Larry Peters

In an email I sent to Gary Mack at the 6th Floor Museaum in Dealey Plaza, I asked the following - Mr. Gary Mack, In Jim Fetzer's book there is a section that deals with Mr. David Healy's theory over the possibility of the Zapruder film being altered. I would think that if any of this were true, then Mr. Healy would have produced some experts to support his position. What can you share with me concerning any experts other than Zavada looking at the camera original and their being able to reach a conclusion as to the films authenticity? Are there signs on the alleged original Zapruder film that an expert would know what to look for and so on and have any signs been found to date that would make one think the alleged original Zapruder film isn't the genuine artifact? Any information you may have to offer would be most appreciated. Thanks, Larry Peters Gary Macks reply is seen below: Not a single expert in the field of motion picture special effects believes, or has noticed, any signs of alteration in the Zapruder film. Despite Oliver Stone's and some of Hollywood's top experts repeated examinations and despite the proliferation of high quality frame images, not a single expert in the field supports the alteration theory. At one point, film technology expert Robert Ryan's name was trotted out as one who supposedly had questions about some of the suspected alterations. But a few summers ago, Ryan examined the camera original Zapruder film at the National Archives along with many other experts in film technology and preservation. Also present was Kennedy assassination photo expert Richard Trask. According to Trask, once he made Ryan aware of the time line (something others had not done) in which any such alteration had to have been made, Ryan changed his mind and no longer supports any alteration theory. Nor does anyone else who knows the full story of the Zapruder film and all the other photographic records of the assassination. Gary Mack

dgh01: "you people"? Mr. Peter's. Have we become a blight [sp.?], a thorn in the the WCR endorser's side? ROFL -- HaroldW too, was that back in 1965, I consider that GREAT company. Lest I remind you, even LBJ felt there was a conspiracy! I could keep *you* busy for the next 5 years contradicting all those that felt and not only FELT, perhaps KNEW there was a "conspiracy" to murder JFK. I don't understand the reason for this answer. I thought that I made it clear that I too, am a CT's. You can list the names of CT's until the cows come home and it will not address the mistakes made in TGZFH that were said to prove film and photo alteration. Rather than you continuing to avoid the errors said about Mr. White's claims by offering replies that don't address anything, how about taking a moment to point out why the critique on Lancer is in error? Please be somewhat specific if you can. What's NOT worth my time Mr. Peter's is debating with someone that knows little about the subject - especially the photographic evidence! Realize it or not, you're now being educated - pay attention, if you want respect as a researcher regarding the Zapruder and related films.If you're a hatchet guy, well, give it your best shot... Above all do *original film research*, then post it where we ALL can review it. Mr. Healy - we are right here and now. This site doesn't allow the extent of image volume that can be attached to a reply like JFKLancer does and that is why you were offered a link to those detailed critiques. So far you have done nothing but avoid them. I would think that you would relish the idea of showing this forum what's wrong with them and how Miller got it all wrong. dgh01: Mr. Peter's perhap's your internet searches has failed to find the one and only website created for answers re: TGZFH contributors responses to ALL those critics questioning the theses put forward in TGZFH. I might add, we did create quite a stir on the established JFK boards. You have created nothing. The only stir that occurred on JFKLancer was Jim Fetzer trying to place the blame for those faulty claims in his book on the people that invented them. Some of those claims have been referenced on this site with not one shred of evidence presented by you as to what is wrong with the critique in question. Those of us who participate in serious study of the DPlaza films don't pay much attention to those around the world that demand responses to elementary questions that have been answered endlessly months, years and sometimes MANY years ago. If you were serious, then you'd educate the members of this site what is wrong with the points raised in the critique. All you seem to be interested in right now is saying how serious you are about the study of the DP films and photos, while demonstrating that you are not actually serious enough to address the errors being pointed out concerning the film and photo alteration claims. dgh01: Mr. Peter's, I am focused, you'll pardon me if I 'might' question your sincerity regarding your CT status, many wolves in sheep clothing around this investigation, lot's of people want to write books you know :-) You seem to have forgot the real premise of this research, was there a conspiracy to assassinate the JFK [a then sitting Presidenbt of the USofA]. Were the films and photos of said event changed (as many believe) in ANY manner to cover up what (many believe) happened that day in November -- pretty simple concept, actually. The best way to question my sincerity is to address the critique on Lancer. The days of the 'good ol' boys club' is over. We need to not just be saying the films and photos are altered, but also showing accurate proof of it. I don't think that is to much to ask. dgh01: he (and many others, Dr. Josiah Thompson amongst them and the remainder of the gang of 5) are **WELL** aware of TGZFH -- btw, it was the gang of 5 questions and critiques that were addressed. Based on your query above, it appears you really haven't done your homework? Might want get focused. Please start picking some of the claims critiqued on Lancer and we'll see who is more focused. There must be a couple of dozenof them to chose from if you haven't liked the ones already mentioned in this thread. Perhap's JSimkin would like to do a ONE time on-line conference with the contributors of TGZFH - he [John Simkin] being the moderator -- you up for seeing something like that happen on this forum? I'm sure I can run ithe concept by the contributors and have an answer shortly. You and Jack White have been a part of this thread for several days and haven't addressed anything. You've made numerous replies and not a one of them told what was wrong with any of the critiques shown here. Mr. White is the author of most all of those claims ... who else needs to take part on this subject to get he or you to address the issues. Now please go back and address any one of the critiques mentioned earlier and after we get through them, then we'll take on some more.

