ever possible, make themselves feel important enough to think the CIA has an interest in their Keystone Cop approach to research, get themselves laughed out of the two major Dallas conspiracy conferences and to show that when backed into a corner ... one can always try and get a way out by saying that all the films and photos are fakes, so why explain anything to anyone.

You are absolutely correct - it was those alterationist experts that David Healy praises.

Here is ome follow up information on Muchmore's film and its trip to New York that I was made available by questioning Gary Mack. Gary said - I reported this information several YEARS ago. No one has refuted it, for no one can. The film was bumped to 16mm in New York City at any of several labs that do that work overnight. I visited one many years ago. The station was the former WNEW, which is now the FOX station . The contents of the film, scene by scene, event by event, were reported in the New York City afternoon newspapers referring to that day's broadcast, which was 11/26/63. The film still exists (in private hands) and is identical to the version that has been seen since then. Likewise, the Nix film is well documented, especially in regard to the Saturday, 11/30 football game. The film wasn't taken out of the camera until late that night and was processed the next day. Jack White even has a copy of the very newspaper that reports the score of that Saturday night game.

Mr. White, It's no secret in the JFK research community that the way challenges of your photo and film alteration claims were disposed of on 'JFKResearch' was done by quickly banning anyone who pointed out the mistakes you had made. I was only a member there through one thread where I raised challenges to your Moorman and Hill being in the street claim before I was banned. But before leaving I had pulled each and every post from the thread I participated in so to have a record of the so-called disposing of my challenges. I will share that thread with anyone who wishes to see just how you rose to the occassion on JFKResearch. On forums where you are not afforded such protection you have basically avoided the challenges by saying that all the films and photos are faked, so why bother discussing them. I am going to raise those challenges on this forum once I can post images again whether you care to participate or not. Those photo and film alteration claims were obviously important enough for you to allow them to go into print, so they should obviously be important enough to test their credibility on a public forum.

dgh01: 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. I wonder if Mr. David Mantik ever noticed White's mistakes concerning where Jean Hill and Mary Moorman stood during the shooting? If he did, then there certainly isn't any record of it in TGZFH. I remember Miller posting on Lancer that he was asked in an email by Mr. Lifton how he knew Moorman wasn't in the street and Miller told him that Mary's camera lens is looking over the top of the cycle riders windscreens ... that it was impossible for the 54" camera height that White attributed to Moorman to see over the top of the taller 58" high windscreens of the cycles while standing in the street. Miller went on to point out to Mr. Lifton that the photo showing when Moorman was in the street can be seen on page 233 of Richard Trask book "The Pictures of the Pain". In that photo of Officer McBride riding down Elm Street we can see the people along the north side of Elm Street through the windscreen, whereas in Moorman #5 Polarod we see the Bill Newman well above the windscreen of Martin and Hargis. It appears that not only did Mr. Mantik, Mr. Costella, Mr. Lifton and Mr. Fetzer failed to recognize this crucial point, but all the other alteration believers, as well. Now what degree in science does it take to understand the error that all these men made? To this date - not one of these men has produced an art teacher who teaches perspective to their students that will say that the observation Miller made was in error. For me, the bigger question isn't how Miller picked up on this all important point, but how were these well educated men able to miss it? I personally think that the only way to explain it is that these individuals were in an alteration mindset before they ever started and that while looking for something hard to spot so to show photo and film alteration, they missed the easy things to spot. This subject was dealt with in-depth on Lancer and I am sure I seen your name on some of the replies in those threads, so you surely cannot be in the dark on this subject. I'm not going to go back and do your homework for you, but I will cite from memory as to how the information was discovered and how you can check on its accuracy if you really want to. Richard Trask wrote in his book "The Pictures of the Pain" about Muchmore's film in a chapter called "The Justin McCarty Women". Trask details the sale of the Muchmore film in that chapter. Then one of the researchers at Lancer contacted Gary Mack to see what more could be learned about what happened next with Muchmmore's film. Mack cited a TV station where the film was aired and a newspaper article that was printed the following day talking about the airing of Muchmore's film the night before. All this should be a matter of record and it was posted on Lancer no less than a year ago and possibly as long as two years ago. I would think that has been plenty of time for anyone to have contacted Gary Mack to validated the specifics and then followed up by searching their local libraries for the newspaper article that mentioned the airing of the Muchmore film. As I recall - the dates to look for have to be around the 25th to the 27th of Novemeber 63'.

