Loony Toons loose

[Larry Peters]

Point 2 is a very DUMB question...nobody has claimed that the Altgens photo

was retouched IMMEDIATELY. Indeed, I would be the first to opine that such

was impossible given the circumstances.  I have studied the photo for 40 years

and have never detected any SUSPICIOUS retouching. But almost ANYTHING

is possible.

However, as I said, this is a phony issue. The shadows of Hill and Moorman

in Altgens do not preclude Hill and Moorman stepping off the curb

after the Altgens exposure. Indeed, Jean told me many times that as

the LIMO DREW EVEN WITH THEM, she JUMPED INTO THE STREET.

She never wavered from saying "I COULD ALMOST TOUCH THE CAR".

Mary said she also stepped OFF THE CURB. This is a settled issue.

Go to the Plaza and see for yourself the line of sight of the photo.

Or read the reaction of Dr. Mantik on p 344 of MIDP.

Thanks for the courteous questions.

Jack White

Jack - I am not referring to any copies of Altgens photo that were made at a later time. I am talking about the Altgens number 6 photo that went out on the UP news wire at 1:03 p.m. CST. Would you not agree that Moorman and Hill's shadows coming from the grass in that news wire picture is exactly what must have occured because there would not have been time to have done any alterations at that point.

As far as the time Altgens got back to Associated Press - the news wire was time stamped at 12:39 p.m. Trask also referred to an interview conducted with James Altgens dated 11/21/85. The time stamping of the news wire alone at 12:39 p.m. tells us Altgens cannot still be out in the plaza.

I might also add that Jean Hill obviously used a figure of speech when she said she almost could have touched the car. Please allow me to explain why that is because there is plenty of evidence to support this observation. Jack, first of all you have to know that had Jean Hill literally of been so close to the limo so to have almost been able to touch it as it was passing her, then the cycles would have had little choice but to have ran over her. In Jean's book, she said that she caught herself and thought better of her stepping in the street because the Secret Service might not like her getting so close. On Black Op radio she said to a specific question as to her where-a-bouts and when ... Jean said she stepped into the street to try and get the President to look her way and had stepped back up over the curb before the first shot was fired. Hugh Betzner said the first shot was fired right "after" he took his photo and Phill Willis said the first shot was fired right "before" he took his picture. Those two photos equate with Z186 for Betzner and Z202 for Willis. That means that Jean stepped back out of the street by Z202. The Bronson slide seen on page 207 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President" shows Jean in a stepping motion which must be her moving back from the curb just as she said she did. Bronson's slide was taken less than 1.5 seconds after Willis took his photo. You may recall Jean saying why she stepped into the street - "in order to get the President to look her and Mary's way so Mary could get the President's picture." Even more proof of this timeline coming together comes by way of the Zapruder film where we can see Clint Hill and Kenneth O'Donnell looking in the direction where Jean had stepped in the street before Z146. By Z146, JFK is now looking to the south side of Elm Street as Jean said he did after she yelled out to him. By frame Z162, JFK has turned to look back towards the north side of the street and never looks to the south side of the street again. By Z255, James Altgens has taken his number 6 photograph. So lets go over this timeline again ...

JFK rounds the corner and is looking to the north side of the street according to Jean Hill in her book "The Last Dissenting Witness" - Jean Hill then steps into the street and yells for JFK to look her way and according to Jean, JFK did look to her side of the street at that time - then Jean says she thought better of being so close to the limo and stepped back onto the curb before the first shot had rang out - the first shot is ear marked between Z186 and Z202 by Betzner and Willis - Bronson's slide is taken around Z225/26 and shows Jean in motion as if stepping backwards from the curb as she had claimed on Black Op Radio in her interview with Len Osanic - about 1.5 seconds later James Altgens takes his number 6 photograph from the street which shows Jean and Mary's shadows coming from the grass south of the curb.

Between the films and photos, combined with Jean Hill's own words and considering the timeline of Altgens number 6 photographing hitting the news wire by 1:03 p.m. CST - it doesn't seem probable at all that anything was altered as far as Altgens number 6 photograph goes. Jack, does it not now seem more likely that maybe with the passing of time that you may have had a small error in memory as to what you recalled Jean saying to you so long ago?

