Jump to content
The Education Forum

Great Zapruder Film Hoax LINK for Mr. Peter's...


Recommended Posts

ORDINARILY I DO NOT READ NOR RESPOND TO MR. PETERS/MILLER'S RAVINGS,

BUT I NOTICED HIS POSTING OF THE LONG-AGO DISCREDITED "GAP" IN THE

MOORMAN PIC, AND I MUST PROVIDE AN ANTIDOTE. It was several years ago

that the GANG created a FAKE GAP using their famous DRUM SCAN. This "gap"

does not exist on good copies of Moorman. Just setting the record straight for

those who might fall for this discredited disinformation.

Jack White ;)

Mr. White - They say there are intelligent people who make mistakes and there are ignorant people who make mistakes - the difference being that an ignorant person doesn't know when to admit he or she has made a mistake.

You just accused Josiah Thompson of creating a faked image rather than you admit your own mistake. The charge is a serious one to say the least.

dgh01: Now - now Mr. Peter's I know who created the "drum scan" a CD was sent to me by the creator of 'the' drum scan. It wasn't, Dr. Josiah Thompson!

--------------

Below is the Moorman photo that appears in Robert Groden's book on page 34 of "The Killing of a President." That particular Moorman photo Groden used is not from the Thompson drum scan and is clearly seen without the fingerprint on it. It too, has the same noticeable gap on it as the Thompson Drum scan. Are we to finally hear you say that you totally screwed up or are you going to now accuse Robert Groden of faking the gap so many years earlier and well before your 'Moorman in the Street' claim was invented?

Some of you people have taken the low road at every turn and there can be no doubt that for you to believe Josiah Thompson faked the drum scan to create a gap, you'd be the first one to post your copy of the Moorman Polaroid that shows "no" gap present.

dgh01: where does this 'water bucket brigade for the gang of 5-10 come from? See my above response.

----------

The fact is there is no such photo - is there Mr. White! You certainly didn't show such a photo in TGZFH. Instead you placed your replica photo next to a crop from the Moorman photo and that's what Bill Miller used to check your work.

dgh01: if you can't get who created the drum scan correct, should we, or anyone for that matter, believe what you put forth here. From what I'm seeing here you have access to ALL the original photo's or those that DO. And, I know you don't! Some are questioning your motives.

----------

It was your own evidence, your own example images of alteration that was used to check your work. Dating back to when Moorman's photo was first seen on NBC just hours after the assassination there was a gap present. You may think I relish in pointing out your deceitful ways, but it actually shames me. You did such good work in the early years and now you have opted to blame your mistakes on everyone else, but yourself. You owe Mr. Josiah Thompson an apology the next time you see him in my opinion. All scans below are from page 34 of Groden's book 'TKOAP'.

dgh01: don't hold your breath and that's Dr. Josiah Thompson, btw!

---------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

dgh01: Now - now Mr. Peter's I know who created the "drum scan" a CD was sent to me by the creator of 'the' drum scan. It wasn't, Dr. Josiah Thompson!

As usual you can't seem to stay focused. Josiah Thompson is part of the group the alteration believers call "The gang" and Josiah Thompson supplied the photo that was used. Josiah Thomspon has sinced wrote about that Drum scan and validated it being legit. Anyone claiming the Drum scan is a sham is slandering Josiah Thompson's credibility. What is even worse is that someone like yourself doesn't seem to be bothered by the false statement Jack White has made, but thinks instead that it's more important to blame the person who actually did the scan who you don't have correct at that. Josiah Thompson had the original copy negative done in 1967. The Drum scan of a few years ago was done at Gary Mack's request. And the work was carried out at a commercial lab in San Francisco in the presence of Josiah Thompson.

dgh01: where does this 'water bucket brigade for the gang of 5-10 come from? See my above response.

Your reply needs to be more to the point on on target for I cannot follow your off the wall ramblings about water brigades.

dgh01: if you can't get who created the drum scan correct,  should we, or anyone for that matter, believe what you put forth here.

The information about the drum scan has been stated above. The work was done in Josiah Thompson's presence. That information was obtained through Gary Mack during a conversation he had with a JFK assassination researcher. Unless you know differently and can state it here, I will assume that this is just more erroneous supposition on your part.

dgh01: don't hold your breath and that's Dr. Josiah Thompson, btw!

You are probably right for it takes character to admit when you are wrong, but in fairness to Mr. White, you should give him the chance to do the right thing before telling people not to hold their breath waiting for that to happen. The important thing is that Jack White purposely made a slanderous comment that he had to know or should have known to be false and it can be shown to be false by comparing the Thompson Drum Scan against copies of Moorman's photos that were in existence dating back to the 1960's. There is only one thing lower than someone purposely making such a false accusation in my view, and that is someone trying to defend it.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh01: Now - now Mr. Peter's I know who created the "drum scan" a CD was sent to me by the creator of 'the' drum scan. It wasn't, Dr. Josiah Thompson!