Mr. Healy - My last name is Peters - not Peter's. Your inablity to keep things straight leaves a lot to be desired. I might also add that I'm not impressed with your desire to place nationalities with opinions and observations. Of all the critiques I have read on the alteration claims, I have not once seen where an alterationist' nationality was mentioned. If you or Mr. White would just address the alteration claims, I am sure the purpose of this forum will be better served. As for something Mr. White said - In the future, Mr. White might want to think about the things he says a little better. Instead of addressing Miller's critque of his photo and film alteration claims - he'll make a statement like the one I just quoted him as saying. I believe Miller was awarded the Mary Ferrell Award this past year in Dallas for his discovery of new evidence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, so Mr. White's statement, like his alteration claims, was not very accurate. I understand that the forum administrator is working on getting my attachment capabilities up and going again and when he does ... I will be more than happy to discuss the alteration evidence claims with you and anyone else so maybe we can all learn something together. Hopefully we'll get past the 'everything is fake so why bother' mentality and start trying to better understand how these conclusions were reached in the first place by those for and against them.

I agree and here are some more ... Or the guys who thought the rain sensors in Dealey Plaza were listening devices for people wanting to spy on them. Or the guys who think that every photo and film that is shown to debunk their off-the-wall observations must be faked. Or the guys that would think that if one of their fellow alterationist had his electric razor accidently come on in an airport that it must be CIA related. Or anyone who would waste thread space posting about Loony Toons being loose.

Ville, Thanks for your interest in this film and photo alteration subject. I look forward to having someone to help think through the findings that Miller and others came up with for I have reviewed each and every aspect of the critique on Lancer and I didn't find a single flaw in it. If I missed something, then I would certainly want to know it because it would mean something was altered and that is big news! I agree that Miller's critique doesn't prove that the Zapruder film wasn't altered, but I believe it proves that the evidence that has been put forth to date that the Zapruder film was altered was nothing more than poor research applications used in testing the information within the images. I believe it has been shown time and time again that no one could have possibly known what to alter on the Zapruder film because no one could be sure who all had filmed the assassination or that all those who did film JFK's murder had turned copies of their films in. I know Marie Muchmore walked out of the plaza with her film immediately after the assassination and it wasn't until the 25th of November that she sold it to UPI without the film even being developed. UPI then flew it to NY and had it shown on TV for the public to see. The Feds never found out Muchmore's film existed until after it was aired on television. Orville Nix was another example where he carried his film pout of the plaza, as well and didn't have it developed until the 30th of November. Orville made the mistake of turning in the camera original in my opinion, but he did keep a 1st generation copy in his control. So these are just of examples of what occurred which would have surely been detrimental for exposing any alterations being done to the Zapruder film. The bottom line is the people in power behind the conspiracy didn't need to alter the films and risk being caught. From the evidence I have seen - the idea was to take control of the body of evidence, claim to have reviewed and fill a report and then lock it away until everyone who could contradict any of it was now dead and buried. It was the work of Harold Weisberg in his legal battles to have the assassination records released that poked holes in the dam and eventually caused the flood gates to open.

Someone may want to spell check the web pages on the alteration site. Right off I noticed that the word "realise" should have been spelled "realize". I also see why you wanted to refer to "the Gangs" critique when it came to Jack White's photo and film claims of alteration. Here is one of the critiques offered by Ron Hepler and while the point he makes is valid, it isn't detailed in any way. "B is for Betzner…Zapruder & Sitzman" Jack’s claim of alteration is based on fuzzy blow-ups with inadequate illumination. Lack of detail is not proof of alteration. Now for Miller's critique - http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...=12&topic_id=27