For Jean Hill's interview:

Black Op Radio

... Show #8 Featured Guest: Jean Hill. Author of "The Last Dessentting Witness.

Part One Jean Hill. Part Two Jean Hill. Part Three Jean Hill. http://www.blackopradio.com/archives.html

Edited July 14, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Wim Dankbaar]

Wim is too sensitive. I did not accuse HIM of being a provocateur.

Indeed he occassionally (not this one) makes a sensible posting.

Rather, I now think he has been misled by some bad information just like

Joe West and Bob Vernon before him on the same subjects.

It is difficult to determine who you are calling provocateurs or not, since you don't mention names. Whether I feel addressed myself is not relevant, I was just describing your general patterns.

But I believe James Files is a provocateur.

Chauncey Holt was a provocateur.

Bill Miller is a provocateur.

Judyth Baker suffers from a vivid imagination.

Good to see some names. You're entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to point out that they are not gospel, the more so because some of your claims are easily debunked.

...and Wim "purchased" the story of Files

from Bob Vernon, and he "sponsors" Baker,

so he is not unbiased. But...he is entitled to his

opinion.

That I "sponsor" Baker is just another myth that you want to keep alive. I am unbiased, because when someone can prove that James Files, Judyth Baker or, Tosh Plumlee or Chauncey Holt are not telling the truth I'll flush my investments down the drain. I think that's a little harder to say about you. It is clear to me that that you have an investment, either financial, but certainly emotional, or both, in Armstrong's theory and book "Harvey and Lee". I repeat that you seem incapable of acknowledging evidence that discounts that theory or any other theory you support. A good example is the knocked out tooth of LHO. It was set back in its socket by the dentist and it resettled. The dental pictures of LHO's exhumation even confirm that as they show and mention that one frontal tooth is slightly rotated. You choose to ignore evidence like this, claiming that Judyth Baker is a hoax and maintaining there were two different Oswalds as early as 1955 when Oswald was still a 15 year old schoolkid.

And let's face it. John Armstrong's massive 10-year

research shows beyond doubt that there were TWO

LHOs and TWO Marguerites.

I can also state that massive research shows beyond doubt that the earth is flat and make it sound like fact.

And that Judyth's claims

are impossible. She briefly knew Harvey. She never

met Lee. Many of her claims are easily debunked by

the facts.

Your're truly unbelievable. Well, at least you acknowledge that she knew A Oswald. That's something. Here is a VALID question: WHICH OF HER CLAIMS ARE EASILY DEBUNKED BY THE SO CALLED FACTS? Show us!

I ignore no question...

Oh yes you do. For example you ignored the question what conspiritoral purpose it would serve to put Mary Moorman on the street or change Mrs. Franzen for your mystery woman, as well as the question whether you think that a high ranking officer like Howard Hunt would dress up as a tramp and get himself caught on a murder scene.

just provocative personal attacks.

I stand by

all of my published research despite such attacks. Jim Fetzer has

never asked me to revise ANY of my work because of mistakes.

That is inconsistent with the information I have (in writing). But Jim might be familiar with your hard head and has given up trying?

He does believe Holt's claims, but that is the result of his speaking

with Holt for several days...and has NOTHING to do with any of

my research, so it is just that we disagree. He also thinks OJ

murdered Nicole and Ron...but the evidence points to his son

Jason, so we disagree on that too. But he has never disputed

my research.

Let me guess: Contrary to Fetzer, you never spoke to Holt, correct? You did'nt see his paperwork, correct?

I will answer reasonable questions

I asked three (3) in this post.

which are not accompanied

by personal attacks, as I told Dr. Simkin when he requested

that I join his forum. Play by the rules and I will try to

answer questions...even "tough" ones. I care not whether anyone

agrees or disagrees. I just try to show the truth.

Edited July 14, 2004 by dankbaar

[Lily Lighto]

I have only been a member for a week...I am surprised at the factionism - although I WILL say, that since the age of 5, I have been fascinated by the subject. My mother NEVER cried, about ANYTHING, and this was the first time I had seen HER grieving, SOBBING (AND she was NOT a Kennedy fan!).