As usual you can't seem to stay focused. Josiah Thompson is part of the group the alteration believers call "The gang" and Josiah Thompson supplied the photo that was used. Josiah Thomspon has sinced wrote about that Drum scan and validated it being legit. Anyone claiming the Drum scan is a sham is slandering Josiah Thompson's credibility. What is even worse is that someone like yourself doesn't seem to be bothered by the false statement Jack White has made, but thinks instead that it's more important to blame the person who actually did the scan who you don't have correct at that. Josiah Thompson had the original copy negative done in 1967. The Drum scan of a few years ago was done at Gary Mack's request. And the work was carried out at a commercial lab in San Francisco in the presence of Josiah Thompson.

dgh02: Mr. Peter's, Focused? Whose claiming the drumscan is a sham? And how praytell does the claimant Josiah Thompson validate a document he claims he created? Simply by saying so? I don't think so Mr. Peter's, maybe elsewhere but when it comes to the JFK Assassination its a whole different ballgame -- The drumscan CD was sent to me by the creator of same - the very same image that was under intense debate on JFK Research a few years back, a debate I was active in, which YOU Mr. Peter's, were NOT, unless you want to fess up to all of us that yes indeed, you participated in that debate under a different NAME.

Now, evidently you don't understand English -- so here it is for the last time: "I know who created the "drum scan CD" it was sent to me by that creator (very large.tiff file) of 'the' drum scan. It wasn't, Dr. Josiah Thompson!" Understand it this time? Mr. Peter's?

Does "Craig" sound familiar?

As far as Dr. Josiah's credibility is concerned, hey, he was always polite to me, I've no bone to pick with him -- let's just leave it at. However in some circles his image is slightly tarnished - ... Your gonna have to prove to me and others here and elsewhere that Jack is slandering anyone or making false statements -- you have a problem with his research your gonna have to do a lot more than quote verbatim other's comments regarding JackW's photo research.

Oh, Dr. Thompson had the negative copied in 1967? Do you mean a 35mm interneg was created of off the original Moorman5? If so where, when and by whom? -- Now were getting somewhere - provanence - the pedigree of the image under discussion...

----------

dgh01: where does this 'water bucket brigade for the gang of 5-10 come from? See my above response.

Your reply needs to be more to the point on on target for I cannot follow your off the wall ramblings about water brigades.

dgh02: water brigade = a simple minded "gofer", you know, one of the guys that brings the water bottles out to the players onto the football field during timeouts....2nd string, junior varsity...

------------

dgh01: if you can't get who created the drum scan correct,  should we, or anyone for that matter, believe what you put forth here.

The information about the drum scan has been stated above. The work was done in Josiah Thompson's presence. That information was obtained through Gary Mack during a conversation he had with a JFK assassination researcher. Unless you know differently and can state it here, I will assume that this is just more erroneous supposition on your part.

dgh02: as your so knowledgable about this -- just WHAT kind work was done (in San Francisco) when the CD was created [photo researchers need this info] -- feel free to discuss at great length how this was accomplished -- I'll understand -- I do use Photoshop too! Daily actually -- i.e., filters, unmask sharpen (color correction or otherwise) applied to the image?

----------

dgh01: don't hold your breath and that's Dr. Josiah Thompson, btw!

You are probably right for it takes character to admit when you are wrong, but in fairness to Mr. White, you should give him the chance to do the right thing before telling people not to hold their breath waiting for that to happen. The important thing is that Jack White purposely made a slanderous comment that he had to know or should have known to be false and it can be shown to be false by comparing the Thompson Drum Scan against copies of Moorman's photos that were in existence dating back to the 1960's. There is only one thing lower than someone purposely making such a false accusation in my view, and that is someone trying to defend it.

dgh02: WOW Mr. Peter's your calling everyone under the sun names because some do NOT respond to your ranting -- they don't have character? -- your making a fool out of yourself...

--------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh02: Mr. Peter's, Focused? Whose claiming the drumscan is a sham?

Jack White claims it what faked - can't you read?

As far as Dr. Josiah's credibility is concerned, hey, he was always polite to me, I've no bone to pick with him -- let's just leave it at. However in some circles his image is slightly tarnished -

I bet that cirlce is made up of of a handful of people who didn't know when Moorman's photo was first shown following the assassination or wasn't sharp enough to see the gap problem - Mr. Thompson isn't hurt any by some small circles in my opinion.

... Your gonna have to prove to me and others here and elsewhere that Jack is slandering anyone or making false statements -- you have a problem with his research your gonna have to do a lot more than quote verbatim other's comments regarding JackW's photo research.

