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

[David G. Healy]

Mr. Peter's just post the before and after [regarding Dr. Thompson's 'drum scan' image] imagery, with a statement from Craig what he did to the image -- I would like to know what Craig Lamson did to ***enhane*** the image, if anything other than creating the CD --

Now thats plain English Mr. Peter's, James Gordon, Bill Miller or whatever name/skirt your currently hiding behind -- you've expressed ZERO knowledge regarding imagery posted on the net - guess we're back to provocateur nonsense aren't we....?

For your info Mr. Peter's, I think it's a safe bet; JWhite wiped his hands of you long ago; your an amusing distraction; certainly nothing more than a distraction! Based on your photo resolution comments, I'm fairly certain your Bill Miller, all you needed to add is: if you save a 72dpi image at a higher resolution [300dpi], only you can see things in a picture others can't. roflmao

So for lurkers hereabouts, that TYPE OF REASONING, not to mention the disruptions, is why the likes of these guys we're dumped from JFKRESEARCH and the forum going private - researcher funded...

I'd say we're onto something - sure gave cause to those of us that need much convincing regarding the subject matter.

Whinning about what researchers did with photos Mr. Peter's just doesn't cut it!

ta-ta guy!

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

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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Jack White]

We are all tired of the ravings of Mr.Peters/Miller/whoever.

He continues to ignore the obvious RETOUCHING of the so-called

DRUM SCAN, which was revealed at least 2 years ago or more.

He continues to beat this dead horse by calling me and others

liars and worse.

The drum scan RETOUCHING is very clear in the area of the

pedestal:

1. the pedestal top was cleaned up with a sharp straight line

2. the "gap" was significantly increased

3. the corner of the pedestal was "squared up", although it is not

4. and most obvious, the slant of the pedestal top was changed

from slanting down to right to SLANTING DOWN TO LEFT, to

further exaggerate the "gap".

This was posted on the JFKresearch forum years ago, AND NEVER

REFUTED NOR DENIED by Thompson/Mack/Lamson/Miller et al.

Here it is again, gang.

Now SHUT UP!

Jack White

[Jack White]

We are all tired of the ravings of Mr.Peters/Miller/whoever.

He continues to ignore the obvious RETOUCHING of the so-called

DRUM SCAN, which was revealed at least 2 years ago or more.

He continues to beat this dead horse by calling me and others

liars and worse.

The drum scan RETOUCHING is very clear in the area of the

pedestal:

1. the pedestal top was cleaned up with a sharp straight line

2. the "gap" was significantly increased

3. the corner of the pedestal was "squared up", although it is not

4. and most obvious, the slant of the pedestal top was changed

from slanting down to right to SLANTING DOWN TO LEFT, to

further exaggerate the "gap".

This was posted on the JFKresearch forum years ago, AND NEVER

REFUTED NOR DENIED by Thompson/Mack/Lamson/Miller et al.

Here it is again, gang.

Now SHUT UP!

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Additionally, as I have always pointed out, the corner of the

pedestal is not square, but is offset by about an inch. The

"gap" advocates refuse to recognize this. When retouching

the "drum scan", they also were ignorant of the CAMBER

of the top of the pedestal (for shedding rainwater). It is

NOT A FLAT SURFACE, but is raised more than an inch in

the center. When they retouched the top of the pedestal,

they made it a STRAIGHT LINE, not a curve.

Give up, Peters/Miller. The hoaxers have been exposed.

Jack White

[Larry Peters]

He continues to beat this dead horse by calling me and others

liars and worse.

No, Mr. White - the con game you're trying to run is doing that for me. You were flat out wrong when you said, "This "gap" does not exist on good copies of Moorman." You went from being in error to dishonest when you said something that you knew not to be true when you said it. Then you added to your dishonesty when you tried to pass off one of the poorer quality prints in your possession as a clearer copy than Groden's and Thompson's so to make it appear the gap had closed. I 'll demonstrate how that works below. So far, the only copy of the pedestal that I have seen where the gap didn't exist was on the picture that you had taken and you had to be at a different location than where Moorman was standing to get it to do that.