I certainly didn't KNOW what was going on at that time, I just remember the moment and event being INDELIBLY impressed upon my mind FOREVER. Then on one BRIGHT June morning in 1968, school had just gotten out for the summer, I came downstairs, and my mother was crying again (NEVER HAPPENS, trust ME!); she said, and I quote: "THE godd*mn b*stards did it again!!" and threw the morning paper on the table - RFK shot and killed at the Convention...headlines as "big as a HOUSE..."

I followed what PUBLIC aspects (regarding the JFK assassination) which were "allowed" to come to light via the newspapers' "tightly controlled coverage" of the "Warren Commission's Investigation" - and have since READ books and THOUGHT (proleptically, I might add!) about the whole assassination, the theories, possible conspiracies or conspiratorial factions, viewed what evidence and photos which the Misters Livingstone and Groden could convey in their book: "High Treason" and I respect the fact that THEIRS was NOT the ONLY monumental undertaking about this subject.

IF there are ANY former CIA agents, Secret Service people, and the like...(from that specific era)... who are willing "tell what they know," they should DO IT HERE (and could do so in RELATIVE ANONYMITY!) ..enlighten us, PLEASE?  It would be far more porductive that the personal "salvos" which I see being "fired" herein...am I incorrect? 

I came here for EDUCATION, and information, NOT to witness or participate in the    interpersonal attacks and factionary divisivism...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lily...don't despair. There are only two or three provocateurs on

this otherwise fine website who are causing all the stink. Do not

pay any attention to them. Virtually all their postings lie or twist

the truth. You will soon recognize who they are. They only deal in

personal attacks. Just ignore them. There are many good members

here, most of whom also post on JFKresearch Forum run by Rich

DellaRosa. You may want to check it out. Rich does not allow

such behavior.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you once again Jack, for the clarification - since I have ADHD - the adult onset form, it has been hard for me to learn how to IGNORE the 'irrelevant' and to 'stay on track' - thus wading through the distractionary comments, once I get the hang of WHO knows WHAT, will become easier, as it ALL comes down to sifting through the CHAFF to get to the 'wheat'...

Just y'day, I went to "Borders Books" and ordered an out-of-print, first edition copy of "A G-man's Journal: A Legendary career inside the FBI--From the Kennedy Assassination to the Oklahoma City Bombing" by Revell and Williams; it is purported to be in very good shape, and I should have it within a week.

It might some good information which I hope to be able to contribute to the various forums, ESPECIALLY the JFK assassination debate.

At the same time, I also received a print-out of OTHER "Books in Print PLUS, with book reviews, a 1 1/2 page printout of the Titles, Authors, Prices, Dates of print as well as ISBN #'s.

Bear in mind that "I" am not a "Joiner", so my appearance in this forum is for this specific reason: to find out WHO knows WHAT information which may prove useful in answering (and hopefully, RESOLVING) the lingering questions. My plan is to cull through this list of books to find those which are most helpful and accurate (via the library first - if the book proves itself worthy, then I will add it to my budding

collection).

Again, many thanks for your kindnesses...

Lily

[Lily Lighto]

Amazing,  someone who has been a member only a week has put forth the best post in almost a month way to go Lily keep up the good work.  Really you guys have hi jacked this forum with you personal issues from other forums.  I too am here to learn more so I can tell my children and nieces and nephews what to look for and what questions to ask because by 2038 I will be too damned old and tired.  Probably not as tired as reading all this back and forth B.S. though. 

                                        Justin Martell

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"skydog' Justin,

Thank YOU for your kind words; these are similar reasons as to WHY I, myself, am here...to pass on a legacy to my daughter and (HOPEFULLY!) the grandchildren.

The Good Lord willing that I should live so long (most of my forebears HAVE), in 2038 I will be 80 years old, and I agree with YOUR statement: that I will be too old and tired to do MUCH of anything about this PIVOTAL incident in American History. But I plan on lighting a fire in people to DEMAND the truth - UNREDACTED and UNCENSORED - from whatever documents that will come to light at that time (may we all live healthily and happily until that day!)

I came to this forum for the specific reason of getting information from the various "credible" sources - in order to perhaps pull together a TEAM of experts: legal-eagles, historians, former government agents (from our delightful "alphabet-soup" array of same) and JFK assassination theory experts - and ALL of us work toward getting the records which are sealed until 2038 UN-SEALED!