You seemingly aren't reading these post very well. Jack said the gap was faked on the Thompson Drum Scan and I said that every Moorman photocopy dating back to the assassination shows the gap, so White's saying there was no gap before the drum scan was made can easily be shown to be a blatent lie. Did you not see the gap in Groden's copy which was in his book many years before the Thompson Drum Scan? Are you just spouting off without looking at the photo examples provided with these replies? Stay focused Mr. Healy! I have once again provided the gap as seen on one of Groden's copies of Moorman's photo found in his book "The Killing of a President". Now after showing the gap again from Groden's copy - I can only hope that it will keep you from trying to pretend that you had not seen the image so to try and make it look as though you don't understand what Mr. White did wrong. (See the attachment below)

Oh, Dr. Thompson had the negative copied in 1967? Do you mean a 35mm interneg was created of off the original Moorman5? If so where, when and by whom? -- Now were getting somewhere - provanence -  the pedigree of the image under discussion...

Wait a minute - you're the person who thought he knew all about the drum scan, it is you who should contact Josiah or Mack and get the facts before spouting off. After all, that's what I did! The copy Mr. White used for the Badge Man discovery didn't raise questions from you as to it's pedigree. His photo shows the same gap as Thompson's Drum Scan, so check on White's pedigree while your investigating Josiah Thompson's. I know that doing your homework is something you guys aren't known for doing, but give it a try next time before you start replying to subjects you obviously haven't investigated beforehand.

Groden also had access to two of Moorman's original photos - one of them being the #5 Polaroid. Groden made copy negatives from her original photograph, too. Groden will also tell you that the gap is the same in each copy. The bottom line is that Jack White made a false statement about there being a Moorman photo showing the pedestal and the window touching. Such a photo would blow the lid off the assassination by showing true hoaxing of the photographical record and yet White has never produced such a photograph - WHY? The reason is obvious - there is no such photograph and White made it up rather than to admit he had made a mistake concerning his recreation photo. White used such a Moorman photo copy to discover the Badge Man and Arnold. That Badge Man copy will show the gap just as Thompson's Drum Scan does and Mr. White knew that before he made his malicious statement. Asking for me to answer questions that should have been answered before such an accusation of fakery was made against Thompson's Drum Scan is something that you should be criticizing the accuser over.

dgh02: water brigade = a simple minded "gofer",

I'm starting to wonder what simple minded gofer would want the topic of White's mistakes to be set aside, only to then keep inciting replies that keep White's blunders in the spot light.

dgh02: as your so knowledgable about this -- just WHAT kind work was done (in San Francisco) when the CD was created [photo researchers need this info] -- feel free to discuss at great length how this was accomplished -- I'll understand -- I do use Photoshop too! Daily actually -- i.e.,  filters, unmask sharpen (color correction or otherwise) applied to the image?

I'm not doing your homework. As the guy to help you that storied to you when he told you that he created the drum scan. You said earlier how polite Joaish has been to you, so contact him and get straight from the horses mouth.

dgh02: WOW Mr. Peter's your calling everyone under the sun names because some do NOT respond to your ranting -- they don't have character? -- your making a fool out of yourself...
--------

Not everyone, Mr. Healy. Please stay focused here! I didn't make Mr. White make up that story about the drum scan being faked by adding the gap between the pedestal and the pergola window. I certainly didn't invite you to get involved in the topic and by trying to make excuses for White's behavior. If trying to get to the truth by exposing a falsehood derived from malice is making a fool out of myself, then call me "The Joker".

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was several years ago that the GANG created a FAKE GAP using their famous DRUM SCAN. This "gap" does not exist on good copies of Moorman. Just setting the record straight for those who might fall for this discredited disinformation.

Jack White ;)

Mr. White - placing a cross over the gap doesn't actually count as far as pushing the pedestal and pergola window closer together. And if you are going to try and be deceitful about it, at least be smart enough not to show the same photo with no lines sitting right next to it, thus exposing the gap. What you have done reminds me of what a little kid does by covering his eyes and thinking you can't see him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TOP POST and IN thread responses

dgh03: Mr. Peter's snipping is not kosher - I and I suspoect many others reading this thread can follow it quite nicely without your selective snipping.... I'll be asking you to post "proof" regarding some of your claims - pretty quick now! ;)

dgh02: Mr. Peter's, Focused? Whose claiming the drumscan is a sham?

Jack White claims it what faked - can't you read?

As far as Dr. Josiah's credibility is concerned, hey, he was always polite to me, I've no bone to pick with him -- let's just leave it at. However in some circles his image is slightly tarnished -

I bet that cirlce is made up of of a handful of people who didn't know when Moorman's photo was first shown following the assassination or wasn't sharp enough to see the gap problem - Mr. Thompson isn't hurt any by some small circles in my opinion.

dgh03: I suspect Mr. Peter's, all concerned are well aware of the Moorman 5 showing. What are you talking about: "... or wasn't sharp enough to see the gap problem..."

... Your gonna have to prove to me and others here and elsewhere that Jack is slandering anyone or making false statements -- you have a problem with his research your gonna have to do a lot more than quote verbatim other's comments regarding JackW's photo research.

