Larry Peters

This really impressed me as to how close to the car Jean actually was and how much she did see." I believe the lanes are about 13.3 feet in width. Jean's elevated view is what allowed her to see down inside the car somewhat.

The White, Fetzer and Mantik recreation of the Moorman photograph location If White had the correct location for Mary Moorman as she photographed JFK in the kill zone, then there should be no shifting taking place when his recreation photo is overlaid onto Moorman's actual photograph. The pergola window seen over the pedestal has been held in place on crossing vertical and horizontal lines for both photographs (White's and Moorman's) - watch how the pedestal shifts in relation to those lines. White got it so wrong that one should never have to argue the matter with anyone who has seen this overlay.

Frankly, I cannot see for the life of me what the big problem is with why a select handful of researchers have a question as to where Mary Moorman stood? I believe this all started with the "film alteration" crowd. Let me explain ... Moorman had said that she took one of her Ploaroids from in the street, but couldn't recall which one it was, so White mistakenly read the Nix, Muchmore and Bronson films as showing Jean and Mary both standing in the street and there was no turning back for Jack from that point on. Jack White also had heard Jean Hill say she stepped into the street when Kennedy came around the corner and thats all he wanted to hear to back up his desire to show Zapruder film alteration. I confronted Jack White about his mistake and all he did to rebutt the details handed to him as I recall was to post two things in response. One was a photo of an old shack that looked like an outhouse ... I guess that's where the idea that Moorman was standing in the street when she took her number five Polaroid had come to him. The other was a carefully edited audio/video clip of Hill saying as she pointed to the asphalt - "I stepped in the street" (end) Lets examine this for a moment. If one goes and looks at Mary Moorman's affidavit taken within hours of the shooting they will find this to be what she said ... VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Mary Ann Moorman, Address: 2832 Ripplewood, Dallas. Age 31, Phone No. DA 1-9390. Deposes and says Mrs. Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass by the park on Elm Street between the underpass and the corner of Elm & Houston. In Jean Hill's book she writes that as Kennedy came around the corner onto Elm Street that he was looking to the north side of the Street. Jean said she then jumped off the curb and into the street to get his attention by yelling for him to look her way so Mary could get his photograph. Jean said Kennedy did look in her direction even if she didn't know if it was her that had gotten him to do that. From Z133 to Z156 or so we see JFK did look to the south side of Elm Street, but by Z159 he has turned back towards the north side and had never looked Jean's way again. Jean Hill goes on to say that she thought better of being off the curb and that the SS would not like her getting so close and that's when a shot rang out. That shot is locked between the Betzner and Willis photos (Z186 and Z202). Now how do we know Jean Hill got back out of the street after she thought the SS might not like her being so close? The answer can be found in several places, but the main source would be the Altgens number six photograph that shows Jean Hill and Mary Moorman's shadows barely making it over the curbstone. White refuses to understand the implication of this. Altgens took his photo at Z255/256, which is after Jean had first stepped into the street to get Kennedy to look her way. A picture is said to speak a thousand words, but in this instance, Mr. White would rather cast doubt on the photo than to admit his error. On Black Op Radio at WWW.Prouty.Org there is an interview of Jean Hill archived there. A caller to that show asked Jean Hill when it was she stepped off the curb and into the street and Jean told the chain of events as I have stated in this post. In Jean's own words she said that when the shooting started that she was back onto the grass. Bronson's slide taken around Z225 shows Jean in motion as she is backing up from the curb. Jack White was confronted with that Black Op interview and ignored its importance and offered the previously mentioned edited film clip in rebuttal. (Did I forget to mention that the film clip was edited so to have Jean keep repeating "I stepped into the street - I stepped into the street - I stepped into the street ...") Another piece of evidence is the Moorman photograph itself. You see, researcher Bill Miller found that the standing height for a Dallas Police Motorcycle's windscreen was between 56" and 58" depending on it's adjustment setting at the time. White had Moorman's camera height shorter than the standing height of the cycles windshields and anyone looking at Moorman's photograph should see that Mary Moorman is looking over the top of the Martin and Hargis windshields. That's a simple observation concerning perpspective and how things look in a field of view when looking downward at an object. Miller invited researchers to do a simple test at their desk in which they would take two alike objects, offset them one in front of the other and view them from below their tallest point and then again above their tallest point to see how they stacked up in one's field of view. Jack White could not ever or did not want to ever understand this basic law of observation and continued to push his flawed claim that Moorman was standing in the street. What was amazing as I read over the evidence was that there were others who was doing just as White had done despite them being handed evidence to the contrary. I remember thinking that I could understand one person being mentally challenged when it came to perspective, but Fetzer, Mantik, Costella and others were also refusing to understand these simple key observations that a grade school art class teaches it's beginner students. So far we have White and the Zapruder film alteration crowd ignoring Hill's affidavit, not understanding the chain of events as to Jean stepping off the curb to call to JFK before the shooting started and how that correlates with the Altgens #6 photo taken no leass than two shots into the shooting while showing both Jean and Mary's shadows coming from the grass and over the curbstone. Interesting, isn't it! Then there was a matter of Groden and Miller using test subjects to stand in for Mary and Jean as filmed and photographed from Marie Muchmore's location. You see, the ground makes an abrupt slope to the curb which starts about 4 feet away from the street. Then the curb itself drops about 8 to 9 inches on top of that. When we look at Jean Hill's feet as seen in the Muchmore filme - we see her black shoes which could not be seen had she and Mary of stepped off the curb as the limo passed their location along the street. Groden and Miller's test images showed this quite clearly, but again the Zapruder film alteration crowd ignored the evidence put to them. I won't cover every observation that showed White to be mistaken, but there is yet another one that totally ruined White's claim that Moorman was in the street when she took her #5 Polaroid. This was the White, Fetzer and Mantik recreation photograph. They claim they had Mary's location pinpointed and that they had shown exactly where Mary Moorman stood ... and in a way not known to them - they were right! They showed that Moorman was not in the street because their photograph was way off concerning the crucial gap between the corner of the pedestal and the corner of the pergola window in the background. Even to this day I have not heard White or Fetzer admit to their mistake, but again - a photo says a thousand words and I'll attach Miller's overlay of White's recreation photo with Mary Moorman's actual photograph and you can all be the judge for yourself. The lesson of showing all of this is not to show that Mr. White can make a mistake, but to show what happens when you start with a conclusion first before following the evidence rather than letting the evidence lead you to a conclusion. It is no secret that Mr. White had been a promoter of film alteration long before he started concerning himself with where Moorman and Hill were standing during the shooting. The fact that people followed them and made the same simple mistakes says a lot for this approach and the power of suggestion, as well. Below is Altgens #6 photograph which was taken after Jean Hill stepped off the curb and got Kennedy to look her way. Please note where her and Mary's shadows are now located at the curbstone.