I figure that with enough BRAINPOWER - and I see a LOT of it here - TOGETHER, somehow, we might figure out: 1. HOW to go about UN-sealing those records, prior to 2038 and, 2. to ESTABLISH a LEGAL PRECEDENT preventing THAT from EVER happening again.

Who is 'being protected' by these records...and WHY? (STILL!!!?)

Lily

[Jack White]

Point 2 is a very DUMB question...nobody has claimed that the Altgens photo

was retouched IMMEDIATELY. Indeed, I would be the first to opine that such

was impossible given the circumstances.  I have studied the photo for 40 years

and have never detected any SUSPICIOUS retouching. But almost ANYTHING

is possible.

However, as I said, this is a phony issue. The shadows of Hill and Moorman

in Altgens do not preclude Hill and Moorman stepping off the curb

after the Altgens exposure. Indeed, Jean told me many times that as

the LIMO DREW EVEN WITH THEM, she JUMPED INTO THE STREET.

She never wavered from saying "I COULD ALMOST TOUCH THE CAR".

Mary said she also stepped OFF THE CURB. This is a settled issue.

Go to the Plaza and see for yourself the line of sight of the photo.

Or read the reaction of Dr. Mantik on p 344 of MIDP.

Thanks for the courteous questions.

Jack White

Jack - I am not referring to any copies of Altgens photo that were made at a later time. I am talking about the Altgens number 6 photo that went out on the UP news wire at 1:03 p.m. CST. Would you not agree that Moorman and Hill's shadows coming from the grass in that news wire picture is exactly what must have occured because there would not have been time to have done any alterations at that point.

As far as the time Altgens got back to Associated Press - the news wire was time stamped at 12:39 p.m. Trask also referred to an interview conducted with James Altgens dated 11/21/85. The time stamping of the news wire alone at 12:39 p.m. tells us Altgens cannot still be out in the plaza.

I might also add that Jean Hill obviously used a figure of speech when she said she almost could have touched the car. Please allow me to explain why that is because there is plenty of evidence to support this observation. Jack, first of all you have to know that had Jean Hill literally of been so close to the limo so to have almost been able to touch it as it was passing her, then the cycles would have had little choice but to have ran over her. In Jean's book, she said that she caught herself and thought better of her stepping in the street because the Secret Service might not like her getting so close. On Black Op radio she said to a specific question as to her where-a-bouts and when ... Jean said she stepped into the street to try and get the President to look her way and had stepped back up over the curb before the first shot was fired. Hugh Betzner said the first shot was fired right "after" he took his photo and Phill Willis said the first shot was fired right "before" he took his picture. Those two photos equate with Z186 for Betzner and Z202 for Willis. That means that Jean stepped back out of the street by Z202. The Bronson slide seen on page 207 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President" shows Jean in a stepping motion which must be her moving back from the curb just as she said she did. Bronson's slide was taken less than 1.5 seconds after Willis took his photo. You may recall Jean saying why she stepped into the street - "in order to get the President to look her and Mary's way so Mary could get the President's picture." Even more proof of this timeline coming together comes by way of the Zapruder film where we can see Clint Hill and Kenneth O'Donnell looking in the direction where Jean had stepped in the street before Z146. By Z146, JFK is now looking to the south side of Elm Street as Jean said he did after she yelled out to him. By frame Z162, JFK has turned to look back towards the north side of the street and never looks to the south side of the street again. By Z255, James Altgens has taken his number 6 photograph. So lets go over this timeline again ...

JFK rounds the corner and is looking to the north side of the street according to Jean Hill in her book "The Last Dissenting Witness" - Jean Hill then steps into the street and yells for JFK to look her way and according to Jean, JFK did look to her side of the street at that time - then Jean says she thought better of being so close to the limo and stepped back onto the curb before the first shot had rang out - the first shot is ear marked between Z186 and Z202 by Betzner and Willis - Bronson's slide is taken around Z225/26 and shows Jean in motion as if stepping backwards from the curb as she had claimed on Black Op Radio in her interview with Len Osanic - about 1.5 seconds later James Altgens takes his number 6 photograph from the street which shows Jean and Mary's shadows coming from the grass south of the curb.