Hope the included link helps clarify and answers some of those nagging questions you might have, big waste of time to debate something you nor I can prove of disprove, unless of course you have access to films and photo's [for verification purposes] That's the beauty of all this, Mr. Healy. You see, we can use the same images that Mr. White used to test his claims which make up nearly all of the photo and film alteration asssertions in TGZFH. It should be worth noting that the claims of photo and film alteration have nothing to do with having the originals for Mr. White pointed out what he believed to be discrepancies within the film and photo images he used. The test is whether he read the images correctly. I will go see each and every answer that the link may provide, which I am sure I have alreay seen in TGZFH, but let me remind you of something first. It's an old school boys trick that when confronted with a book report that the child only cites generalities, much the same way you have done each and every time I asked you a specific question concerning Miller's critique on Lancer's site. Putting up a link and saying the answers can be found there is another avasive stunt in my view. I will play along, but expect some questions and points to be raised and I hope that you will be prepared to address these issues better than you have done so far. So try out the site, you'll find the GANG'S responses to TGZFH, guess it was around early October '03 that the heat rose, they got a early start on us, evidently a manuscript of the book made the rounds, it was originally sent to Dr. Cyril Wecht, the Patholigist for comments somehow or other Tink Thompson got hold of it, there was a big flap, really messy. I have seen "the Gangs" responses some time ago and that is why I drew your attention to Miller's critique for it was far more graphical and extensive. I suspect that is why you have avoided it and are now pointing me to a lesser detailed critique. [Welcome to the big leagues regarding the Assassination of a sitting US President] Same kind of stuff beginning here -- slam Jack White and his research -- yadada, yadada, yadada! I would think Cyril Wecht is in the big league and implying that Josiah Thompson has a hold on Wecht is absurd. Cyril Wecht bucked the official version because he says and does what he believes to be right. Trying to get anyone to believe that he is influenced by Thompson is just a way to hide the fact that Wecht doesn't want to be connected with such sloppy research. "Yadda, Yadda, Yadda" is a perfect example of the type of unspecific responses you have given so far. So: here it is - been there since November '03, surprised your search engine had difficulty finding it! http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax/ I have the book, so unless this site offers more than what's in the book, then you haven't given me anything I haven't seen before. Like I said before - Hepler's responses wasn't nearly as detailed as Miller's critique on Lancer, so be prepared to be a bit more specfic in the future. All presenters, present and accounted for with the exception of Roland Zavada, a shame he backed out on the eve of the May 2003 together at the University of Minnesota. It seems that I read where about 30 people showed up for that Minnesota conference and many of them were said to be the presenters. It could be that Zavada didn't feel it necessary to address a small group that has no credibility in the majority of the JFK Research Community. Most of us, this side of the aisle, took the time to understand the breadth of the situation. Yet you have been unable to address and specifics about the critique on Lancer - how interesting! Questions? Drop me a e-mail through this forum, reasonable requests will be forwarded to the appropriate author, I will offer points and questions on this thread so everyone can see them. I would think that you have read TGZFH and must feel that you have understood the points made within it, so maybe you won't have to bother the authors unless you get hung up on something really big. Never-the-less it will be interesting to get a response from anyone that may be somewhat specific in their reply. If I've offended any forum member with my comments to Mr. Peter's, I apologize. From some of the emails I have gotten so far - the only thing you done that might be considered offensive is to run up nonresponsive replies that never specifically addressed the issues presented to you. People want to see an intelligent and to the point response because this is after all ... an education forum. Hopefully such responses will be forthcoming in the future.

dgh05: thanks Mr. Peter's, I thought you might know one of the above select photo researchers. Why is info so difficult to attain from some of these "preservers of history"? How's the weather in Scotland? Mr. Healy - the only place where getting information has been difficult to do has been from you and your never addressing the point replies. An example of this is your asking how the weather is in Scotland ... what kind of a question is that? Do a web search if you want to see what the weather is like around the world.

dgh04: Mr. Peter's -- evidently you can't find the website where your questions about JFK related photos/films discussed in TGZFH are debated. I use to call it the dueling WEBSITE bake off.... Not to worry I'll post the URL for you, you may then witness what *real* PHOTO researchers have to say about the subject. Both Pro and Con -- you know any of the following folks... Joe Durnavich - Louis Girdler - James Gordon - Ron Hepler - Barb Junkkarinen - Craig Lamson - Dave Perry - Josiah Thompson - David Wimp. Ready for an education on the subject matter? If not you will... -------------------- Mr. Healy - you are speaking in favor of the film and photo alteration claims called into question from TGZFH. Because you are saying the critique Miller did is in error, some of which has been presented here without you offering one shred of a rubutal, I assume you know why the claims of film alteration are accurate, so please start telling us what they are. Would you like for me to go fetch another claim and see if it may be one you can actually address?