You seemingly are a simpleton after all! Jack said the gap was faked on the Thompson Drum Scan and I said that every Moorman photocopy dating back to the assassination shows the gap, so his saying there was no gap and that it was a product of fakery put onto the drum scan is a blatent lie. Did you not see the gap in Groden's copy which was around many years before the Thompson Drum Scan? Are you just spouting off without looking at the photo examples provided with these replies? Stay focused Mr. Healy! I have provided the gap as seen on one of Groden's copies of Moorman's photo found in his book "The Killing of a President". Now I hope in your next say nothing of importance reply that you won't pretend once again not to have seen the image I have provided.

dgh03: simpleton? rave on, Mr. Peter's rave on. Appears you've completly forgot what the heading of this thread reads. Your not Robert Groden are you, Mr. Peter's? For the record Mr. Peter's, the Moorman 5 photo has deeper implications than what's being discussed here [the gap]

--------------

Oh, Dr. Thompson had the negative copied in 1967? Do you mean a 35mm interneg was created of off the original Moorman5? If so where, when and by whom? -- Now were getting somewhere - provanence -  the pedigree of the image under discussion...

Wait a minute - you're the person who thought he knew all about the drum scan,

dgh03: Mr. Peter's for the LAST time: I know who created the drumscan CD, you still having problems with the English language?

it is you who should contact Josiah or Mack and get the facts before spouting off. After all, that's what I did! The copy Mr. White used for the Badge Man discovery didn't raise questions from you as to it's pedigree.

dgh03: I'd check with Gary Mack, he collaborated with Jack on Badgeman or was that Blackdog man?

---------------

His photo shows the same gap as Thompson's Drum Scan, so check on White's pedigree while your investigating Josiah Thompson's. I know that doing your homework is something you guys aren't known for doing, but give it a try - you might actually learn something from it.

Groden also had access to two of Moorman's original photos - one of them being the #5 Polaroid. Groden made copy negatives from her original photograph, too. Groden will also tell you that the gap is the same in each copy.

dgh03: Groden made copies of everything, literally EVERYTHING -- you did read Pig on a Leash in HOAX didn't you? I don't look upon Robert Groden as the savior in any photo research endeavour. What he withheld from the research community in the past...

--------------

The bottom line is that Jack White made a false statement about there being a Moorman photo showing the pedestal and the window touching.

dgh03: false statement, how? How in photo research analysis can you make a "false" statement, you present what you find the other side does the same -- bingo, your done! Let other's make up there mind. What are you grandstanding for? Your not in a court proceding Mr. Peter's, the ball is now in your court, provide a first generation image of the Moorman5 that's verifiable, in writing preferred. Do your analysis the same as Jack did - post your conclusions. Name calling and making accusations doesn't prove or disprove alteration Mr. Peter's - might want to raise the bar a little at your end...

-------------

Such a photo would blow the lid off the assassination by showing true hoaxing of the photographical record and yet White has never produced such a photograph - WHY? The reason is obvious - there is no such photograph and White made it up rather than to admit he had made a mistake concerning his recreation photo. White used such a Moorman photo copy to discover the Badge Man and Arnold. That Badge Man copy will show the gap just as Thompson's Drum Scan does and Mr. White knew that before he made his malicious statement.

dgh03: here you go again -- malicious statemnt? Admit man, your in over your head all you've got left is spouting - Bill, Robert, Mr. Peter's gotta get focused.

--------------

Asking for me to answer questions that should have been answered before such an accusation of fakery was made against Thompson's Drum Scan is something that you should be criticizing the accuser over.

dgh03: Mr. Peter's are you aware of the right to harbor ones OWN opinion? If not, I suggest you read our Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights -- Free speech is in there someplace.

--------------

dgh02: water brigade = a simple minded "gofer",

I'm starting to wonder what simple minded gofer would want the topic of White's mistakes to be set aside, only to then keep inciting replies that keep White's blunders in the spot light.

dgh02: as your so knowledgable about this -- just WHAT kind work was done (in San Francisco) when the CD was created [photo researchers need this info] -- feel free to discuss at great length how this was accomplished -- I'll understand -- I do use Photoshop too! Daily actually -- i.e.,  filters, unmask sharpen (color correction or otherwise) applied to the image?

I'm not doing your homework. As the guy to help you that storied to you when he told you that he created the drum scan. You said earlier how polite Joaish has been to you, so contact him and get straight from the horses mouth.

dgh03: its clear to me other's have done your homework - I have no intention of contacting Dr. Thompson, he disappeared from the fray, a few years back.