Between the films and photos, combined with Jean Hill's own words and considering the timeline of Altgens number 6 photographing hitting the news wire by 1:03 p.m. CST - it doesn't seem probable at all that anything was altered as far as Altgens number 6 photograph goes. Jack, does it not now seem more likely that maybe with the passing of time that you may have had a small error in memory as to what you recalled Jean saying to you so long ago?

For Jean Hill's interview:

Black Op Radio

... Show #8 Featured Guest: Jean Hill. Author of "The Last Dessentting Witness.

Part One Jean Hill. Part Two Jean Hill. Part Three Jean Hill. http://www.blackopradio.com/archives.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I talked to Jean Hill dozens of times. You never did as far as I know. It was not "long ago".

She consistently OVER MANY YEARS said she and Mary stepped into the street. What

she said was not a figure of speech. She NEVER changed what she said. Using photos

to back your claims means nothing, since the photo record has been tampered with.

Using the Z film to back your claims is absurd...BECAUSE IT IS FAKED. Treating it

as genuine to support your claim amounts to a non sequitur.

Go to Dealey Plaza with a copy of Moorman. Find the line of sight for yourself, two

feet south of the curb. As have dozens of researchers, you will find yourself on your

knees, about 41 inches above ground. Report back to us and tell us you were wrong.

The Dallas Times Herald presented an interview with Mary and Jean on November 23.

Their memory of where they stood was just hours old. Judge for yourself.

Jack White

PS...the "hit by motorcycle" argument is specious. Each lane

of Elm is 13.3 feet wide. A motorcycle is about 2 feet wide.

Studies show that Moorman was only 2 feet off the curb, leaving

more than 11 feet for the motorcycle.

Edited July 14, 2004 by Jack White

[Larry Peters]

I talked to Jean Hill dozens of times. You never did as far as I know. It was not "long ago". She consistently OVER MANY YEARS said she and Mary stepped into the street. What she said was not a figure of speech. She NEVER changed what she said.

Mr. White, you are not paying attention - please stay focused here an we can think this thing through. I NEVER said Jean Hill didn't step in the street. I pointed out that Jean said she stepped back out of the street before the first shot was fired. So please quit confusing the two moments in time because it is important to keep them straight and I know that you are quite capable of knowing the difference. So we are clear ... Yes, Jean Hill stepped into the street and has always said so, but she said it was BEFORE the first shot was fired. James Altgens number 6 photograph was taken after the first two shots had been fired and is a later point in time.

Using photos to back your claims means nothing, since the photo record has been tampered with. Using the Z film to back your claims is absurd...BECAUSE IT IS FAKED. Treating it as genuine to support your claim amounts to a non sequitur.

Mr. White, please stay focused because we have already agreed that the Altgens number 6 photo that went out on the news wire at 1:03 p.m. did not have time to have been altered. You then said that later prints could have been altered, but I reminded you that we are talking about the print that went out on the Associated Press wire immediately after the assassination. Only now that you see the problem you are faced with by there not being time to have altered that Altgens number 6 photo that hit the wire service by 1:03 p.m. - you are now back pedaling and trying to say that it too was altered. This is exactly why it has been so hard to get you and others to sytematically walk through the evidence and be specific because you will commit to a something like there not being enough time to have altered the Altgens number 6 photo by 1:03 p.m., but then flip flop once you later see that it blows the hell out of your Moorman being in the street claim. Then rather than to admit that the point I raised is solid and one you had not considered before - you then fall back on the 'everything has been faked' and mention again about Jean Hill saying she stepped into the street after the car rounded the corner which has nothing to do with the point in time of Altgens number 6 photograph because Jean said to Len Osanic that she had stepped back out of the street before the shooting started. We both know that Altgens photograph number 6 was taken well after the shots were being fired. So even if the Zapruder film is faked in a hundred other places ... it has been shown by the timeline Altgens #6 hit the news wire and in Jean Hill's own words that the Zapruder film showing Jean and Mary in the grass is accurate.

Go to Dealey Plaza with a copy of Moorman. Find the line of sight for yourself, two feet south of the curb. As have dozens of researchers, you will find yourself on your knees, about 41 inches above ground. Report back to us and tell us you were wrong.