dgh03: nope, no time for "The thing is ..." might you post some of those poorly though out Zapruder alteration claims and correct the errors of the alteration proponents right here -----> you really, really NEED to read up on this subject Mr. Peter's -- hacking away at Jack White who quite frankly has little to say regarding Z-film alteration debate misses the mark -- your looking for ME, Dr. John Costella and Dr. David Mantik and David Lifton. Having Gary Mack prop you up is, well let's just say your losing credibility with each post...in short, you need a little help, your in over your head champ-- Mr. Healy - Your memory must be very short for I did start posting the errors mentioned in TGZFH and not once did you address any of them. Now your talking as if you know nothing about my doing this. On page 3 and 4 of this thread there were examples being presented showing Mr. White's mistakes and this is what you said ... dgh: What you don't realize Mr. Peter's: Jack White has recognized his mistakes and moved on. Now you are talking like you want them all posted again. Maybe if you'd start addressing them one by one, then we can go through a process of elimination to see if there are any that can stand under their own weight. Here is another example of your stonewalling ... dgh01: there we go again -- Mr White this, Mr. White that -- if you can't post the photographic evidence supporting your accusations re Jack White here, please post them to a website so ALL of us can review what material your basing your criticisms on. You were then given a web address that contains the detailed analysis of those claims and this is how you dealt with it ... Gimme something tangible to take to the media Mr. Peter's - BMiller's material doesn't pass muster-- How long will it be till your presentations are available? Your right, there's no need to spend a single second more dealing with this nonsense -- a complete waste of my not to mention this forums time, so Larry say hello to Debra and Bill Miller for me, have a nice summer... and lighten up on Jack White -- we're the last of photog's that know what their talking about. So far you have done nothing but post rhetoric. You now ask to post what's wrong with the claims - go back in this thread and choose one and we'll get started testing them. dgh03: nonsense..... the below is stock -n- trade JFK research disinformation, *late comer*, haven;t heard this one for ages -- I suspect this came to Mr. Peter's via e-mail from the 6th Floor Museum recently, REAL recently. I suspect Mr. Peter's has NEVER viewed the Nix film... and the beat goes on! My understanding is that the information originally came from the Nix family. Gary Mack called and spoke directly to the Nix family. He has since known them for over 20 years and Orville Nix Jr. and Gayle (the granddaughter of Orville Sr.) are still alive and you are invited to contact them yourself like any researcher can do for verification as to what's been said here.

And I want to know; If the films weren't altered, how do you explain the violent backwards head snap? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You need to be more specific - what is there about the head snapping backwards that would make you think the films were altered because I have never read or heard where any witnesses have ever said that Kennedy's head did anything other than what has been seen on the assassination films? BTW - some of the frames that were in the newspaper were showing Jackie on the back of the car after the shots. I am certain that frame Z313 was not placed in the newspaper. A lot of libraries carry major newspapers on microfilm. Contact a branch near you and ask if the Dallas Morning News or Dallas Hearld are on microfilm there and if they have them, then you can go in and scroll through them looking for these published frames.

What Zapruder frames were being shown? Do you know which ones? They came out in the Newspapers the following week as I recall. You may see some of them on Ebay at times being sold individually or in lots. The Nix family seen those stills and I believe they found out (maybe through the newspaper) that the Zfilm had been sold. I believe the Nix family then got the idea that maybe their film was of some financial value as well. Nix turned in his original film to the FBI on December 1. He requested and received a copy from the FBI and stated that the film does not appear as clear as his usual pictures. Years later, Nix's granddaughter Gayle Jackson claimed that her grandfather felt that the film had certain frames removed from it and that it had been edited by the government (Assassination Science, pg. 302-03). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right. Nix did make that statement as I recall, but I believe he was not sure. One thing about the removal of frames - their removal can be detected because then the movements within the film will have jumps and variances that do not match the other films. More importantly - even if they had damaged or removed half of the original Nix film ... Orville still had the first generation copy in his sole possession. Here is some additional information that Gary Mack has been kind enough to share with researchers: The Nix film appeared in theatrical newsreels in late 1963/early 1964. The assassination footage was marketed extensively by UPI until 1992 when all rights to it were given back to the Nix family (and subsequently acquired by The Sixth Floor Museum). Nix received a first generation print of his film from UPI shortly after selling it to them in 1963. That print, badly worn over the years while in possession of the Nix family and no one else, was exchanged in 1992 for a previously unknown first generation 8mm print kept in the Dallas office of the FBI. That copy matches all known copies of the Nix film dating to 1963. No one knew of the existence of the Nix film outside of his family until he dropped it off for processing at the Dynacolor Corporation on Industrial Boulevard in Dallas late the night of November 30, 1963. Dynacolor called him the next day and both he and his son, Orville Nix, Jr, watched the film at Dynacolor on Sunday afternoon, December 1. It was only then that Nix decided to contact the FBI. Meanwhile, millions of issues of LIFE magazine had been distributed around the world for nearly a week with many frames of the Zapruder film. All of those frames are the same in the film today as in 1963 and the frames of both films that coincide in time match each other. What this means is that neither film was altered, nor were any others. The significance of the timeline is very easily understood and it has been a matter of record for 40 years.