I've been dealing with closed minds and those with agenda's for what seems like years and years concerning this subject, most seem like normal rational well educated folks -- they just can't get their arms around the following concept -- they all parrot with one voice: it's impossible, the government can't/didn't lie to us... well, sorry Virgina, they can and DID! I think they can appreciate your saying it was possible, but the only thing you people have shown is a bunch of flawed observations for proof that it happened. When asked to address the critique concerning those observations - you make up excuses about it not being worth your time. You've got 3 contributors to HOAX on this forum, Mr. Peter's -- when are you going to get serious and attack the science and cinematography regarding the murder evidence -- we don't need Moorman, Marsh, Miller or Gary Mack! We need gut's! Not a one of them contributors have addressed the critique of their claims. So we don't need guts, but rather evidence that stands up on it's own legs. If Jack White is right 1/10th of the time -- then LHOswald did NOT act alone - there was a conspiracy to commit the murder of a sitting US president -that ain't taking the "low" road Mr. Peter's, it's just pissed off US citizens wanting to know what happened that day in Dealey Plaza... Please try and stay focused here. We have not been discussing whether Oswald acted alone. I think most, if not all CT's like myself believe that more than one person was involved in the assassination of JFK. This thread and my post have been about the evidence concerning photo and film alteration, which has nothing to do with Lee Oswald. p.s. I spoke to Gary Mack today, evidently he hasn't read the 2nd pronting of HOAX, bet he has by now...your name never came up :-) There should not have been any reason for my name to have come up. Did you ask his opinion about the critique on Lancer concerning the claims made in TGZFH? Did you ask his opinion as to the validity of the claims made in the book, itself?

If the information on the web is accurate, then Marsh also did his study long before MPI worked on the Zapruder film.So that makes at least 4 studies... To the best of my knowledge, none of these studies agree on what Z-frame relates to the Moorman 5 Polaroid. You'd think a seamless comparision of ALL the DPlaza films would be available, but it's not! Actually the timing of Moorman's photo is not all that difficult to follow in my opinion. The Zapruder film, regardless which scaled version one uses, has to have Hargis advance to a point that his back is west of the view from Zapruder to Moorman. At Z315, Hargis is still slightly overlapping part of Moorman, which is not what is seen in Moorman's number 5 Polaroid. By Z316, Hargis has advanced too far west. That means that Moorman took her photo between Z315 and Z316. Where'd the .6 come from, there can be NO six tenths of a frame - that's impossible! One can divide anything up into any denomination they choose. Numbers like 4/8, 1/2, 9/18 are all the same amount. Take a calculator and convert 6/10s into 18ths if you'd rather hear the answer presented in 1/18th segments. It appears that Marsh divided the diatance Hargis traveled between frames Z315/316 into 1/10 segments. He then calculated the position of each 1/10th forward advance against Moorman and found that at the 6/10s mark Hargis had cleared Moorman so not to be blocking any part of her from Zapruder's view. If your going to post data of this type Mr. Peter's, it would be nice to get ALL the known fact's related to these studies out there -- so reasonable people can make reasonable decisions... If one demonstrates that 2+2=4 ... why would they have to post where others took 2+2 and got 5 or 2+2 and got 44? The approach Marsh took is sensible and easy to follow - if of course you are one of those reasonable people.

That could be said about anyone in any of the films and photos. There are no clear images of the Newman's, Millican, Wiliis and his family, Lovelady, Brehm and his son, Oliver, Moorman, Hill, Foster, Altgens and etc,. What we can do is look at the clothing of the woman on the pedestal and note that her dress and black scarf is exactly like that worn by Sitzman in the footage shot by Abraham Zapruder when she turned and looked at the camera while standing near the Hester's before the motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza.

p.s. I like Jack White have found it necessary NOT to deal with propagandists and provocateurs, life is too short -- in case your not aware of the definition --- Provocateur-Instigator = Function: noun Definition: provoker Synonyms: advocate, agent, champion, demagogue, disrupter, dissident, dogmatist, firebrand, fireman, fomenter, hatchet man, heretic, incendiary, inciter, instigator, mover, needle man, propagandist, provocateur, pusher, reaction, reformer, revisionist, ringleader, sparkplug, zealot AND a "wolf" in sheep's clothing! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr. Healy - you have been invited several times to address any of the critiques of White's claims and you have chosen not to do so, but rather you have taken the low road and just acted like it's not worth discussing. Then you post some dribble about provocateur's and instigators, which seems to be all you have been doing in the past several replies you have placed on this thread. Please try and stay focused and explain what is wrong in the critque Miller laid out. If it is so wrong, then you should have no trouble proving your position. If I have misread Miller's critique, then I want someone to show me where he erred because it is worth my time to know about it. When you feel like you want to "instigate" an investigation into the critiques concerning flim and photo alteration ... I am sure everyone here will be interested in observing it. I know that I'll look forward to it.