If the gunman on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository had opened fire when the car was in Houston Street, the reactions of William Greer, driving Kennedy’s car, would have been such that the gunman at the Grassy Knoll would have stood no chance of hitting his target. Your analogy appears to be a sound one. Had the assassin of opened fire while the subject was still on Houston Street, then the SS driver (Bill Greer) would most likely of sped on down Houstons Street and never passed the guns waiting at the stockade fence. I personally do not believe that the shooters at the stockade fence were meant to be used unless necessary. Kennedy was to not get out of Dealey Plaza alive and those rifles were the last chance for sucess if the prior shots had failed to kill him. In other words, had the first shot of taken the top of Kennedy's head off, then I don't think other shooters would have risked being detected. There had to be multiple views of Kennedy to these waiting rifles in the event that an agent recated soon enough to get to the President before being fatally shot. A triangulation of crossfire has always been most logical scenaro for sucess in my opinion. This way if one assassin's view was blocked, then hopefully another assassin could still see his target. Anything short of this would be risking a higher chance of failure and failure was not an option for had Kennedy lived, there would have most likely been a totally different investigation taken place.

About the little white dog Jean spoke about ... Jean had told the reporter before that interview that she had seen JFK and Jackie looking at something in the seat. The reporter asked Jean what she thought it might be and she said that she didn't know, but it could have been a little dog or something. The reporter then asked that Jean give her initial impression as to what she first thought was in the seat when they starting taping her interview. Jean had said many times in later life that she regretted doing what the reporter asked of her because it made it sound as if she believed she had seen a dog when in fact she didn't really know what it was. It was that statement about seeing a dog that Jean felt had been used against her powers of observation and is why she regretted ever going along with the reporter about stating what her first impression was.