I have been Dealey Plaza and done what you have said. And even if I had not been there and seen it for myself, I can take your own alleged replica photograph and place it onto Moorman's photo and see that you did not have the correct location for Mary Moorman. If you had gotten the correct position, then your pedestal and gap to the pergola window would not shift back and forth when overlaid onto Moorman's photograph and let run as an animation. In the animation below - the left side of the west doorway wall from Moorman's photograph is aligned with your replica photo and the pedestal alone shifts from left to right between photographs. If you cannot see the difference in width between the gap in Moorman's photo and yours, then I really don't know how to help you.Click on attachment to start the animation.

The Dallas Times Herald presented an interview with Mary and Jean on November 23. Their memory of where they stood was just hours old. Judge for yourself.

The DTH says Hill stepped into the street alright, but it doesn't address when that was. Jean Hill in her interview with Len Osanic does address it. That's the part that you are avoiding because you either have to say Jean Hill lied to Len Osanic and his listeners and has now told two versions of her story or you have misunderstood the timing issue she gave you. For the record: The affidavit taken on 11/22/63 (a whole day before) says they were standing in the grass.

PS...the "hit by motorcycle" argument is specious. Each lane

of Elm is 13.3 feet wide. A motorcycle is about 2 feet wide.

Studies show that Moorman was only 2 feet off the curb, leaving

more than 11 feet for the motorcycle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack - even if your studies were correct and these women were only just off the curb by two feet, you would still prove the point I made about Jean Hill not really being close enough to the limo to have touched it. Like I said, it was a figure of speech and nothing more.

BTW, I knew Jill Hill, as well and I know what she always said about where she stood when the shots were being fired. As a matter of fact, I was near her when Mark Lane pointed her out to an entire plaza full of people on JFK's memorial in 1998 and she told each and every person that she stood in the grass. She also made it very clear to everyone who asked that she had stepped into the street before the shots were fired and had gotten back out of it before the first shot rang out. That crucial point of when she said she had gotten back out of the street, along with the 1:10 p.m. timeline for Altgens number 6 photograph to have hit the news wire is something that you seem to not want to deal with when you become aware that it disproves your Moorman being in the street claim. The important thing in this exercise has been to allow others to see the facts and to watch how you dealt with them. Thanks for the direct answers in the early stages of this particular topic.

Edited July 14, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Larry Peters]

Jack, I have another question for you. Is there anything about the Willis number 5 slide that makes you think that it was aleterd?

The Willis number 5 slide is shown below.

Thanks!

[Jack White]

I have only been a member for a week...I am surprised at the factionism - although I WILL say, that since the age of 5, I have been fascinated by the subject. My mother NEVER cried, about ANYTHING, and this was the first time I had seen HER grieving, SOBBING (AND she was NOT a Kennedy fan!).

I certainly didn't KNOW what was going on at that time, I just remember the moment and event being INDELIBLY impressed upon my mind FOREVER. Then on one BRIGHT June morning in 1968, school had just gotten out for the summer, I came downstairs, and my mother was crying again (NEVER HAPPENS, trust ME!); she said, and I quote: "THE godd*mn b*stards did it again!!" and threw the morning paper on the table - RFK shot and killed at the Convention...headlines as "big as a HOUSE..."

I followed what PUBLIC aspects (regarding the JFK assassination) which were "allowed" to come to light via the newspapers' "tightly controlled coverage" of the "Warren Commission's Investigation" - and have since READ books and THOUGHT (proleptically, I might add!) about the whole assassination, the theories, possible conspiracies or conspiratorial factions, viewed what evidence and photos which the Misters Livingstone and Groden could convey in their book: "High Treason" and I respect the fact that THEIRS was NOT the ONLY monumental undertaking about this subject.

IF there are ANY former CIA agents, Secret Service people, and the like...(from that specific era)... who are willing "tell what they know," they should DO IT HERE (and could do so in RELATIVE ANONYMITY!) ..enlighten us, PLEASE?  It would be far more porductive that the personal "salvos" which I see being "fired" herein...am I incorrect? 