Mr. White - I take it that when your first sentence said that "this is misinformation", that you were talking about the rest of your reply. You seem to miss some important points for some reason. For instance, the fact that the Zapruder frames were being put into the public domain at a time when no one could possibly have known about Nix's film or what it showed so to know what to alter on the Zfilm went over the top of your head. You also missed the point that Orville Nix had a copy of his film made when he first took it into have it developed. That's like going to the local photo lab with a roll of film and asking them to make double prints. Just because one print gets lost or damaged - you still have the second print. That copy made from the original film had remained in the Nix family's sole possession until the early 90's and well after the assassination or any possible film alteration had taken place. The film copy that "Orville Nix" had made back at the end of November 63' (the copy that no one but the Nix family possessed for the next 30 years) shows the exact same thing that the copies of the original Nix film shows. I don't know why the importance of all this escapes you, but that copy Orville Nix had made in the beginning had never gone out of the families possession for over 30 years. I hope that no one is going to suggest that the Nix family altered their original copy so to match your alleged altered version. Information obtained through Gary Mack: Nix thought some frames might have been ruined, as he told Mark Lane. The original film was sold to UPI in December 1963 and returned to UPI in 1978 by the HSCA. There is existing paperwork with signatures proving it. Gayle negotiated a return of the copyright to the family from UPI and all copies of the film they held and UPI agreed. Gayle received many 16 and 35mm prints and negatives, some dating to 1963. UPI admitted the 8mm camera original could not be found. All are now owned by The Sixth Floor Museum. First generation copies of the film have been available for viewing at no charge at The Sixth Floor Museum since 1995. Prints of the film obtained by Robert Groden in the late 1960's also include the football halftime footage filmed in Fort Worth on the evening of 11-30-63.

It's interesting that this was the same Gerald Ford who eventually admitted to having moved a wound from the President's back to the neck so to support the Single Bullet Theory (SBT). I should also mention that Arlen Specter was a Republican, as well. FBI Agent Francis O'Neil said that Specter called him and wanted he and Sibert to change and falsify their report in order to support the SBT.

This is misinformation. Orville Nix himself himself said that his film had been changed. Additionally, the original film was retained by the government and never returned. Gayle Nix SUED TO GET THE FILM BACK, but was given only a copy. TO SUBSTANTIATE WHAT MACK CLAIMS, ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS PRODUCE THE CAMERA ORIGINAL WITH THE FOOTBALL GAME ON IT and let it be tested for authenticity. They cannot, or they would have. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr. White - I take it that when your first sentence said that "this is misinformation", that you were talking about the rest of your reply. You seem to miss some important points for some reason. For instance, the fact that the Zapruder frames were being put into the public domain at a time when no one could possibly have known about Nix's film or what it showed so to know what to alter on the Zfilm went over the top of your head. You also missed the point that Orville Nix had a copy of his film made when he first took it into have it developed. That's like going to the local photo lab with a roll of film and asking them to make double prints. Just because one print gets lost or damaged - you still have the second print. That copy made from the original film had remained in the Nix family's sole possession until the early 90's and well after the assassination or any possible film alteration had taken place. The film copy that "Orville Nix" had made back at the end of November 63' (the copy that no one but the Nix family possessed for the next 30 years) shows the exact same thing that the copies of the original Nix film shows. I don't know why the importance of all this escapes you, but that copy Orville Nix had made in the beginning had never gone out of the families possession for over 30 years. I hope that no one is going to suggest that the Nix family altered their original copy so to match your alleged altered version.