"Please search for my name, Ed O'Hagan (and also eohagan).... and if anyone finds that I have ever posted anything to that site in the past , please be so kind as to provide me with the relevant information." Ed - I am getting the impression that you are trying to say that you have not been a member at Lancer's forum or have posted there in the past. I hope that I have misunderstood you. I emailed a fellow researcher who has contacted Debra Conway this morning to see where all the postings you have made on that forum has gone to. As you probably know, Lancer had a server problem and was down for some time. Conway has said that the forum is not up to 100% as of yet and I know from my searching their archives that many of their photographical images has not been restored as of yet. Debra informed my contact that your material should still be there and in fact she has everything ever posted there on backup files. Below is the leaf shadows on the fence that you tried passing off as cops with cameras by means of making huge enlargements of a limited space on an unknown image that you were unwilling to divulge to the fellow researchers there. The animated clip is one that researcher Bill Miller posted in a thread called "The Duping of a Forum" in response to your posting on the matter and it shows the location where you had taken the shadows off the fence as seen in Moorman's number 5 Polaroid and then claimed them to be policeman with cameras for whatever reason that is still unknown to many or your peers. The brighter overlay seen flashing on the fence in the lower right hand corner of this clip is the image you had posted on Lancer. It was Miller's knowledge and recall of the details of Moorman's photograph that allowed him to discover the source of your deceit. Miller aligned your image with the leaf shadows on the fence and found they matched perfectly. Because of limited image size restrictions I have shortened Miller's clip so it can be seen on this site.

"Are you done wasting our time yet? My my EZ there Lar Don't blow a gasket. YOU DID NOT SUCCEED IN MAKING ME MAD ONLY WISER TO WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE. SORRY TO DISAPPOINT...........NOT. DO NOT EVER PRESUME TO TELL ME I DO NOT KNOW THE CASE AS YOU HAVE YET TO IMPRESS ME WITH YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE. You demonstrate an inability to do more than claim to be the final source on everything. You BLOVIATE. Blow Smoke in place of data. Come on cite a source. it's harder than blowing off out of your head, but much more rewarding. Show what you have, not what you say you have. I am once lived in Missouri and you have to show me, after this display and others. "I think you should take a stress pill Dave." You know open the relief valve and chill. Weak sister junk Lar. It is impossible to think clearly when one is so worked up Lar and there are serious health consequences to Blood Pressure spikes. Like film couldn't be edited in New York? Or after broadcast on "TV" before the age of VCRs? Weak beyond a spinachless Popeye cartoon. How can you prove it wasnt? Duh... Or was? Double Duh... I decide whom I will engage in discourse with. Show me something worthy of my participation as it is my choice there Lar. You cite no references. I have very clear positive concrete opinions and SOLID KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE AND THE SOURCES TO CITE, you DO NOT or you refuse to do so. Why? ? IT SEEMS ALL YOU HAVE IS INSULT AND BOVINE EXCREMENT. And the ever present implication that you know more than EVERYBODY ELSE. Implied as always never proven, never cited, just hot air. Silly as always there Bill er excuse me Lar. Think I am alone in my opinion? Not even close there Lar, Relax. You do know the difference between spouting presumed implied but oh so questionable "data" and citing sources don't you. I have to wonder looking at all ALL, ALL your input. NOT ONE CITATION FOR YOUR DATA. But you really don't think I read all your posts do you. A waste of time as I knew all along. Are there any citations in them? And you cover the same old long ago refuted junk data. Is this why you refuse to cite references? VERY WEAK. syntax and attitude will out as they say. Otherwise save the lies and bloviation for the ones you can fool. No cites, no real data. It takes a falsely inflated ego to refute the work of Ph D's as you insist on doing. Moreover with no citations to do so. So put up your data or shut the hell up. You obviously do not respect yourself or others. To engage me further you will have to learn repect for others and yourself and the more learned. Cite something Bill er Lar, and from a refutable source? It is proven that X-rays are fabricated, it is quite resonable to hold serious doubt as to all films in this case. Those are proven FACTS. Now PROVE THESE STATEMENTS ARE INCORRECT. Where are my sources you ask? Don't you dare! But I have them if you do. Do you? IT'S your big chance Lar, go fer it. Sorry I didn't get mad to make your day. OH YEAH I ALMOST FORGOT THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE TOO. In the words of a political pundit (amended): It's the data Stupid." This is the same mentality you showed on Lancer and the looney forum before leaving them. You just spewed off a complete page of emotion and didn't print a single word about the facts of the JFK assassination. You ask for me to cite a source and I believe I did when I mentioned Trask book "Pictures of the Pain". Read the chapter on Marie Muchmore's film and investigate the foot notes you may find. Your emotional say nothing rantings are such a waste of space in my opinion. If you want to know the TV station that aired the Muchmore film - contact Gary Mack at the 6th floor Museum as I did a long time ago and get the name of it. If you need another source - talk to Robert Groden and find out what he knows about it. I have done all these things at one time or another. One correction I should make is over something that I misstated earlier. UPI had the film developed just prior to its leaving Dallas and then they rushed it on to New York City. That makes the timing factor for altering Muchmore's film an even bigger zero, unless one thinks it could have been done in an hour or so between the developer and the airport.