----------

dgh02: WOW Mr. Peter's your calling everyone under the sun names because some do NOT respond to your ranting -- they don't have character? -- your making a fool out of yourself...
--------

Not everyone, Mr. Healy. Please stay focused here! I didn't make Mr. White make up that story about the drum scan being faked by adding the gap between the pedestal and the pergola window. I certainly didn't invite you to get involved in the topic and by trying to make excuses for White's behavior. If trying to get to the truth by exposing a falsehood derived from malice is making a fool out of myself, then call me "The Joker".

dgh03: I wouldn't take Frank Gorshen's name is vain like that, Batman is just around the corner, and you ain't he! ROFLMAO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Healy - I am not going to run up yet another post by duplicating every single off the wall thing you said for none of it addressed a single issue being discussed. I'm not really suprised that you would think up an excuse not to contact the man who in your words has always been so polite to you in the past. The questions that you thought were important earlier tonight are obviously not important enough to send Mr. Thompson an email. Of course we both know that you really didn't want those questions answered in the first place. You have become very predictable when forced to actually look at the facts. You did however mention one thing worth addressing when you said,

"How in photo research analysis can you make a "false" statement, you present what you find the other side does the same -- bingo, your done!"

You make a false statement when you present something as fact that you already knew to be false. That's what Mr. White did when he made his statement about there not being a gap in the better Moorman photo copies. In reality, what Mr. White said would work just the opposite because the poorer the copy - the less the gap would be noticed. The sharper the image, the more defined the gap would be. Below is yet another example of Mr. White representing something he had to of known to be false. Mr. White posted an image of the pedestal from a print that he claimed to be of better quality than Thompson and Groden prints, but a quick glance shows that if anything, Mr. White used a print of equal or lesser quality. He certainly didn't use the print that was utilized for the Badge Man discovery which would have been the most desirable Moorman copy to use. I took the time to align four places in Mr. White's replica photo to that of the Moorman photo that he now claims to be of such better quality than the ones used before. Because this copy that Mr. White has now provided us with is said to now show that he got his replica photo correct - there should be no shifting of the pergola window to the pedestal taking place. I meticulously went to great efforts to get Mr. White's image aligned in those four places with the Moorman photo he provided. No matter how one cuts it, there is is still a gap and considerable shifting between the two. Mr. White and those who assisted him failed on all counts. (See the attachment below)

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Healy - I am not going to run up yet another post by duplicating every single off the wall thing you said for none of it addressed a single issue being discussed. I'm not really suprised that you would think up an excuse not to contact the man who in your words has always been so polite to you in the past.

dgh01: Mr. Peter's, ah -- what excuse might that be? Are you aware of my posting and JFK Research threads in which I communicated with Dr. Thompson - directly? It is incumbent Mr. Peter's or whomever you might be, to use, in photo analysis, the highest quality imagery under discussion. We all know that, Gary, Dr. Thompson, Dr. Costella, Jack White Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Mantik, me and hundreds of others -- that's why some have taken it upon themselves to request **ACCESS** to camera originals. We get nowwhere regarding these requests, hence - we are left to deal with imagery that is of lesser quality and dubious lineage.

So Mr. Peter's, NOBODY can prove *anything* regarding the photo/films, that includes YOU I'm afraid regarding the events that took place in Dealey Plaza, that November day in 1963, we're left with nothing but opinions and a few "profound" scientific, educated deductions - which are based on analysis of less than camera original images. Dr. John Costella is the best we have. Nobody has touched him! That I'm aware of. Certainly nobody from the Gang of 5-10!

Let us not forget what this exercise is about, if there was a coverup in Dealey Plaza, what was it about? If photos/film were altered, why and what was hidden -or- removed? Nobody on this side of the equation has a hidden agenda Mr. Peter's, can you say the same? Nobody on this side of the equation benefits or loses is film/photo alteration is proven someday, can the same be said of the non-alteration camp.

Sorry, the best way to preserve 'near' history, is to answer the critics and provide those qualified to test the evidence, the photo EVIDENCE, forensically.

Busting Jack Whites chops is juvenile -- there are bigger fish to fry.

Like who may have assisted LHO in murdering the president? You see Mr. Peter's, nobody has convinced me [YET] that LHO *wasn't* part of a conspiracy!

--------------

The questions that you thought were important earlier tonight are obviously not important enough to send Mr. Thompson an email. Of course we both know that you really didn't want those questions answered in the first place. You have become very predictable when forced to actually look at the facts. You did however mention one thing worth addressing when you said,

"How in photo research analysis can you make a "false" statement, you present what you find the other side does the same -- bingo, your done!"

You make a false statement when you present something as fact that you already knew to be false.

dgh01: Are you stating: someone is on the record regarding photo analysis, that's lying?