In a comparison of the location of the Lincoln, as photographed in Moorman, with Kennedy receiving a blow to the head -- is the geographical location consistent with the same location of the head shot presented in Zapruder, say frame 316, or even earlier? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For those who are interested - Moorman's photo corresponds with Z315.6 as researched by Anthony Marsh. The limo and everything seen in Mary's photo is consistent with the available assassination films. I might add that Moorman's photo was shown on NBC the very afternoon of the assassination. Now a person might ask themselves how anyone would have altered an instant Polaroid in just a few hours and more importantly how anyone could know what to alter in that photograph so soon after the shooting. The risk of a later photo or film coming forth and exposing the alteration would have been far too risky. One might even wonder why would anyone wish to alter unimportant things and leave someone as important as the Badge Man in the photo.

Mr. Healy - I'm not going to take part in your foolishness on this site. You have replied several times and not once, as usual, you didn't address a single point that was made. I will correct a couple of generalities you touched on, but didn't offer any specifics. dgh01: not the first time nor will it be the last time someone has misunderstood Jack White, or me for that matter -- JWhite doesn't deal with provocateurs any longer and has made that quite clear. What part of Mr. White's quote did you not understand? Mr. White said he made no mistakes. I fail to see how you can twist that to mean anything else. dgh01: hey man, I didn't imply it, I asked the question -- David Lifton wrote it, if you need his email address I can provide it -- he's a nice guy -- brooks no nonesense and responds to reasonable questions... Some things are just a little difficult to get your hands and mind around aren't they? Bring you lunch if you want to debate with him... Mr Healy - Lifton can't understand that Mary Moorman's 54" high camera lens is looking over the top of Hargis and Martin's windshields which are several inches taller in height, so does one need to say more. Lifton was a pioneer in seeking many answers that were never made aware by the government, but too has made some serious mistakes because he doesn't understand perspective. It's amazing, a 'certain' researcher gathers *more* information about a specific subject then changes his/her mind regarding the earlier conclusion, then makes it public -- sounds pretty reasonable to me. Not you? Then others make vague accusations about same researcher - that vague accusation is of course he doesn't know what he's speaking of. A waffler, in this case a poor researcher.... Kind of like real life waffeling regarding WAR and Weapons of Mass Destruction and the reason nations go to WAR, without the serious consequences of course. We all know about that one! You are talking about an unknown enity and offering no specifics, so there is no way to address what you have said. The only think I can say is there is nothing wrong with making a mistake and admitting to it. That has never been the issue here. dgh: and man enough to admit it, just like Jack White... further that: so do you, Mr. Peter's, make mistakes that is - so do you! dgh01: Nonesense, I doubt you can tell me what Jack White's photographic credentials are. Observations are just that, observations, those that don't approve, should make their own photo anaylasis graphics regarding the subject, then sell it to the rest of us -- till them it's just more noise from the uninformed peanut gallery... If you bought the book HOAX and didn't like what you read, see if you can get a refund...sell it on EBay! Mr. White's credentials are well known. He did some good work many years ago. It is also known that because of his poor research done in the past several years on this film and photo alteration by saying everything is faked when it doesn't support his conclusion has gotten him banned from presenting at the two Dallas conferences every year. Now I wasn't going to bring that up, but people like you who don't address the evidence, but rather works as a public relations man does more harm than good for someone like Mr. White by causing one to feel it necessary to bring these unpleasant things up. dgh01: well, those day's happened about 18 - 24 months ago - what praytell, has proven been in error - and more importantly, WHO proved them to be in error? First I've heard the news. I'm sure a few Physicist's will be more than interested in seeing the data... The only thing proven that I can see, is your NEW to the game! You'll catch on! There is a well detailed critque found on Lancer's site of each and every claim made in TGZFH. You know about it and like here I could not find one reply you made that dealt with any errors in that critque. To date - no one has found any errors in it. The web page is placed below. http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...sg_id=276&page= 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. A few notations, explanations and pedigree of photo'syou post might be interesting too. As you know if you have bothered to read my post in the past couple of days - this site is not letting images go up. Before the problem occurred I did manage to make a few points, but you have not addressed them. The web address for all those images you want to talk about is attached once again belwo. I look forward to you pointing out any errors you find. http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...sg_id=276&page= dgh01: Well aware of whats in the book Mr. Peter's, help do a little work in it myself. Having never seen ANY of the debated original photography, Z-film included I find myself pondering a question, if I haven't seen and you've never seen ANY of the original film/photo how can you paint with such a broadstroke - stating that Jack White needs to be discreditied? It's Mr. White's claims of film and photo alteration that is being discredited. let me adress your silly remark about not seeing any of the original photography. I saw JFK's funeral on TV and it was filmed and photographed from many different angles. One like you or Mr. White could make the claim that JFK's casket was draped with a horse blanket instead of a flag and that all the films and photos showing it to be a flag must be faked because they don't support your claim. Now does one really need to have been there to know that your position is unfounded. But Mr. White doesn't even make us do that because like with the missing people - it was just a matter of checking his observation to find the flaws in it. dgh01: Ah, it's called the moon Mr. Peter's, been going on for a few years or so, nothing odd about the TIDE! No secret, no conspiracy... Sure would be nice if you could shed some light regarding your film/photo expertise, No? What expertise did it take to understand the critque I've mentioned several times now? How much expertise to see Moorman looking over the top of a cycles windscreen or to cite Moorman and Hill's affidavits or remarks concerning where they stood? How much expertise does it take to see an overlay of Mr. White's pedestal photo against that of Moorman's and to observe the vast shifting that takes place? How much expertise did it take to point out Mr. White authenticated the Altgens 6 photo by saying it went on the news wire immediately after the assassination, but then said it was faked when it shows Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the south pasture just like in the Zapruder film. You know - there is a reason why Mr. White and others have not been able to address the critique on Lancer and that's because the mistakes are easy enough to see once they have been pointed out. Feel free to give it a shot if you like. I suspect you lurkers out there will be besieged with a plethora of JWhite images and criticism - stand by, it's the normal routine for anti-alteration detractors, they can't do their own photo work.. Too bad they can't create their own marked up photos and show us the error of OUR ways! I have offered up the web page to the critique of White's claims of film and photo alteration. It's to the point - well illustrated - easy to follow - and unlike your replies, it's focused on the claims and to the point. Try to keep in mind that many of us CT's want there to be evidence pointing to a conspiracy, but making unfounded claims shot full of errors is not going to help anyone. If anything, it overshadows the good claims of a conspiracy that were made. I apologize for the bold lettering errors. I tried several times to correct it, but the site is causing it somehow and its out of my control.