>>>>>So we have a film that could not have been altered that shows exactly the same thing the Zapruder film does during a critical part of the assassination.<<<<< What the?.....Surely you jest right? You would presume that only the photographer could induce the editing of film? In particular if the photgrapher DID NOT view the film before giving it over to someone else.??? Weak to the extreme. Jim, I have as little of an idea as to what you are talking about as you probably do. Your statement is typical of those who push for film alteration and do not know the facts or has taken the time to try and reason them out. First of all - Muchmore was the "photographer" and no she did not edit her own film. So why you would say that 'I'd presume that only the photographer could induce the editing of the film' makes absolutely no sense at all! Muchmore had heard that UPI was buying assassination images. When she walked into their Dallas office on the afternoon of the 25th, they gave her a choice to buy her film sight unseen for $1000.00 or to have it developed and possibly offer her more if it showed anything of value. Muchmore didn't know if she had captured anything substantial or wherther her film even exposed correctly so she opted to take the safe money. Please sit down and figure out how long it took to fly that film across country along with the other images UPI had bought and see what's the earliest time they could have made it to New York City. Try to remember NY is an hour ahead of Dallas time. So lets say that UPI rushed Muchmore's film to NY and the flight took 4 hours to get there. If the flight left at 2PM Dallas time, then it got to NY's airport at 7PM. Then the film was taken for developement and watched for the first time by heads of UPI and the TV station people. (See Richard Trask book for the details concerning Muchmore's film) Then once the film was viewed - it was rushed to editing and immediately shown to the public. If I remember correctly, the next morning there was an article written about its airing the evening before. Now please educate me on two things ... 1) How could one have edited and manipulated Muchmore's film in that short of time so to match all other possible assassination films and photographs? 2) This question stems from the first. If UPI had bought the film and sent it to their home office in NY with the other images and data they had purchased in Dallas, who are you saying performed this magical editing and alteration of Muchmore's film and how could they have known what to edit in or out without all the assassination photos and films in their possession so not to show something that didn't match another set of images? For to have made such a mistake would have been disasterious. Taking a film and destroying it would be quick and convenient ... altering a film without knowing what to edit would be insane. I realize that the Muchmore film is a thorn in the alterationist side and many of them take the easy road as you have done here. But the fact remains that Muchmore's film was never given the chance to have been worked on before being shown on TV, nor on the 25th of November did anyone know if all the assassination films and photos had been turned in so to know what or what not to alter. Surely you are aware of the acknowledged FBI dragnet that went on for months in Dallas/Fort Worth of all photo labs and even public appeals on public media? Yes, I am aware of it and please tell this forum just what Marie Muchmore said about that ... I am very curious to learn what you know about it because surely you have bothered to check things out thoroughly before just making an inference about a dragnet the FBI put out? For instance ... are you aware that those messages telling people to turn their assassination related films into the authorities were being placed on the developed film boxes. The developer wouldn't know what's on a roll of film unless projected, so those messages were going on everything. It was being left up to the public to turn them in as I understood it. Now how was it that Muchmore's film didn't get that message placed onto the box? It was because that message was being put on film boxes in Dallas by the film developers and Muchmore's film wasn't developed in Dallas. I'll show you why this point is so lame. You again conveniently it seems to me forget the history of the ordeal of the Nix film's return and the request to get another copy because this print isn't as clear as the original print they VIEWED before they turned it over to government agencies. They even got the camera fixed by the F.B.I. which the F.B.I did pay them for. Or the history of Life magazine's photo lab technician "accidentally" breaking the most important piece of film, (Abe's original? MAYBE NOT!) they ever had control of, in a world class photo lab. I made my point clear in the beginning. What separates Muchmore's film is that within hours of its sale to UPI - it was shown on National TV and that is how the Feds found out about it. Regardless of any suspicion that one may carry as to what the Nix film should or should not show - Muchmore's film got through the flood gate and once it was shown - history was stuck with it. Your talking about the Nix film or the damage Life magazine did to the Zapruder film has nothing to do with Marie Muchmore's film anymore than it does with Moorman's number five Polaroid which was shown on NBC within 3 hours of the assassination. Furthermore, Zapruder had three copies made of that original film and they have not been damaged, so your point falls on its own weight. (The best copy Zapruder kept in his possession) "Marie Muchmore's film never had the chance to get into the Feds hands before it was shown on TV. Once that occurred, it was too late for it to be altered. " Oh really? Weak weak weak. Assuming too much. However this is WEAKER Typical response from someone who knows not the facts of the case to debate with, but rather debates on emotion in their place. "So we have a film that could not have been altered that shows exactly the same thing the Zapruder film does during a critical part of the assassination. " It most certainly does not coincide with the Z cartoon. Anytime you wish to debate the so-called Z cartoon, I will be happy to do so.