Place there name right here Mr. Peter's ________________________________

-------------

That's what Mr. White did when he made his statement about there not being a gap in the better Moorman photo copies.

dgh01: and here again _______________________

------------

In reality, what Mr. White said would work just the opposite because the poorer the copy - the less the gap would be noticed. The sharper the image, the more defined the gap would be. Below is yet another example of Mr. White representing something he had to of known to be false. Mr. White posted an image of the pedestal from a print that he claimed to be of better quality than Thompson and Groden prints, but a quick glance shows that if anything, Mr. White used a print of equal or lesser quality. He certainly didn't use the print that was utilized for the Badge Man discovery which would have been the most desirable Moorman copy to use. I took the time to align four places in Mr. White's replica photo to that of the Moorman photo that he now claims to be of such better quality than the ones used before.

dgh01: here's your problem guy: how do I/we know you haven't blurred or sharpened the posted images? We take your word for it? Come on Mr. Peter's your making N O I S E... No way to verify YOUR work, that's not research Mr. peter's -- that's PROPOGANDA under what MIGHT best be described as opinion --

We know the Jack Whites intention - what we don't know, is yours. For that matter, we don't know who YOU are.

---------------

Because this copy that Mr. White has now provided us with is said to now show that he got his replica photo correct - there should be no shifting of the pergola window to the pedestal taking place. I meticulously went to great efforts to get Mr. White's image aligned in those four places with the Moorman photo he provided. No matter how one cuts it, there is is still a gap and considerable shifting between the two. Mr. White and those who assisted him failed on all counts. (See the attachment below)

dgh01: What hasn't failed Mr. Peter's is, discernment: I'm not impressed with what you profess here, as a matter of fact, it's the same old crappe!

-----------

truck on Larry... truck on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh01: Mr. Peter's, ah -- what excuse might that be? Are you aware of my posting and JFK Research threads in which I communicated with Dr. Thompson - directly?

You must not have communicated enough if you didn't know the facts about the making of Thompson's Drum Scan.

So Mr. Peter's, NOBODY can prove *anything* regarding the photo/films,

I can certainly prove that the alteration claims in TGZFH was nothing more than faulty research.

Busting Jack Whites chops is juvenile -- there are bigger fish to fry.

Like who may have assisted LHO in murdering the president?

But this thread is about the 'Great Zapruder Film Hoax' and has nothing to do with Lee Oswald. If you look a little bit - you may find a thread on that subject.

dgh01: Are you stating: someone is on the record regarding photo analysis, that's lying?

You have only copied and pasted my remarks about the false allegation several times over, so what is the mystery? I am starting to understand why you can't debate the evidence with evidence.

That's what Mr. White did when he made his statement about there not being a gap in the better Moorman photo copies.

dgh01: and here again _______________________

Just more healy nonsense and evading the issue.

dgh01: here's your problem guy: how do I/we know you haven't blurred or sharpened the posted images? We take your word for it? Come on Mr. Peter's your making N O I S E... No way to verify YOUR work,

I thought you were the expert! I copy and pasted White's image that he posted - I referenced Groden's from his book and I used the White, Fetzer and Mantik replica photo. I did nothing but overlay them. If any sharpening or fakery was done, then take it up with the above parties. And checking my work is easily done just by looking in Groden's book and studying the images White provided. As I have said before - that's the beauty of all this! One doesn't have to create their own images because White's work doesn't even support itself.

This is what Gary Mack had to say when shown White's so-called clear image -

"Jack White not only has had access to all known Moorman photos - including

an 8x10 print of the drum scan - he has copied all of them. Every single

one! I was there. I gave some of them to him. He has them all, yet

insists on using the WORST one to try to make his point.

dgh01: What hasn't failed Mr. Peter's is, discernment: I'm not impressed with what you profess here, as a matter of fact, it's the same old crappe!

My goal is not to impress you, but to show others the mindset of the alterationist when confronted with the evidence. You and Mr. White have succeeded in helping me do that.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh01: Are you stating: someone is on the record regarding photo analysis, that's lying?

You have only copied and pasted my remarks about the false allegation several times over, so what is the mystery? I am starting to understand why you can't debate the evidence with evidence.

That's what Mr. White did when he made his statement about there not being a gap in the better Moorman photo copies.

dgh01: and here again _______________________

Just more healy nonsense and evading the issue.

Mr. Peter's or whomever you are - your shirking your responsibility, where is your team spirit - who is lying?

I created a nice place for you to insert the nameof who is lying and what did you do? Ignored it! You've had plenty of chances to explain the material your basing your conclusions on - all you can tell us is it's Bill Miller's stuff, Tink's stuff, Lancer stuff, you've provided no links to source material that other researchers can run tests that will confirm your contentions -- NOPE, best you can do is show us Jack Whites material.

In short your a PR flunky[we call them propogandists] running interference for the Gangs disagreements with HOAX which have been responded to, months ago... yet here you are, new kid on the block 'trying' to make their team. Good Luck, I'm sure the [the Gang] is measuring your mettle - as of this time, your a little in the wanting in my eye's - ceretainly not up to discussing the matters with those that have an interest in Z-film alteration.... there's hope yet, though -- Raymond Fielding is still teaching the artform of optical film printing somewhere in Florida - hey, you can always read the Zavada Report, great place to start....