Thanks for putting that image up for me, Andy. If one looks at just the dark part of Zapruder's coat, it gives the appearance that he is has his left hip shoved towards Sitzman and is slightly bent sideways to his right. That is basically the same stance he has in Moorman's photograph. In both the Bronson slide and the Betzner photo we can see the part of Zapruder's clothing that is sunlit. In the black and white Moorman photo that sunlit area blends into the background. It is also that sunlit area of the clothing on Zapruder that is blocking out the pergola windows and not allowing us to see the holes. I hope I have said this in a way that was easy to follow. I'll be happy to show another example of this when I can load photos onto the site.

The steam pipe was not open to the air and did not give off steam from what I have learned about it. Also, earlier in this thread it was mentioned that Seymour Weitzman burnt his hands on the pipe, so I don't see how Arnold could have been any more forewarned than Weiztman obviously was. And I still think we cannot be sure that Gordon actually made contact with the pipe before being stopped.

dgh: What you don't realize Mr. Peter's: Jack White has recognized his mistakes and moved on. Only his severest critics stay the course - and for WHAT gain, praytell? Well, some of us know the answer and it stinks... Really, I must have misunderstood Mr. White when he said, "I made no mistakes ....." dgh: evidently your new to this game It may be a game to you, but not to me. Many of us want to know the truth based on the facts and we want those facts to be tested and validated. dgh: tell you what, maybe he'll answer this question for you, who knows - IF you'll answer this one... Evidently there's a piece of videotape that captures a little coaxing of a certain person present in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination [got to do with the Mary Moorman controversy] see pg's 420-422 Great Zapruder Film Hoax - David Lifton has gone public with this, what do you think? Why would someone want to convince Mary where she was and WHEN she was there? Strange goings on I'd say. What you have implied is nonsense in my opinion because both Hill and Moorman have said they were in the grass, not only on the day of the assassination, but since then in various interviews. What the film alterationsist seems to do is try and dismiss what the actual witnesses have said and then when a film or photograph is shown to support that witness, they claim the witnesses were coached and the films and photos must all be faked. Someone like Mr. White will say a photograph went on the news wire immediately after the assassination, so it must be genuine and later on when it is shown to disprove a claim he had made - it then is called a fake. I find that type of behavior to be the strangest of all. dgh: and man enough to admit it, just like Jack White... further that: so do you, Mr. Peter's, make mistakes that is - so do you! I believe Mr. White has implied just the opposite. And yes, we all make mistakes. The difference between some of us is that we want to be accurate in our observations by having them explored and tested. Others seem to be more concerned about egos. dgh: Well, having been a participant in those discussions, debates, arguments I think you might want to re-consult with Dr. Tink. The DP "seamless films", was BMiller's LANCER mantra for a bit (actually I think it's a great idea, so'd Miller and here we are 3.5 years later, no comparison film/video, WHY?), it's the crux of the argument against Z-film alteration and the Moorman5 Polaroid is dead center in the controversy... in short, it has lot's to do concerning film and photo fakery. Have you forgot so soon the fact that JackW initiated the Moorman5 on the Street/Grass issue on JFK Research forum? I was not around in them days to know when he initiated his Moorman claims. All I can say is they have since been proven to be in error. dhg: In any case the alteration issue won't go away, the best the non-film/photo alteration camp can come up with? Discredit Jack White! A very sad state of affairs... Mr. White discredited himself in my opinion when he became so arrogant that he thought he could make off the cuff observations and not have anyone question his claims. He discredited himself when he made arguments that the witnesses must be wrong and all the films and photographs taken on 11/22/63 must be faked when they didn't show what he felt they should. Now this thread has been a debate by example and detailing the claims of film alteration. Mr. White said he would answer any questions and address his work. It would be nice if you would do the same and try and be as specific about it as some of us are trying to be. I will leave you with some things James fetzer said about Jack White's claim in TGZFH ... Your loyalty to Mr. White is admirable. Your desire for putting the truth ahead of loyalty is questionable. We all might be best served if you have any specific observations about the images being discussed in this thread that you stay focused on that aspect of things. Testing the evidence is the best way to make progress here.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, so let me try another way of explaining how I saw it. I've come up on fences that were hot/electric and I have thrown up a leg to hop over them without getting shocked. Somewhat like a track runner would hop a hurdle. I personally think too much is being read into the older and out of shape Arnold throwing his leg over the pipe for Turner's documentary. I get the feeling that some people are thinking Gordon threw his leg over and onto the pipe on the day of the assassination because of what he did in the MWKK series. The Arnold in the MWKK series was heavy, aging and out of shape altogether. As I recall, Gordon even hobbled somewhat when he walked. I might add that Gordon didn't even make it clear if he stopped as he was raising his leg to get over the pipe because of his being confronted. Because the Older aging Arnold rested his leg on the steam pipe in his interview so to continue telling his story, I don't necessarily think it means he sat on the pipe on 11/22/63 while talking to the man who ran him out of the area. I 'll just say that I don't think a 22 year old man just out of basic training would have had any difficulty in hopping over that pipe without getting burnt had he not been stopped before hand.