The drum scan RETOUCHING is very clear in the area of the

pedestal:

1. the pedestal top was cleaned up with a sharp straight line

2. the "gap" was significantly increased

These two events occurred when Josiah Thompson used a better quality photo to start with rather than the lesser quality image you have tried to pass off here as a "clearer" copy. Gary Mack, knowing about the various other copies you have in your possession, recognized what you were trying to do right off. All the rest of us needed to do was compare it to other prints like the one in Groden's book on page 34 of "The Killing of a President." Below is a comparison of your alleged clear print Vs. Thompson's drum scan. The things that you accused Thompson's drum scan of hiding are not seen in your alleged clear copy either. The fact is that Moorman's camera wasn't able to get the clarity needed to do what you have said should be seen in Thompson's drum scan. I also know why you used the lesser quality print, just as Mack knew why. You did it because it distorts the image and allows artifacts to come into play like the light spot that spills down from the pergola window. I've pointed it out with a green arrow as the transfer from Thompson's print to yours takes place. (see the attachment below)

3. the corner of the pedestal was "squared up", although it is not

4. and most obvious, the slant of the pedestal top was changed

from slanting down to right to SLANTING DOWN TO LEFT, to

further exaggerate the "gap".

Thompson's drum scan is no more squared up on the corners as your alleged clearer print. If one overlays the drum scan onto any Moorman photo and does it correctly - the objects within the image will mirror one another.

This was posted on the JFKresearch forum years ago, AND NEVER

REFUTED NOR DENIED by Thompson/Mack/Lamson/Miller et al.

Your statement above is also false. Your claim was refuted and those who refuted were eventually banned from the pro-alteration site that you speak of.

Quote from another researcher who has followed this alteration debate:

"Have you noticed that EVERY TIME someone disagrees with Jack about pictures, he claims they are altered or that the other guy is an agent provacateur? Paranoia on his part, plain and simple."

Edited August 1, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Larry Peters]

Additionally, as I have always pointed out, the corner of the

pedestal is not square, but is offset by about an inch. The

"gap" advocates refuse to recognize this. When retouching

the "drum scan", they also were ignorant of the CAMBER

of the top of the pedestal (for shedding rainwater). It is

NOT A FLAT SURFACE, but is raised more than an inch in

the center. When they retouched the top of the pedestal,

they made it a STRAIGHT LINE, not a curve.

Mr. White - The concrete wall that runs along the top of the knoll is also built with a camber and in Moorman's photo, Betzner's photo, the Willis photo, and any other photos taken of it, it will appear to be flat along the very top of it. The reason for this works in much the same way as the horizon line on the ocean. We can watch a ship sink over the horizon because we know the earth his curved, but the horizon line will still appear flat. The same can be said about watching a boat rising above the horizon line as it's coming towards you. Below is a crop from a Bond photo and it shows a bus driving across the field of view, as well as the pedestal in the background. The roof of the bus is cambered and yet the very top of it appears as flat as the pedestal in the drum scan. Once again you have attributed something not being seen in the Thompson drum scan as some sort of an alteration when it isn't even seen in any vesrion of the Moorman #5 photograph.

Also, your vertical line in the post #78 photo example does not line up with the pergola window in Moorman's photo, just in your flawed recreation. That's why you never achieved the gap Moorman did.

Edited August 1, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Craig Lamson]

Mr. Peter's just post the before and after [regarding Dr. Thompson's 'drum scan' image] imagery, with a statement from Craig what he did to the image -- I would like to know what Craig Lamson did to ***enhane*** the image, if anything other than creating the CD --

Now thats plain English Mr. Peter's, James Gordon, Bill Miller or whatever name/skirt your currently hiding behind -- you've expressed ZERO knowledge regarding imagery posted on the net - guess we're back to provocateur nonsense aren't we....?

For your info Mr. Peter's, I think it's a safe bet; JWhite wiped his hands of you long ago; your an amusing distraction; certainly nothing more than a distraction! Based on your photo resolution comments, I'm fairly certain your Bill Miller, all you needed to add is: if you save a 72dpi image at a higher resolution [300dpi], only you can see things in a picture others can't. roflmao

So for lurkers hereabouts, that TYPE OF REASONING, not to mention the disruptions, is why the likes of these guys we're dumped from JFKRESEARCH and the forum going private - researcher funded...