Could this data add veracity to Ed Hoffman's observations? There's apparently one hatted person and maybe two. I had to look at the sequence a long time before I "saw" the "Ghost", it's like a mini-movie within the movie." Hello, Chris. I wish that what you are talking about could help, but it doesn't for the simple fact that Marcel is in serious error and was told so several times in the past on another forum. I am somewhat surprised that he is still showing these images in a way that falsely leads one to think they may hold something sinister. The first thing about his ghost images is that they are from previous frames, so they cannot show the RR yard behind the fence for Zapruder had not panned that far west at the time they were exposed. What puzzles me is that Marcel did notice some ghost images that showed the upper floor windows of the TSBD and Dal-Tex building as seen on beginning frames of the motorcade footage and he didn't seem to have trouble understanding where they had come from and when they were exposed. No one knew at the time Marcel first brought them up where they had come from until researcher Bill Miller pointed out that they were from the part of the film where Zapruder had shot some exposures of Sitzman standing near the Hesters before the Motorcade had arrived in the Plaza. Those ghost images from frames exposed while filming Sitzman were showing up much later around Z61/62 or so. This is why I am puzzled as why Marcel never corrected his web page for he had to now know that any ghost images were coming from earlier in the film. If the spacing remained true to form and they do, then Marcel's ghost images have nothing to do with the RR yard. The hunched over image is the tree trunk that stood behind Emmett Hudson. It tends to appear to lean and starighten as Zapruder's camera jumps around, but nevertheless it is still nothing more than a tree trunk. These things were shown to Marcel when he was at Lancer by use of a stabization process that Bill Miller uses on almost all of his clips. Abraham Zapruder suffered from vertigo and his camera was all over the place. Often times this has given researchers the impression that they are seeing movement when actually they are not. Stabilization removes the illusion of movement when there was none to see in the first place. The final point I would like to make is that Marcel also was shown that the things he thought were possibly people - were being seen in the tree foliage on the street side of the fence. So even if they had not been in the ghost images, they could not have been real because of the area of the film frame Marcel was seeing them in. When we cross reference this area in other assassination films and photographs, we find that there is no one up in the tree foliage on the south side of the stockade fence. Below is opne of Marcel's own clips. The TSBD window was in the background when Zapruder had his camera pointed at Sitzman as she stood over by the east bench with the Hester's. Note the frame numbers this ghost image is showing up in. Marcel was made well aware of the timing issue. (please see the animation below) I hope the clip offers you an understanding as to why Marcel is in error about seeing people over the fence. According to Hoffman and by the looks of the Hat Man's position in Moorman's Polaroid, the man with the gun pulled back from the fence and commenced his march to the steam pipe at the time of the head shot. This means Hat Man has just left the area by the time Zapruder panned over the corner of the fence which may not have reached far anough along the back side of the fence to have seen Hat Man location anyway even if he had still been there.

"Are you satisfied yet?" Yes, I am satisfied. Of Course, I would have been satisfied with just asking Ed a question without having you stick your nose into the matter. I even would have been satisfied had you of offered a sensible answer of your own as to the question - 'why would one want to use inferior images over sharper cleaner images for research purposes?', but a sensible answer never came. And if you should ever wish to debate the evidence of Kennedy's assassination, especially where the photographical record is concerned, I will be most satisfied to do that with you, too!

"The Nix and Muchmore films received far less attention, and the time restrictions on their alteration or fabrication are much looser." Marie Muchmore's film never had the chance to get into the Feds hands before it was shown on TV. Once that occurred, it was too late for it to be altered. Marie Muchmore kept her "undeveloped" film in her purse until Monday (11/25/63) at which time she went to UPI and sold them her undeveloped film sight unseen. UPI then sent that film, along with other images they were buying up pertaining to the assassination, to New York. There the film was developed and shown at a local TV station to see if it was of any value. Upon seeing that it did show the shooting of the President, it was then sent over to editing and aired on Television. That film being shown on TV is how the Feds found out about it. So we have a film that could not have been altered that shows exactly the same thing the Zapruder film does during a critical part of the assassination. I might also add that it has been in Fetzer's book said that Moorman's Polaroid had possibly been altered because of an extended window of opportunity to have done so. I should point out that Moorman's photo was show on TV not less than 3 hours after the assassination had occurred. It can be seen on NBC's "As it Happened".