It's the angle of the car going away that makes Hill look like he is overlapping Jackie. In the same Nix film as the limo turned onto Houston Street we can see agents Hill and McIntyre side by side on the followup car, but as their car moves away from the camera they shift togther and one of them eventually overlaps the other. Careful study of the Nix film does not show agent Hill or Jackie doing anything that is not seen in the Zapruder film - it's just being seen from a different angle.

Mr. Healy, preserving history has nothing to do with the mistakes being addressed here. For instance, if Mr. White has said in the past that the Altgens 6 photograph was sent out on the news wire within the hour of the assassination taking place and it could not have been faked, then it showing Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the grass speaks volumes and is just one step in showing Mr. White had erred. The problem isn't if someone could have altered a photo, but are the claims being made to show alteration justified. When White misreads two film frames and then thinks Mrs. Franzen has grown in height due to fakery - is it not right to point out why that occurred and to show that it didn't really have anything to do with film alteration? I'm not sure what you meant by 'taking Jack on', unless you are referring to those who in the past have pointed out Mr. White's errors only to be booted from the forum Jack resided on. Outside of there - he has never done more than what has been shown here. As far as Mr. Costella goes - the last I read on him was he had first said Moorman was in the street, then he changed it to her being out of the street and eventually decided she was back in the street. Can we assume he used the same laws of Physics each time? What does he think about Jean Hill's interview on Black Op Radio where she was asked specifically about where she was and when when JFK came down Elm Street and she replied she stepped into the street when the limo rounded the corner onto Elm, but was back in the grass when the shooting started? So believe it or not - Mr. Costella can and does make mistakes. I also think you have misstated what Josiah Thompson as repeatedly said. Thompson said that none of the assassination films contradict one another, not that they could all be made into a seamless film. None of which has anything to do with the claims Mr. White has made concerning film and photo fakery.

Lee, let me share some more information with you. Golz told Miller that the photograph shown in the Dallas Morning News WAS NOT ever meant to replicate Gordon's position during the shooting. That was an assumption Don Roberdeau made. Arnold's family is based in the Dallas area and if one wants to call around - getting verification as to Gordon's service in the military would not be that difficult. You also might try a local library who has newspapers on microfilm and if they have the Dallas Morning News, then you can search the obituaries for the year or month that Gordon died. Possibly the 6th Floor Museum may be of some help. Gary Mack can be reached at GMack@JFK.Org. Golz had told Miller that he remembered Arnold saying someone of Federal authority turned him away from the RR yard. From the time of assassination to the time he was on Turner's documentary there had been a passing of 25 years gone by. It was reasonable to Golz, Miller and others that Gordon simply misspoke and possibly thought one branch and said the other. I certainly have done this myself. We can assume the water pipe was not hot at the time of the Turner documentary because Arnold had no problem resting his leg over it. I think if one looks more closely at what was said in that interview - Gordon claimed he started to throw his leg over the pipe, but was stopped. It may be reasonable that the aging Arnold laying his leg down on the pipe in the "MWKK" series was more out of necessity so to continue his vocal presentation without losing his balance. This by no means does not tell us that Arnold stood with his leg resting over the steam pipe when confronted by the man who turned him away. It's also worth noting that there is a report taken of one of the men on the triple underpass that saw a young man in his early twenties get stopped coming from the RR yard and was turned back in the direction from which he came. There has been much said about Gordon Arnold's reaction when shown the Badge Man image and I have had an interest in it myself. To date, I believe Miller has presented the best observation as to why Gordon reacted the way he did. Let me see if I can recall it correctly - Golz had said to Miller that it took a lot on his part to get Arnold to make his story public. Arnold had a genuine fear as to what he believed happened to witnesses who came forward. Whether Gordon's fear was justified is open for debate, but that is how he felt about it. 10 years had passed when Turner wanted Arnold to tell his story. Gordon obviously had been convinced that other people had come forward at that late time and no harm had come to them, so he must have felt some assurance that it was OK to give the filmed interview. Part of the attraction for Gordon may have been that he had heard that there was a photo that helped support his being on the knoll, but I cannot say that with 100% certainty. Anyway, Gordon is shown the image of what appears to be a service man standing beyond the wall where he said he had been. Then when Gordon sees the rest of the picture enhancement, he observes the hatless man who looks to be in a police uniform. Gordon became upset because while he agreed to tell his story, he had just been ambushed showing the world that he may have seen the man who actually shot the President. That's the part that got to Gordon for his fear of what could happen to him just grew in seconds. It's one thing to claim shots came from the knoll, but in Gordon's mind ... his having the bad guys find out he could maybe recognize one of them could cost him his life. Keep in mind too that up to that point, Gordon only knew that a hatless cop took his film, he didn't know the hatless cop may have been the one who fired the shot passed his left ear. Gordon ends by saying "Had I of known this, I would not have given the interview." Gordon's total conversation with Golz was not printed. Earl only offered a few words here and there. It is also worth noting that Gordon had told Turner's people about a RR worker before being shown the Badge Man images. Those are the only two records of any part of Gordon's interviews that I have seen to date. There is only the walkway footage that I have seen that shows where Arnold stood. The poor black and white film quality and the angle at which it is filmed does not allow us to tell if the dirt was mounded there or not. I have never understood Gordon to have not been talking about two cops in the MWKK. One takes his film and the other has a shot gun. On page 57 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President" there are in fact two individuals at the tree soon after the shooting. I'm not sure when Gordon was supposed to have said he gave his camera to the cop? The cop may have wanted the camera, but Gordon opted to only give up the film as I recall. One final point - Miller had some 1st generation slides lightened and he discovered someone in light tan clothing rising up over the top of the wall in the Bond slides. This seems to have happened right where the two figures in dark clothing were standing. This discovery had not been made until after Arnold had long since been dead and supports exactly what Arnold had said occurred. I hope this additional information has been helpful. I agree with what you have said, Lee. That just on the observations you had raised would not have been enough to have proved Arnold not to be telling the truth. I hope some of the observations made prior have now been better explained in this post.