Btw, your the last person I depend upon for ANY info regarding this subject matter -- just another phantom with keyboard trying for a little recognition -- your audience is Lancer.

Good-bye Bill er, Mr. Peter's

David Healy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I created a nice place for you to insert the nameof who is lying and what did you do? Ignored it! You've had plenty of chances to explain the material your basing your conclusions on - all you can tell us is it's Bill Miller's stuff, Tink's stuff, Lancer stuff, you've provided no links to source material that other researchers can run tests that will confirm your contentions -- NOPE, best you can do is show us Jack Whites material.

Mr Healy - I have said several times that it was Jack White who knowingly didn't tell the truth when he said that clear prints of Moorman's photo do not show the gap. Then instead of posting a clear print - he posted a poor quality print and it still showed the gap.

Now about my conclusions: Some of the overlays you will find in this thread will be found nowhere on the Internet. The overlay of White's so-called clear print was made immediately after I read his post. The explanations and descriptions I have given are my own words and not just pasting jobs off the Internet as you have falsely stated. Unlike you, if someone states why something is a certain way - I can actually tell people why I believe it's right or wrong.

As far as showing Jack White's material: If someone says that two poles along side each other in a photo are the same height - does one need to drive two more poles in the ground to test the observation or can one make a transparency and test the claim with an overlay by placing one pole over the other ... Of course one can. You make up so many stupid excuses in trying to defend poorly researched claims that you just cannot be taken seriously. I have yet to even see one post on this forum where you've detailed why you thought a certain film or photo alteration claim of White's was right. Instead of helping the alterationist position along, you have repeatedly showed the viewers of the this forum that you can't even say why you believe the photographical record was altered. I've heard Mr. White referred to as 'The Emperor who wore no clothes'. Never has anyone showed that comment to be more true than you have while on this forum.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I created a nice place for you to insert the nameof who is lying and what did you do? Ignored it! You've had plenty of chances to explain the material your basing your conclusions on - all you can tell us is it's Bill Miller's stuff, Tink's stuff, Lancer stuff, you've provided no links to source material that other researchers can run tests that will confirm your contentions -- NOPE, best you can do is show us Jack Whites material.

Mr Healy - I have said several times that it was Jack White who knowingly didn't tell the truth when he said that clear prints of Moorman's photo do not show the gap. Then instead of posting a clear print - he posted a poor quality print and it still showed the gap.

dgh01: operative word here is "knowingly", if you can prove that, please post your proof. As far as posting on the internet, Mr. Peter's let me remind you, what you and lurkers see on this forum and in the websites in general is posted imagery that has NO higher resolution than 72 dpi (at no fault of the forum moderators, a internet **given** -- if you're unaware of what that means, you might want to get clarification - I'm sure the moderators can clarify this).

Which leads me to Gary Mack's note [recv'd this morning], reminding me of what I've known for years, Dr. Thompson has had in his possesion a Moorman 5 copy/interneg for years, it was the basis of the "drum scan" image used during Moorman Street/Grass debate.

The "drum scan" image was forwarded AFTER Dr. Thompson's work in San Francisco to Craig Lamson for further/other processing[?], later copied to CD's and distributed, I being one of the recipients of a CD with the image. Understanding the seriousness of the debate and the implications of the street/grass Moorman position, it is prudent that researchers see [Craig's before and after imagry] the components that drew your side of the **gap** debate to it's current conclusion, YES?

Doing research on imagery of no greater resolution than 72 dpi, is dangerous at best -- if that's all you've got, then the honest thing you can say is: "no conclusions - just opinions". For what it's worth, Jack White always requests comments regarding his work [new and old]. If YOU are not in the vicinity when his requests for comments are made, well what c an you say? Maybe, you've been 86'ed from the very place where Jack posts regularly, Rich's JFKResearch forum?

Now about my conclusions: Some of the overlays you will find in this thread will be found nowhere on the Internet. The overlay of White's so-called clear print was made immediately after I read his post. The explanations and descriptions I have given are my own words and not just pasting jobs off the Internet as you have falsely stated. Unlike you, if someone states why something is a certain way - I can actually tell people why I believe it's right or wrong.

dgh01: if you understand what I wrote directly [above regarding internet photo resolution], you'll see how someone, anyone may see your post here as disengenuous at best.

--------------

As far as showing Jack White's material: If someone says that two poles along side each other in a photo are the same height - does one need to drive two more poles in the ground to test the observation or can one make a transparency and test the claim with an overlay by placing one pole over the other ... Of course one can. You make up so many stupid excuses in trying to defend poorly researched claims that you just cannot be taken seriously.

dgh01: Mr. Peter's if you can't post right here, the exact resolution of imagery your working with, what your comparing, where that referenced imagery is located, make it available to other's. NOISE Mr. Peter's - just another opinion -- far cry from research, Mr. Peter's. A very far cry!