I came here for EDUCATION, and information, NOT to witness or participate in the    interpersonal attacks and factionary divisivism...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lily...don't despair. There are only two or three provocateurs on

this otherwise fine website who are causing all the stink. Do not

pay any attention to them. Virtually all their postings lie or twist

the truth. You will soon recognize who they are. They only deal in

personal attacks. Just ignore them. There are many good members

here, most of whom also post on JFKresearch Forum run by Rich

DellaRosa. You may want to check it out. Rich does not allow

such behavior.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you once again Jack, for the clarification - since I have ADHD - the adult onset form, it has been hard for me to learn how to IGNORE the 'irrelevant' and to 'stay on track' - thus wading through the distractionary comments, once I get the hang of WHO knows WHAT, will become easier, as it ALL comes down to sifting through the CHAFF to get to the 'wheat'...

Just y'day, I went to "Borders Books" and ordered an out-of-print, first edition copy of "A G-man's Journal: A Legendary career inside the FBI--From the Kennedy Assassination to the Oklahoma City Bombing" by Revell and Williams; it is purported to be in very good shape, and I should have it within a week.

It might some good information which I hope to be able to contribute to the various forums, ESPECIALLY the JFK assassination debate.

At the same time, I also received a print-out of OTHER "Books in Print PLUS, with book reviews, a 1 1/2 page printout of the Titles, Authors, Prices, Dates of print as well as ISBN #'s.

Bear in mind that "I" am not a "Joiner", so my appearance in this forum is for this specific reason: to find out WHO knows WHAT information which may prove useful in answering (and hopefully, RESOLVING) the lingering questions. My plan is to cull through this list of books to find those which are most helpful and accurate (via the library first - if the book proves itself worthy, then I will add it to my budding

collection).

Again, many thanks for your kindnesses...

Lily

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lily...I am not familiar with Buck Revelle's book, but I suspect

it is disinformation, since the former FBI head in Dallas supports

the lone assassin theory. I would be interested in his take on

the OKC bombing. I am sure it will support the official story,

however.

Thanks.

Jack

[Larry Peters]

Another question for Jack White -

Jack, maybe you missed this one, but in another post I had asked a simple question whether you had any problems with the Phil Willis photograph, the seventh in his sequence of photos that corresponds with Z202, of being faked. I am sure you are quite familiar with this photo, so is this one photograph that we can assume to be legitimate in your mind when it comes to Mary Moorman or Jean Hill? I would appreciate a direct response like the one that took place over the time stamping of the Altgens number 6 photograph.

Thanks!

Edited July 15, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Jack White]

Another question for Jack White -

Jack, maybe you missed this one, but in another post I had asked a simple question whether you had any problems with the Phil Willis photograph, the seventh in his sequence of photos that corresponds with Z202, of being faked. I am sure you are quite familiar with this photo, so is this one photograph that we can assume to be legitimate in your mind when it comes to Mary Moorman or Jean Hill? I would appreciate a direct response like the one that took place over the time stamping of the Altgens number 6 photograph.

Thanks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I assume you must mean Willis FIVE, not Willis 7, from your description.

I believe Willis 5 may have been tampered with in some areas,

specifically Blackdogman and some spectators. I believe that

there probably was NO Blackdogman, except in Willis 5 and

Betzner. I believe that possibly (theory) that Willis 5 and Betzner

may have shown a soldier with a camera in this location. and

that the tampering was done so nobody would raise questions

about the unknown soldier and camera. I believe Betzner was

tampered in the same way.

There is no proof for this theory. But neither is there any evidence

for a real Blackdogman.

Thanks for your reasonable question.

Jack White

Edited July 15, 2004 by Jack White

[Larry Peters]

Jack, the reason why I asked you about the Willis 5 photo is a because it too seems to support Moorman being in the grass. Just as the timeline for Altgens number 6 being altered before 1:03 p.m. CST didn't seem probable, it doesn't seem probable that anyone noticed that Mary Moorman can be seen in the Willis #5 photo so to alter her image.

[Bernice Moore]

"Another question for Jack White -"

Larry please do not hollar...Using large black letters the size you posted this above....in, is considered so. There was a lady before you, to reply to....give the man time..

..Thanks...B

[Larry Peters]

"Another question for Jack White -"

Larry please do not hollar...Using large black letters the size you posted this above....in, is considered so. There was a lady before you, to reply to....give the man time..