Mr Ecker, I am aware that you have seen information where another researcher contacted Earl Golz who first brought Arnold's story to light back in the late 70's and it was Ralph Yarborough who saw the Golz article in the Dallas Morning News and then contacted Earl to let him know that he had seen the service man over the corner of the wall that dove to the ground. Dave Reitzes, being a lone assassin believer, only made part of the story known in order to give it the slant he wanted. As I recall it was Miller who critiqued Reitzes article and after reading what Miller had pointed out, I felt Reitzes should have been ashamed of himself. It was true that the much older and failing Yarborough got confused when asked what could he have seen at the time of the first shot because he had since known where his car was located when the first shots were reported to ring out. However, anyone looking at a blowup of the Altgen's #6 photo taken no less than 3 seconds before the head shot hit the President, Yarborough's car woulod have rolled westward quite considerably and that area of the wall was easily exposed to his view. The important thing in my mind was that Golz told Miller that he and Ralph Yarborough contacted each other several times and the Senator in 1978 knew exactly who on the knoll he was talking about. The same can be said when Yarborough did the interview for Nigel Turner in the mid 80's for "The Men Who Killied Kennedy" series when he again gave an interview for the Gordon Arnold piece in the documentary. There can be no doubt that Ralph Yarborough knew who he was talking about and only Reitzes would try to make a point against a conspiracy having taken place by trying to make something out of the aging Yarborough's confusion only at that one later moment in time.

Please Mr. White - I don't need you to teach me about perspective. This is an educational forum and if you don't have time to teach the people who view this site, then I am not sure what good you can provide anyone. I am having trouble at this time getting images to attach to my replies, but once it gets resolved I will be happy to take the time to show the viewers what I am talking about. All one needs to do is look at Jean Hill in your Toni Foster fakery example and compare her size to the man standing next to the lamppost only a few feet away. Jean Hill is far too large before you ever got started. You also made a mistake when you mentioned in TGZFH that Mrs. Franzen had grown in height between Zapruder frames 360 to 367. Overlays showing the mistake you made in this claim are also on the Internet. Mr. Franzen shifted his weight to his left leg and Mrs. Franzen stepped backwards between these frames and this is why her head grew higher in Zapruder's field of view. Anyone wishing to see the examples detailing the errors in your observations can go to http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...page=&mode=full The sad part of the critique on the web address provided above was that it had to be done by a CT's so the outside world will know that there are some researchers who are more interested in the truth than anything else. Some of us feel that it is great to expose conspiracy where it exist, but it does not do any of us any good if we base our observations on faulty logic. This is why you get the challenges. I personally welcome any challenges to other researchers observations that I have shared for it's more important for me to see these observations tested and I certainly believe they are worth 'my time' to look at them more closely. For those who view the attached web page - please be sure to view the example where you asked if there was a man with a camera at the fence. I believe it was called "B is for Betzner ... another camera?" The alleged possible figure you point out not only doesn't fit the Badge Man images seen in Moorman's photo, but the alleged figure is almost as wide as Zapruder and Sitzman put together despite the alleged individual being further away from the camera. This is a prime example as to why your current perspective comprehension abilities have justifiably been called into question.