I'd say we're onto something - sure gave cause to those of us that need much convincing regarding the subject matter.

Whinning about what researchers did with photos Mr. Peter's just doesn't cut it!

ta-ta guy!

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

 

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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I was reading this old thread I found this question by you David and its time to correct the record.

When Tink had the Moorman 5 copy neg drum scanned in San Fran he had the the scanner tech make two copies of the cd containing the file. All the details of the scan are available at our web page on the Moorman 5.

Tink had the scanner tech sign each original cd and he sent one to me and one to G. Mack for the 6 floor. Gary still has this original disk.

When I recieved the disk I did noting to the file....nothing..repete...nothing. No changes what so ever. I simply made dupilcates of the master disk supplied by Tink and sent them out in the mail. The file you recieved is exactly as it came off the scanner. The master disk (with the scanners techs signature) was returned to Tink.

Any claims by White that the image was retouched is pure crap. The file is as it came from the scanner...and I might add it matches the print that was made from the same neg perfectly, as well as every other file I have seem from the Moorman except for that crappy scan White likes to promote. And even that one when subjected to careful study also shows the same gap as all the other Moormans floating around.

Edited September 14, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

Craig Lamson,Sep 14 2005

David G. Healy,Aug 1 2004

Mr. Peter's just post the before and after [regarding Dr. Thompson's 'drum scan' image] imagery, with a statement from Craig what he did to the image -- I would like to know what Craig Lamson did to ***enhane*** the image, if anything other than creating the CD --

Now thats plain English Mr. Peter's, James Gordon, Bill Miller or whatever name/skirt your currently hiding behind -- you've expressed ZERO knowledge regarding imagery posted on the net - guess we're back to provocateur nonsense aren't we....?

For your info Mr. Peter's, I think it's a safe bet; JWhite wiped his hands of you long ago; your an amusing distraction; certainly nothing more than a distraction! Based on your photo resolution comments, I'm fairly certain your Bill Miller, all you needed to add is: if you save a 72dpi image at a higher resolution [300dpi], only you can see things in a picture others can't. roflmao

So for lurkers hereabouts, that TYPE OF REASONING, not to mention the disruptions, is why the likes of these guys we're dumped from JFKRESEARCH and the forum going private - researcher funded...

I'd say we're onto something - sure gave cause to those of us that need much convincing regarding the subject matter.

Whinning about what researchers did with photos Mr. Peter's just doesn't cut it!

ta-ta guy!

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

Larry Peters,Jul 31 2004

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?[/quote

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!

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

today 9/13/05 2330

As I was reading this old thread I found this question by you David and its time to correct the record.

dgh01:Correct what record?

When Tink had the Moorman 5 copy neg drum scanned in San Fran he had the the scanner tech make two copies of the cd containing the file. All the details of the scan are available at our web page on the Moorman 5.

dgh01: drum scanning infers the *original* document/photo was NOT drum scanned. The trannie of the document/photo, who shot it, when, the size? Where does it currently live?

Tink had the scanner tech sign each original cd and he sent one to me and one to G. Mack for the 6 floor. Gary still has this original disk.

dgh01: What original GM disk, and what's on 'THAT' disc? So GaryM has a copy of the near recent CD with the Tink drum scanned trannie AND his original disc? Again, disc of what?

When I recieved the disk I did noting to the file....nothing..repete...nothing.

dgh01: I haven't said you did, there are others that might not give you the benefit of the doubt

No changes what so ever. I simply made dupilcates of the master disk supplied by Tink and sent them out in the mail. The file you recieved is exactly as it came off the scanner.

dgh01: fine -- as to the file I recieved; I don't know that its exactly as it came off the scanner

I can't even tell you the file type it was saved as. I have your word, your word ONLY. Do you know if the file was saved at the scanner facility in a .jpeg format in-between its original file format saved to HD's from the scanner application?