..Thanks...B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bernice - I now wonder what the largest letter size is for if you think the middle size is for hollering. Some people believe using capitol letters is hollering. Would using the largest letter option on this site with capitol letters then be considered screaming bloody murder? To be honest with you - I used the middle sized letters to give my message a title. This forum, unlike others, doesn't seem to have a title option where we can title a post inside a thread and if it does have such an option I just didn't find it yet. I feel somewhat confident that the person who opted have a selection of letter sizes didn't have hollering in mind. If you should see me use capital or medium sized letter options in the future, please remember that they were not placed there to holler, but were utilized for another purpose altogether. I will however try and remember how sensitive you are to the medium sized letter usage and will try to use them sparingly.

Edited July 16, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Larry Peters]

I assume you must mean Willis FIVE, not Willis 7, from your description.

For discussions sake I should have called the photo in question Willis five. The fact is that what is known by most everyone as Willis five was actually the seventh photo he had taken. It was when Phill Willis had a series of slides put together for sales purposes that this photo of JFK between Willis and the knoll was the fifth slide of the set. In the future I will try and remember to call it Willis five so there will be no confusion.

I believe Willis 5 may have been tampered with in some areas,

specifically Blackdogman and some spectators. I believe that

there probably was NO Blackdogman, except in Willis 5 and

Betzner. I believe that possibly (theory) that Willis 5 and Betzner

may have shown a soldier with a camera in this location. and

that the tampering was done so nobody would raise questions

about the unknown soldier and camera. I believe Betzner was

tampered in the same way.

On Lancer's site there is a researcher who investigated the BDM (Black Dog Man)and was able to show some pretty interesting proof that it was the soldier (Gordon Arnold). Arnold had said he tracked the limo with his camera and it could be that his movement as he turned his body or shifted his position had caused the figure to be somewhat out of focus in the Willis and Betzner photos. Let me share with you a little of what this man found that even the HSCA experts hadn't bothered to notice.

Gordon Arnold had never mentioned anyone standing in front of him so to be blocking his view of the President coming down the street. So what this researcher had done was look for any similarities between the figure seen in Mary Moorman's Polaroid and compare them to the figure seen in the Betzner photograph. He found that the sun was shining off both individuals right shoulder and torso in each photo and even more interesting was the fact that the sun spots were basically the same shape. (Click on the first picture below to start the animation)

Next, he says that he wanted to do an transparency overlay to see what these two individuals looked like against one another. He understaood that each photographer had used different cameras and that the things inside the photographs would not be scaled to one another, so he took the BDM from Betzner and scaled his image to fit the individual seen in Moorman's Polaroid. (The result was quite stunning in my opinion. Click on the second picture to start the animation)

One thing that he claimed that he didn't understand was why there was this dark shading over each individual, but because it matched in shape and general outline over each figure, he felt that there had to be aseconary source involved and he found it. It appears that some walkway footage taken immediately after the assassination showed a shadow coming from the tree just behind Emmett Hudson and it passed right over where Gordon Arnold had said he stood as he filmed the President coming towards him. By finding this tree shadow on the ground he was able to see why the left side of the BDM had some sun hitting him, but in Moorman's photo his left side was completely within the shaded area. He realized that Gordon Arnold was panning with the limo and turning his body to the right and by the time the limo got to where it is seen in Moorman's Polaroid ... Arnold was no longer facing Betzner, but rather now turned facing Mary Moorman because the limo was by then between himself and Moorman. (Click on the third picture to see his diagram and a walkway film frame showing the tree shadow)

There is much more this person discovered from the photographical record that tends to support everything Gordon Arnold claimed to have happened and where. I have followed everything he wrote about his discovery and in my mind it quite good. There is no doubt in my mind after reading everything he uncovered and posted on Lancer that Gordon Arnold was on the walkway during the assassination and that he was the figure known as the Black Dog Man.

[Larry Peters]

Larry Peters,Jul 15 2004, 05:23 AM Jack, the reason why I asked you about the Willis 5 photo is a because it too seems to support Moorman being in the grass. Just as the timeline for Altgens number 6 being altered before 1:03 p.m. CST didn't seem probable, it doesn't seem probable that anyone noticed that Mary Moorman can be seen in the Willis #5 photo so to alter her image

Please note the persons image in the side of the Secret Service Follow-up car. The shaded side of the curb where it meets the street can be seen just under the door molding. (Click on the picture for a larger view)

Edited July 16, 2004 by Larry Peters