I would like to share an observation that I read about in the past concerning Gordon Arnold and Ralph Yarborough. Some people have said that Yarborough had mentioned hearing a shot or the first shot and seeing a man dive to the ground who had been standing above the wall at the Black Dog Man location. Critics have said that Arnold claimed that he didn't hit the ground until after a shot was fired past his left ear, which appears to have occurred around the time Mary Moorman took her #5 Polaroid, but Yarborough said the man dove to the ground at the moment of the first shot. What these critics didn't consider was when exactly was it that Ralph Yarborough first recognized a shot being fired. Let me explain how this comes into play ... During the filming of the movie "JFK", Robert Groden was present during the 32 or 33 takes that were done where seven shots per shooting sequence was fired from different places within the plaza. Groden found that witnesses, depending on where in the plaza they were located, had only heard some of the shots fired and not others. Most researchers will agree that at Z255 that at least two shots have been fired at the motorcade. If one takes a good clear print of James Altgens #6 photo, which corresponds with Z255 and looks very closely at Yarborough, they will see that he is still smiling and jubilant and is unaware that shots have been fired at that point. So when he says that when he heard a shot or the first shot and saw a man above the corner of the wall dive to the ground - the then Senator is probably telling it accurately and it would correspond with what Arnold had said. A good view of the smiling Senator in Altgens #6 can be seen on page 31 of Groden's book called "The killing of a President". The point of my sharing this is so researchers will give some thought to the shooting sequence and how that applied to each and every earwitness. It's not always that witnesses were unreliable as much as they first had to recognize a noise that they heard as a shot. Even Charles Brehm is still clapping as the limo passed his location and it too comes after Z255. So when Brehm said he heard two shots, he may very well have been talking about the two or so that came around the time of the kill shot and he just didn't recognize the first sounds as rifle fire. If one takes Brehms actions at Z255 and applies them to when we believe the first shot was actually fired, then we could possibly say that Brehm appears to have been happy over JFK being shot up and that is just plain silly.

I can only hope that all those student s that have viewed this brief exchange can see for themselves what we have to deal with. Someone like yourself comes up with a notion that the Zapruder film is a fake because it doesn't show what you want it to. Then when someone else presents another assassination image that supports what is seen on the Zapruder film, then you call it a fake as well. Not one witness who was in Dealey Plaza has ever said that a film or photo taken during the assassination didn't show anything other than what they recalled happening. Yet you make such unfounded claims without offering any room for you being in error. In other words, why would a conspirator want to move the people seen in the Nix film from Z369 back to Z345? There is no logic for those two people to have been moved or those frames to have been altered. It's just like your claiming of Hill and Moorman standing in the street during the shooting. Yes, Jean Hill said she stepped off the curb and into the street as JFK rounded the corner onto Elm Street, but she also said she thought better of doing it and got back up over the curb before the shooting started. What was your reply? You presented an edited film clip of Jean Hill saying "I stepped into the street" and iyour clip stops before she can say she then got back out of the street. It is my opinion that what you attempted to do is little better than what you claimed was done to all those assassination films and photos. According to you, Jean Hill and Mary Moorman both stepped into the street even though Moorman's affidavit taken the day of the assassination says differently. A few years ago on a different matter, you had said that the Altgens 6 photo went out on the news wire within the hour from the time the assassination had taken place, thus there was not enough time to alter it and now because it shows Moorman's and Hill's shadows coming from south of the Elm Street curb, meaning they were in the grass during the shooting, you now claim the Altgens photo must also be faked. Like I said before - if the Zapruder film has been altered, then let it stand up to vigorous checks and balances and be declared for what it is. Mr. White, you have become so bent on claiming everything is fake or altered that you are totally unaware that things you have said at times debunks the very claims you are making. For instance, you just said that the Nix and Zapruder films are fakes, but yet you mentioned how detailed and accurate the Culter map is. Do I need to point out that it was the Culter map that showed that the images in the Nix and Zapruder film are correct. They are correct because if the positions of these photographers located on the Culter map show what is seen on the films in question in relation to the alleged missing people, then they all three have to be fake or all three have to be legit because all three support one another. Now when are you going to start admitting any of your mistakes that make up that 10% that you have previously said do occur some of the time?

Mr. White, If you have a problem with Richard Trask map, then please point out the error in it. It's really quite a simple process to follow. One takes a Nix frame and marks who is between Nix and Zapruder ... I did that for you and plotted it on Trask map. Then you take Z369 and see what is beyond the Frazen's and you will find it is the Main Street lamp post and I also plotted that on Trask map. If you plot the two lines from Zapruder to Nix and from Zapruder to the Frazen's - you will see that they do not intersect and because they do not intersect there is no reason to expect to see that couple in Z369 when they are seen back in Z345. That's what it really boils down to, isn't it. Some people prefer not to know. You didn't address Trask map and the points I made. In your mind you believe that you have studied the JFK assassination photos and films longer than I, so you must be right no matter what evidence is shown to you to the contrary. John Kennedy once said, "A mistake is not a mistake, unless one refuses to correct it." You seemingly have grown so arrogant with time that you refuse to admit a mistake even when faced with the facts. What's wrong with your Toni Foster claim - I'll tell you. You measured half the distance between two 14' lamppost and drew a straight line from post to post. You then placed Toni Foster near the 7' high line you had drawn. You believed that because the halfway mark up each post was 7', then if Toni Foster's head appears to be close to the line in your composite, then she must also be 7' tall. What you failed to do is consider that Zapruder is elevated well above the street and looking downward at the south pasture. Zapruder's elevated view gives the false impression that Toni Foster's head appears to almost be touching the imaginary line you had placed at 7' off the ground. If you would climb down off Zapruder's perch and walked down to the street and viewed Foster from ground level, then her head would have fallen well below the 7' mark on the lamppost and you'd see she really is 5' tall in the Zapruder film. The higher one is elevated above the south pasture - the closer the 7' line will appear to the ground line. The closer one gets to being at ground level, the further apart the 7' line will appear against the ground line. How many of us have climbed a tree as kids and looked down at our mothers hanging the laundry on a clothes line and from our elevated position it looked like Mom was as tall as the clothes line. But when we got down on the ground, we then saw that Mom had not really grown taller, but rather it was an illusion due to angles and changes in perspective. That's what you failed to consider and is why you will never get one photographical expert to support the 7' Toni Foster claim you made. Now how about another one? How about Moorman and Hill being in the street as the limo and cycles passed their position or maybe the pickup man claim? I am willing to go through each and every claim that was made in the name of film and photo fakery until we find one that has an ounce of merit to it if you're game.