The master disk (with the scanners techs signature) was returned to Tink.

dgh01: why wasn't a third CD for duping created? What would that cost Tink or the house for that matter, $0.25 cents? The scanner operator sign that one too. THAT one is issued to you for distribution duplication - then your rearend is covered

Any claims by White that the image was retouched is pure crap.

dgh01: say's you -- how do you know the .jpeg/.gif files that were posted to internet boards, in particular JFK Research, weren't retouched? Compression artifacts can certainly create the appearence of alteration - that ALSO works in the other direction...

The file is as it came from the scanner...and I might add it matches the print that was made from the same neg perfectly,

dgh01: so we're at least down, two generations from the "original" camera Polaroid, correct? Whether they match or not, is purely subjective on your part, no one from the other side of the equation has seen what you speak of

as well as every other file I have seem from the Moorman except for that crappy scan White likes to promote. And even that one when subjected to careful study also shows the same gap as all the other Moormans floating around.

dgh01: In case you haven't noticed the camera original Moorman5 photo is horrible quality, worthless -- till the different generations floating around are laid on a table, side-by-side comparisons made with the original for ALL to see, and evaluate. What we have here is your's, Dr. Tink and GaryM's word the above is true -- not good enough for others -- As you may be aware, I've stated before, I have no axe to grind concerning this particular photo -- In my estimation, the Moorman 5 photo controversy is a "canard", pure and simple! The Moorman 5 photo is diversion

Edited September 14, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Jack White]

The DRUM SCAN image is clearly retouched when compared

to older Moorman prints.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

The DRUM SCAN image is clearly retouched when compared

to older Moorman prints.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a word...bunk.

Your zippo is so out of focus and jpg artifacted it next to worthless. However when one spends the time to actually do an in depth comparison of the white Zippo and the Thompson Drum scan they are in perfect agreement as it relates to the "gap".

You are just plain wrong here jack.

[Craig Lamson]

The DRUM SCAN image is clearly retouched when compared

to older Moorman prints.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a word...bunk.

Your zippo is so out of focus and jpg artifacted it next to worthless. However when one spends the time to actually do an in depth comparison of the white Zippo and the Thompson Drum scan they are in perfect agreement as it relates to the "gap".

You are just plain wrong here jack.

[Lee Forman]

Thompson's drum scan is no more squared up on the corners as your alleged clearer print. If one overlays the drum scan onto any Moorman photo and does it correctly - the objects within the image will mirror one another.

[Lee Forman]

Thompson's drum scan is no more squared up on the corners as your alleged clearer print. If one overlays the drum scan onto any Moorman photo and does it correctly - the objects within the image will mirror one another.

[Craig Lamson]

We are all tired of the ravings of Mr.Peters/Miller/whoever.

He continues to ignore the obvious RETOUCHING of the so-called

DRUM SCAN, which was revealed at least 2 years ago or more.

He continues to beat this dead horse by calling me and others

liars and worse.

The drum scan RETOUCHING is very clear in the area of the

pedestal:

1. the pedestal top was cleaned up with a sharp straight line

2. the "gap" was significantly increased

3. the corner of the pedestal was "squared up", although it is not

4. and most obvious, the slant of the pedestal top was changed

from slanting down to right to SLANTING DOWN TO LEFT, to

further exaggerate the "gap".

This was posted on the JFKresearch forum years ago, AND NEVER

REFUTED NOR DENIED by Thompson/Mack/Lamson/Miller et al.

Here it is again, gang.

Now SHUT UP!

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Additionally, as I have always pointed out, the corner of the

pedestal is not square, but is offset by about an inch. The

"gap" advocates refuse to recognize this. When retouching

the "drum scan", they also were ignorant of the CAMBER

of the top of the pedestal (for shedding rainwater). It is

NOT A FLAT SURFACE, but is raised more than an inch in

the center. When they retouched the top of the pedestal,

they made it a STRAIGHT LINE, not a curve.

Give up, Peters/Miller. The hoaxers have been exposed.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love this one...White as Fetzer before him argues against the principal of the lever....amazing.

[David G. Healy]

We are all tired of the ravings of Mr.Peters/Miller/whoever.

He continues to ignore the obvious RETOUCHING of the so-called

DRUM SCAN, which was revealed at least 2 years ago or more.