"Noel Twyman carried out detailed research into the actions of William Greer in the Zapruder film. He discovered that Greer's rapid head turns between Z302 to Z-304 and Z-315 to Z-317 appeared impossibly fast. Experiments were carried out with athletic subjects repeating Greer's actions. These showed that no one was able to reproduce this angular speed. Twyman concluded that frames of the film had been removed therefore speeding up the actions of Greer. " The timing problem originated when Twyman failed to see Greer's head in motion in at least one or two of the frames. When a grid was made and Greer's head was stabilized, his head rotated as it should have. Twyman saw two or more of the frames as unchanged, so when he finally saw the head in motion, he felt that it had happened to rapidly. Below are frames showing what Twyman failed to see - Twyman thought these frames showed no head motion between them and the grid shows he was apparently wrong. (Z300/301)

If Mr/Ms. Eohagan posts incomplete data there ARE BETTER WAYS TO ADVISE THAN TO ALIENATE. "Ed" is a man's name - I hope most of the students got the much so far. The original question wasn't presented to alienate anyone nor advise them. It was a question that asked why he was choosing to use poor quality images and then post them over a period of five postings and not tell the "students" why he showed the images and what they are supposed to be looking at. The question is repeated once again below ... What are you trying to accomplish by using poor quality images taken from the Zapruder film and why would you run up a thread with them and not make your point? Lets see constantly pushing Lancer in almost every thread, opposing the alteration of films, argumentative put downs of others in a forum you do not run. It is not Lancer that I push, but rather the research that has been done by some of it's members. Seeing how those members are not on the McAdams forum, JFK Research, nor on this one, one cannot discuss their research or where to find it in detail without mentioning Lancer. I hope that common factor has now been made clear. As I recall, you have spent most of your time on the "looney forum" as it has been referred to by most of the research community. That is the forum that thinks the Zapruder film has been put together from another film or been altered by the removal of photographical data. That is the forum where 'people are shorter than parking meters', 'the five foot Toni Foster is a seven tall woman', 'Moorman is standing in the street' and many other off the wall claims came from. That is the forum where if you don't understand something - just say a photo or a film must have been altered. That's the forum where it's members bad mouth the McAdams site, but would then complain about someone praising a site such as Lancer's. That's the site where members would take, if gotten the chance, my original statement to Ed and turn it into several long ridiculous replies rather than to stick to the main focus as to why I asked what his purpose was for using such lesser grade images over the better ones available. I am still waiting to know what it was we are supposed to be looking at and why? Now having hopefully made myself clear and while I await Ed'as reply - are there any photo or film alteration claims you care to go over, for I will be happy to address any one of them for "the students" as you call them. How about the one below where a long time researcher used a poor quality Cancellare print and claimed the Zapruder film must have been altered because in his mind this man is sitting in the back of a pickup truck in the photo and the Zapruder film doesn't show that. (Below is a better quality print and the man is clearly standing outside of the truck bed, not sitting in it) This was the point I tried to raise in this thread (before your ramblings commenced) so people would try and use the best possible images available so not to waste time making such silly errors. Larry