--------------

I have yet to even see one post on this forum where you've detailed why you thought a certain film or photo alteration claim of White's was right. Instead of helping the alterationist position along, you have repeatedly showed the viewers of the this forum that you can't even say why you believe the photographical record was altered. I've heard Mr. White referred to as 'The Emperor who wore no clothes'. Never has anyone showed that comment to be more true than you have while on this forum.

dgh01: I post my opinions regarding photo alteration research. elsewhere -- LOL! nearly every post on this and other forums regarding JFK Assassination photo imagery had its nexus with Jack White and his work, [and yes, some of Gary Mac's work] - THAT is what brings certain folks blood to the boiling point... We can thank Jack for many things, the least being: Some photos and films just don't match up to the events portrayed in Dealey Plaza that day. Not forgetting; something ELSE was going on in Dealey Plaza that day.

A something else most of the world seems to understand

In my estimation, status quo will remain till the altered photo issue is cleared, one way or another. I suspect it can be cleared up in short order if certified and verifiable camera originals are put on the table for indepth review -- till then Mr. Peter's, your best efforts are needed in getting the research community to this end, not positioning yourself amid an agenda driven position, with nothing more than maintaining the "status quo" as it's final goal.

Think about it! What do you have to lose? Want to preserve history? Let's make sure we understand

"whose" history we're preserving!

David Healy

-------------

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh01: operative word here is "knowingly", if you can prove that, please post your proof. As far as posting on the internet, Mr. Peter's let me remind you, what you and lurkers see on this forum and in the websites in general is posted imagery that has NO higher resolution than 72 dpi (at no fault of the forum moderators, a internet **given** -- if you're unaware of what that means, you might want to get clarification - I'm sure the moderators can clarify this).

Mr. Healy - I see you're still trying to move on and keep Mr. White out of the spot light by continuing to beat a dead horse. Very well, here it is from someone who worked with Mr. White on the Badge Man project. Gary Mack has said,

"Jack White not only has had access to all known Moorman photos - including

an 8x10 print of the drum scan - he has copied all of them. Every single

one! I was there. I gave some of them to him. He has them all, yet

insists on using the WORST one to try to make his point."

The "drum scan" image was forwarded AFTER Dr. Thompson's work in San Francisco to Craig Lamson for further/other processing[?], later copied to CD's and distributed, I being one of the recipients of a CD with the image.

A CD that I was eventually given, as well.

Understanding the seriousness of the debate and the implications of the street/grass Moorman position, it is prudent that researchers see [Craig's before and after imagry] the components that drew your side of the **gap** debate to it's current conclusion, YES?

No - that is smoke and mirrors on your part and here is why. You can overlay every known copy of Moorman's photo over the top of one another and there will NEVER be one that shows the gap closed as Mr. White's so-called recreation photo does. Below is an example of two Moorman photos - One is Thompson's with the fingerprint on it and the other is Groden's without the fingerprint. Like with the pedestal, there is a gap between Jackie and JFK's head. When overlaid on top of one another - the gap never changes. The only way to get the gap to change is by lightening the photo until you start washing out the images and expanding the light colored areas. There is no Moorman print in TGZFH that shows the gap closed, nor will Mr. White ever be able to produce one on this forum. (see attachment number one)

Doing research on imagery of no greater resolution than 72 dpi, is dangerous at best -- if that's all you've got, then the honest thing you can say is: "no conclusions - just opinions". For what it's worth, Jack White always requests comments regarding his work [new and old]. If YOU are not in the vicinity when his requests for comments are made, well what can you say? Maybe, you've been 86'ed from the very place where Jack posts regularly, Rich's JFKResearch forum?

Mr. Healy - again you are trying to mislead someone. When enlarging an image after it has been reduced to 72 DPI it will cause it to pixel and become distorted with magnification. However, magnification can be achieved before posting an image to a forum such as this one. I can zoom in on the Moorman photo - capture it to where we can count the emulsion specs if you like. No matter how you slice it - the gap will not close. The transfermation to the Internet will not selectively alter any parts of the image being posted. In other words - it will not leave the some gaps like that between Jackie and JFK's head open while closing others like that between the pedestal and the pergola window. (see attachment number two)

dgh01: Mr. Peter's if you can't post right here, the exact resolution of imagery your working with, what your comparing, where that referenced imagery is located, make it available to other's. NOISE Mr. Peter's - just another opinion -- far cry from research, Mr. Peter's. A very far cry!

You mean the same resolution imagery that Mr. White didn't post? By the way - I did source my Moorman images, but you have to take the time to actually read the post thoroughly.

dgh01: I post my opinions regarding photo alteration research. elsewhere -- LOL!

That is the most honest statement you have made thus far. I believe you are talking about JFKResearch where no one can challenge alteration claims without being banned from the site. That brings us to the next question - If you are not here to share your opinions about photo and film alteration, then why are you posting in this thread at all? Interesting!

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...