dgh02: WHY? You a US taxpayer? Listen Mr. Peter's, may come as a surprise to you, one can't claim they/he/she says the Z-film is altered, any more than YOU can say no it's not - any more than Gary, Roland Zavada, Josiah Thompson, David Blackburst and all the rest can. Why? No one has tested it, WHY? The thing is, if the Zapruder is altered, it hasn't been shown through those poorly thought out claims that I started referencing from TGZFH early on in this thread. Gary Mack has said that no one has produced one expert to support the assassination films being altered. If Gary is not right, then by all means tell us who they are? BTW - Here is some information on the Nix film that will interest about anyone but a Zapruder film alteraionist ... Oriville Nix had seen in the newspaper on the Tuesday or Wednesday following the assassination prints from the Zapruder film. Orville still had his film in the camera and the following Saturday he finishied shooting the Dealey Plaza roll of film at a football game before having it developed. Orville also had a copy of his film made at that time. Orville then sold his original copy to UPI a week or two later, but Orville kept the 1st generation copy with him. People that say the Nix or Zapruder film is altered don't understand or want to understand that when the Zapruder frames started getting into the public domain - no one knew if all the films had been made known yet. Any alteration could have easily been exposed as part of a conspiracy if a late comer had then made his or her film known. Nix is a good example of this because it wasn't until after 11/30/63 that he had his film being developed and duplicated. Now even if and when the original Nix film vanished - Orville still had with him the copy he had made before UPI or the Government knew he even took a film of the assassination. That copy remained with the Nix family until the early 90's. That copy showed everything the same way that the other films and photos of the assassination had done, thus there was no possible alteration of the Zapruder film or the Nix film would have exposed it as such. This information came from Gary Mack via Gayle Nix, Orville's granddaughter.

I cannot take time to REDO analysis images just to post them here. Sorry. Jack White <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr. White - it takes about 15 to 30 seconds to open your file in PhotoShop - duplicate the file - then go to 'image size' and lower the duplicate file. Once you have posted the smaller file - you can then delete the smaller duplicate file off your system while still keeping your opriginal image file. I have not checked to see if I can post photos examples today, but that is the way I was doing it before the site had problems with attachments.

dgh01: ah, yes the timeline, the real question is, WHO's time line? I suspect the Z-film would never make into a court of law, seeing that the chain of evidence was/is broken... -- we're racheting it up a notch, I see... I suggest for those that care - take a look at TGZFH -- asking so called film "experts" that have NO knowledge of optical film printing special effects [which were available in 1963] is a step forward, I guess. However I know off NO public comment made by Robert Ryan [further that, what was a "film technology dude looking at the Z-film for -- that's like Roland Zavada telling me how a optical printer works -- he doesn't know -- great at film properties, but doesn't know squat about film effects] stating he changed his mind. OR for that matter TRASK! As for TRASK, will you make available his bonifides? First time Great at amassing a database of JFK Assassination film/photos, but can he tell me or you what makes up a composite? I seriously doubt, but go ahead refer to him as a film expert... My understanding is that both Zavada and Ryan knew that if the images seen on the alleged camera original were not authentic, then there would be visible signs they could look for. When these men looked for these tell-tale signs, they could not find a single one. So unless I misunderstood Gary Mack, it appears that it wasn't a matter of anyone not being able to alter a film as much as if they had there would have been signs left behind showing it and they didn't find any such signs. btw, what test made up this "inspection" of the Z-film? The one that Trask and company performed, in fact: what did they find that told them the film was NOT altered? The boy's just lay out the film on the light table and discuss timelines? Roland Zavada was most interested in my take on the time line -- we discussed it while he was out west for a SMPTE meeting a few weeks ago. I cannot comment on what interest Zavada may or may not have concerning you and your take. I was left with the impression in an earlier post that my name had not come up in a conversation you had had with Gary Mack. I took that to mean that you had spoken to Mr. Mack personally. I have since heard through another researcher that the two of you had recently communicated by email only. So I am now aware that some things being said here can easily be misstated or at the very least - misunderstood. Because you can email Mr. Gary Mack directly and ask him the questions you've raised here ... why not do so and post the response you get back so there will be no confusion as to what was said. I for one would be interested in knowing what other information Gary Mack may have to share on this matter dgh01:Cost us USofA taxpayers 16million bucks [and still counting], I think we deserve to know -- don't you Gary? I think we deserve more direct replies to the claims of film and photo alteration, but they seem to never come.

Is that why the massive rear defect is not visible in the "Zapruder" film? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually - the avulsion is seen on the back of JFK's head in the Zapruder film. Groden pointed it out long ago and Miller in recent times has shown comparisons from both the Nix and Zapruder films detailing the "coning effect" of the back of Kennedy's head. Miller said that with the fractured bones sprung open and the hair still attached to them that the hole would not be expected to be seen from Zapruder's angle. He points out that even Dr. McClelland said that as he stood at the head of the table with the angle of view that he had - it allowed him to see into the opening of the head.

You're a conspiracy theorist. Do you believe that the Dallas doctors were right when they said the back of the President's head was missing? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes I certainly believe the Dallas doctors, but the hole they seen was from the bones being sprung open. Mr. SPECTER - Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound? Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.