He continues to beat this dead horse by calling me and others

liars and worse.

The drum scan RETOUCHING is very clear in the area of the

pedestal:

1. the pedestal top was cleaned up with a sharp straight line

2. the "gap" was significantly increased

3. the corner of the pedestal was "squared up", although it is not

4. and most obvious, the slant of the pedestal top was changed

from slanting down to right to SLANTING DOWN TO LEFT, to

further exaggerate the "gap".

This was posted on the JFKresearch forum years ago, AND NEVER

REFUTED NOR DENIED by Thompson/Mack/Lamson/Miller et al.

Here it is again, gang.

Now SHUT UP!

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Additionally, as I have always pointed out, the corner of the

pedestal is not square, but is offset by about an inch. The

"gap" advocates refuse to recognize this. When retouching

the "drum scan", they also were ignorant of the CAMBER

of the top of the pedestal (for shedding rainwater). It is

NOT A FLAT SURFACE, but is raised more than an inch in

the center. When they retouched the top of the pedestal,

they made it a STRAIGHT LINE, not a curve.

Give up, Peters/Miller. The hoaxers have been exposed.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love this one...White as Fetzer before him argues against the principal of the lever....amazing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

can always tell when the non-photo alteration camp get's nervous. They ring any bell they can find, especially when they've run out of arguments, so here we go AGAIN - regurgitating a argument from 10/03.

They could find no one ( I wonder why?) to duplicate the transit experiment in Dealey Plaza, as performed by Dr's. Fetzer and Mantik amongst their able bodied assistants. I suspect no one will take up the chore now... As a result we're back to the BM movement [bill Miller - pardon the pun] along with Gentleman Larry Peters, or whomever he is.

Get your gear down there and show us your findings? Next to the seamless films of DP [four years now] might this experiment be second?

[Craig Lamson]

We are all tired of the ravings of Mr.Peters/Miller/whoever.

He continues to ignore the obvious RETOUCHING of the so-called

DRUM SCAN, which was revealed at least 2 years ago or more.

He continues to beat this dead horse by calling me and others

liars and worse.

The drum scan RETOUCHING is very clear in the area of the

pedestal:

1. the pedestal top was cleaned up with a sharp straight line

2. the "gap" was significantly increased

3. the corner of the pedestal was "squared up", although it is not

4. and most obvious, the slant of the pedestal top was changed

from slanting down to right to SLANTING DOWN TO LEFT, to

further exaggerate the "gap".

This was posted on the JFKresearch forum years ago, AND NEVER

REFUTED NOR DENIED by Thompson/Mack/Lamson/Miller et al.

Here it is again, gang.

Now SHUT UP!

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Additionally, as I have always pointed out, the corner of the

pedestal is not square, but is offset by about an inch. The

"gap" advocates refuse to recognize this. When retouching

the "drum scan", they also were ignorant of the CAMBER

of the top of the pedestal (for shedding rainwater). It is

NOT A FLAT SURFACE, but is raised more than an inch in

the center. When they retouched the top of the pedestal,

they made it a STRAIGHT LINE, not a curve.

Give up, Peters/Miller. The hoaxers have been exposed.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love this one...White as Fetzer before him argues against the principal of the lever....amazing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

can always tell when the non-photo alteration camp get's nervous. They ring any bell they can find, especially when they've run out of arguments, so here we go AGAIN - regurgitating a argument from 10/03.

They could find no one ( I wonder why?) to duplicate the transit experiment in Dealey Plaza, as performed by Dr's. Fetzer and Mantik amongst their able bodied assistants. I suspect no one will take up the chore now... As a result we're back to the BM movement [bill Miller - pardon the pun] along with Gentleman Larry Peters, or whomever he is.

Get your gear down there and show us your findings? Next to the seamless films of DP [four years now] might this experiment be second?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The TRANSIT experiment...that cluster F__K! Are you kidding David? There has never been a more sorry sight than White and company doing the transit thing...well perhaps second to a PhD and White running strings all over the plaza....

So David...care to go on the record? Are White and company correct...Was Moorman in the street when she snapped #5?