Jim - you asked, "Your point Larry was? Your frame was prettier but that's just that a clearer frame." The frame image I posted was the same frame Ed used (Z312). The point of using the best possible quality image should be self-explanitory. If all you got out of my reply to Ed was that I used a prettier frame, then I must have failed to make the point clear enough "Your frame attached maybe clearer but that doesn't invalidate Mr/Ms. eohagan's view. " And just what view was that, Jim? Part of my question was wanting to know what his point was by using poor lesser quality images. Please let me share a recap Ed's view after five postings - Post 1) "The attached was cropped from Z. frame #312 and enlarged. Study it carefully. More to follow " Post 2) "Here's one more...." Post 3) "... and zooming in" Post 4) "Moorman's rear view . Once again study these four renditions carefully." Post 5) "Zooming in on the previous picture" Now maybe I'm just slow, Jim - so please tell me what Ed's view or point was after making these five post? The fact is there was no view offerered, nor was there a point made. Now let's forget that fact for a moment and look at the bigger picture. You said, "After all only by open exchange and constant reconsideration can we all advance the case." Please tell me what value does using a lesser quality image have over its cleaner and sharper counter-part ... or maybe possibly name one instance where a lesser quality image offered more data than a sharper image, Jim? Not just Ed, but I have seen other researchers take a poor quality image full of pixels, sometimes darkened, many times blury and then claim they see things that in fact are not present in the much cleaner film frame or photo of the same. So how does that advance the case in anyway, Jim? Whether it be in the field or in the lab - when one looks through a looking glass at an object - does one turn the focus until the image is sharp and clear or does one prefer to make the image distorted and out of focus because that visual will offer him or her the best research data? So if there is a lesson that should be learned here it is that the best possible images will give a more defined conclusion to any inquiry. Let me close by saying one other thing ... If you go to Lancer's forum and type in Ed's name into their search engine, you will find the images he has used here along with others. You will also find that Ed likes to take poor quality images and blow them up to incredible size and then tell you about all the things he sees in them. One such example over at Lancer is the tree leaf shadows being cast upon the fence in Moorman's photograph. Ed enlarged those tree leaf shadows and was posting that they were cops with cameras lined all across the knoll. Despite nimerous request to do so, he wouldn't show the wide view so one could see what photo or film source he used, but another researcher quickly recognized the image and exposed what Ed was doing. The tree leaf shadows Ed used took up less that a 2' X 2' area of stockade fence. I personally didn't see that as advancing research in any way. I had emailed this forum administrator about allowing images to be posted here because I believe they are so important when used responsibly and to the point. The reply I got was a favorable one with the condition that the posting of images is to the point and discretion is used so not to fill up the forum with meaningless pictures. I, knowing what Ed has done on other forums, asked that he get to his point because if he is doing what I have seen elsewhere - I feared that the posting of image privledge here may be discontinued. Now whether Ed was going to repeat a past practice of his - I cannot say with certainty and is why I asked that he make his point if he had one. It was not my intention to get into all these various things, but you raised the issue to where I had little choice but to explain myself better. If nothing else comes of it, then we should all see the need to use the best possible images when analyzing the assassination of John Kennedy. The use of poor quality images will always tend to lead to making poor quality observations and that does nothing to advance any murder case in my opinion.

Ed - If you do not mind my asking this question - what are you trying to accomplish by using poor quality images taken from the Zapruder film and why would you run up a thread with them and not make your point? My concern is that I'd hate to see this attachment option taken away for the wrong reasons. Below is a colored version of Z312 without the blur and pixels which distort the image and cause the imagination juices to start flowing unnecessarily.

"All that take seriously a shot from the knoll would have to explain to me why debris didn't go primarily across the car. Note no exit wound on the left side of Jack Kennedy's head. To some extent this can be explained away, but not the reaction of the President's body. It moved as if struck from more to the front than the knoll and more from below than the knoll. Or the knoll as defined by HSCA and or Mr. Gordon Arnold." If one draws a line from the back of Kennedy's head to the Hat Man location near the tree, they will find that this trajectory would work. Moorman's photograph is often referred to for doing this. Please keep in mind that from Z312 to Z316 - the limo did roll westward, thus changing the angle from the Hat Man to Kennedy's head. Dennis David who lead the casket detail at Bethesda on the night of the assassination told me that the skull plate that dislodged from the top of Kennedy's head had to have been struck somewhere along its outer border. That information came from the training he had gotten at Bethesda. Was it on the front part of that flap, the middle right side or more towards the rear ... who really knows? The bone apparently fractured and popped off the top of the head only to be held on by a flap of scalp. The back of the head was avulsed outward and debris did pass over the left rear of the trunk and onto Hargis and Martin who were flanking the right rear side of the limo. At the time Kennedy was seen at Parkland, the back of his head was "avusled" open. No mention of the bones being broken away in that area at that time. It wasn't until the body got to Bethesda that some of the fractured avulsed bones were now missing and the large hole was observed by everyone who saw the President's body. I wish I could tell people more about bullets and what they can do other than they can do some of the oddest things, all I know is that Cyril Wecht who is one of the best qualified people I know of does believe Kennedy was shot from the right front. Just to clairfy one thing. The Hat Man and Badge Man are two separate shooters. The head of JFK explodes between Z312 and Z313. The flash of light seen at the fence in the Nix film and captured on Moorman's number five Polaroid comes at Z315.6 and by then Kennedy's head was already blasted open. Two separate shots - two sparate shooters. With Mrs. Hartman seeing a furrow leading back to the large tree above the knoll and it being logical that Badge Man's shot missed the President - that leaves the earlier shot that Holland and the men on the overpass heard as the most likely source for the shot that hit JFK in the head and proceded to splatter Haris and Martin in debris. If that shot had missed, then where did it go for in its path were cycles and witnesses. Further support comes from several witnesses who claimed the last two shots sounded as if they came right over the top of one another. Roy Kellerman said it this was ... Mr. KELLERMAN. Let me give you an illustration, sir, before I can give you an answer. You have heard the sound barrier, of a plane breaking the sound barrier, bang, bang? That is it.