Thanks for putting up the picture, Mr. White. As you can see - the two film frames (one from the Nix film and the other from Zapruder's film) match the overhead diagram I posted. Zapruder's camera had already passed over the two people in question when he filmed James Altgens at Z345 and as the film shows - Zapruder kept panning away in a southwesternly direction until he reached Z369. There is no reason to have believed that the people seen in the Nix film should be seen in the Zapruder film at frame 369. And I am saying that the two films show exactly the same thing and that you totally messed up by not understanding the geography of the Plaza. The overhead map shows this quite clearly. If the Zapruder film and all the other assassination images have been altered or faked, then let them be exposed in that light for the right reasons and not because of someone's faulty approach to testing them. Now would you like for me to explain the mistake you made about Toni Foster appearing to be seven feet tall?

Mr. White, I can appreciate your thinking you have put more time than I into studying of the photographical record pertaining to the JFK assassination even though no data as to how long I have been at it has been made known. Let me share this observation with you. Back in my old school days there were those students who had to study much more than others just to get a passing grade and it didn't seem fair at times that they still recieved lower marks on their test scores than those students who spent less time studying. So the amount of time one stares at a photograph or film doesn't mean much in my opinion if they are misreading the data. Now about your position: If you feel that the Nix film is fake and also the Zapruder film is fake, then why would you be attempting to use one to disprove the other? According to your three points listed above - you said that one film cannot be used to verify the other, yet that is exactly what you did in TGZFH when trying to show fakery. Your mistake has nothing to do with film fakery, but rather your not considering the geography of Dealey Plaza better than what you did. For this next example, I borrowed the map that Richard Trask uses in his book "The Pictures of the Pain" to demonstrate your error. I have placed colored funnels to represent the field of view from Nix to Zapruder and from Zapruder to the Frazen's as seen in each photographers film frames. The missing people are seen in the Zapruder film just to the left and over the shoulder of James Altgens. The same alleged missing people seen in the Nix frame are in a direct line between Nix and the Frazen's. A simple cross referencing can show their position on Trask map. I have placed an "F" for Frazen's and a "MP" for Missing People accordingly on the said map. The results speak for themselves.

Rather than specific questions be put to Mr. White concerning the "Hoax" book he took part in, maybe he would like to bring up any one of the claims he made concerning the photographical record of the assassination being faked and I'll as gently as I can tell him how he misread the photograph or film frame in my opinion. I have viewed the critiques of Mr. White's work concerning the 'Great Zapruder Hoax' and they seemed to be quite easy for anyone to follow and understand well enough that I believe I can relay their message fairly easily. For instance, Jack White mentions there being "missing people" from the Zapruder film in Z369. These are people that the Hoax book shows on the south pasture between Orville Nix's filming location along Main Street and the Franzen's who stood along the curb on Elm Street. Jack obviously misread the angle at which they should have been seen in the Zapruder film for these missing people to be found in Z369 as they are seen in the Nix film, Zapruder would have to be looking back the other way towards Nix at the same moment in time. When Orville Nix has his camera pointed directly at Abraham Zapruder we see Toni Foster and the limo between the two cameras. The Frazen's, nor the missing couple are anywhere along this line of sight in Nix frame 23 just as Zapruder is nowhere to be seen in the Nix frame Mr. White uses to show this missing couple. Thus the angle from Orville Nix to 'the missing people' and the angle from Zapruder to 'the missing people' were totally different and means that the couple that Mr. White claimed to be missing in the Zapruder film at frame 369 should not have been seen at that point in time. Mr. White's observation was in error and did not prove that the Zapruder film had been altered. If one simply looks above James Altgens in Z345, they will see this missing couple from their waist down to their shoes.

Robert Groden says that Marina claimed to have taken one photo of Lee in the Back Yard and she was facing the alley. Debra Conway of Lancer.com has spoken to Marina personally and can probably offer you some insight as to what she really claims to have done or not done concerning the Back Yard photos. conwayd@jfklancer.com

Kennedy is dead and ~90% ........ and Well, John F. Kennedy deserves it. We the people deserve it.