More things Miller was able to find that substantiated Arnold's claim is seen below. Gordon said two men in police uniforms approached him immediately after the shooting. It just so happens that two individuals in dark clothing are seen near the tree in the Towner photograph taken shortly following the assassination. The Bond photos show someone is light colored clothing rising up from the ground near the two individuals in dark clothing. Arnold had said that he had taken the film from his Mother's camera and given it to one of the officers. Immediately after the shooting there is a man seen on the walkway area who is wearing what appears to be a uniform and an overseas hat just like the person in the Moorman'photograph. While circumstantial, all these things lend credibility to the statements of Gordon Arnold. It also might be worth noting that Austin Miller had said that prior to the motorcades arrival that a young man in his early twenties came by way of the RR yard in an effort to come up on the overpass. He said this man was stopped and turned away. Gordon Arnold was 22 years of age on the day of Kennedy's assassination. Larger versions of these images can be seen on Lancer's JFK forum.

Notice the shadow line passing over both individuals at the same point on their body. The left shoulder is in sunlight as the person faces the limo in the Betzner photograph, but when overlaid with his position as he is facing Moorman - his left shoulder is turned into the shade. This is consistant with Gordon Arnold tracking the limo with his camera as he said he had done. If you watch the clip close enough - you can picture the body turning between images. When Arnold turned towards Moorman, he also turned into the sunlight slightly more which allowed more of his uniform to be lit up in the camera's eye.

"Also, and I cannot think of their names right now, of course, a couple in the area of the manhole cover in Dealey ,where Deputy Harry Weatherford was stationed to guard ..somewhere pertaining to such.....saw two, what appeared to be little mole hills running along side by side in the grass, and remarked about such, to a policeman,and were told no Mam they are bullets under the soil.???..." That was Mrs. Hartman who seen the furrow in the grass. It was one furrow that she said looked like a mole run. She showed it to a policeman who told her that this looked like where a bullet. The location was just west to where Hill and Moorman were standing. Mrs. Hartman was misstated in the FBI report which claimed she had said the furrow lead back to the TSBD. Mark Oakes showed Mrs. and Mr. Hartman the FBI report in 1992 and they were furious that the FBI altered what they had said. Mrs. Hartman said the furrow led back to the large tree above the knoll. (That would be the Badge Man location) Below is Mrs. Hartman showing Mark Oaskes where the furrow was located in the grass.

Andy - I tried placing more than one attachment to a post, but was unsuccessful. That is why I posted several times in a row to offer a continuation of the diagrams detailing the issue being dicussed. If someone wants to place them on one post - that's not a problem for me.

An elevated overview of the BDM/Arnold location

Miller's diagram showing how as the limo came towards Arnold - Gordrn turned his body to track the limo with his camera, thus he pulled his left shoulder out of the sunlight and into the shadow line of the tree.

The Black Dog Man and Gordon Arnold

"All should work now as John describes! If you have images larger than the max. limit I have set on uploads please send them to me directly by e-mail " Thank, Andy. I have now posted some images on a couple of threads ... it would have helped if they could have been a bit larger for easier visibility. If you look at them and would like to have the files emailed directly to you so to increase their size - I'll be happy to email them to you. These images are rather important for they detail another researchers work on the Kennedy assassination who in most of his peers minds has now laid many questions to rest. It was amazing to some of us how almost 40 years went by before someone was able to do what this fellow had accomplished. By the way - will the forum allow a moving Gif to be uploaded? I think if people could see his clip of the Weigman film - they will be taken back by the smoke seen drifting out through the trees. This would be the smoke that Sam Holland and others on the overpass had seen when they heard a loud shot come from the same location and at the same instant when the President's head exploded.

What Ed Hoffman reported seeing when Interviewed by researchers Bill Miller and Tony Cummings. Flier created by Bill Miller as seen on Lancer's site.