Why do I have to do all of the photo analysis?

[Jack White]

Very few researchers seem interested in doing photoanalysis.

I have just been considering comparing Z 204 and Willis 5 (same moment).

There are some interesting observations to be made.

But I am about to go to bed and will be gone much of tomorrow. Someone

may want to see whether they have any observations.

Jack

[Robin Unger]

Very few researchers seem interested in doing photoanalysis.

I have just been considering comparing Z 204 and Willis 5 (same moment).

There are some interesting observations to be made.

But I am about to go to bed and will be gone much of tomorrow. Someone

may want to see whether they have any observations.

Jack

Jack.

This is the problem as i see it.

Since you have recently stated that you beleive that ALL of the photo's and films have been tampered with, then what is the point of posting images.

at any time during the discussion, you can simply stop the thread dead in it's track's by asserting that the images posted are bogus and have been altered.

This becomes tedious and very frustrating at times.

Sorry Jack

That's just the way i see it.

[Paul Baker]

Very few researchers seem interested in doing photoanalysis.

I have just been considering comparing Z 204 and Willis 5 (same moment).

There are some interesting observations to be made.

But I am about to go to bed and will be gone much of tomorrow. Someone

may want to see whether they have any observations.

Jack

There's no point looking that the pictures Jack, they're all faked! You're wasting your time. Those conspirators have obliterated all the useful evidence. Damn those conspirators. Oooh they make me so angry.

[Mark Knight]

They're right, Jack.

IF, as you say, ALL the photos are faked/altered, then why, INDEED, do you have to do all of the photo analysis? Or ANY photo analysis?

Because if, as you contend, ALL of the photos are fake/altered, then it's over.

Game.

Set.

Match.

Further analysis, then, is simply beating a dead horse. Now move along, folks, nothing REAL to see here. [Kind of a reverse Posner position: nothing left to study, because everything's fake, and we'll never know the truth.]

Thanks for making the case totally unsolvable, Jack. We owe you a huge debt of gratitude for that. Now we can all go home, fold this forum [and all the others], and know in our hearts that there is no solution, and all of us are doomed...because the conspirators have faked all the evidence.

And thanks to Dr. Fetzer for proving all the OTHER evidence has been faked/altered. Hell, Jim...maybe JFK's DEATH was faked as well...but we'll never know, because ALL the evidence has been falsified, tampered with, altered, or destroyed.

You've convinced me.

/sarcasm off now/

[John Dugan]

Very few researchers seem interested in doing photoanalysis.

I have just been considering comparing Z 204 and Willis 5 (same moment).

There are some interesting observations to be made.

But I am about to go to bed and will be gone much of tomorrow. Someone

may want to see whether they have any observations.

Jack

Jack.

This is the problem as i see it.

Since you have recently stated that you beleive that ALL of the photo's and films have been tampered with, then what is the point of posting images.

at any time during the discussion, you can simply stop the thread dead in it's track's by asserting that the images posted are bogus and have been altered.

This becomes tedious and very frustrating at times.

Sorry Jack

That's just the way i see it.

I agree 1000%.

[Jack White]

Very few researchers seem interested in doing photoanalysis.

I have just been considering comparing Z 204 and Willis 5 (same moment).

There are some interesting observations to be made.

But I am about to go to bed and will be gone much of tomorrow. Someone

may want to see whether they have any observations.

Jack

Jack.

This is the problem as i see it.

Since you have recently stated that you beleive that ALL of the photo's and films have been tampered with, then what is the point of posting images.

at any time during the discussion, you can simply stop the thread dead in it's track's by asserting that the images posted are bogus and have been altered.

This becomes tedious and very frustrating at times.

Sorry Jack

That's just the way i see it.

Robin...I do believe that all images are "suspect". That does not mean that all

are complete fiction. Most started as a genuine image of some sort which was

then altered in KEY WAYS to remove or add certain things. Sometimes mistakes

were made, and finding the mistakes is a key to understanding the fakery.

I am attaching an example. You probably consider the Nix film "genuine" I assume.

Here is but a single example of a SINGLE FRAME where the retouching was

very bizarre and sloppy. I have no idea what the odd frame represents, but it

purports to be (as I recall) where Nix's camera catches the top of a gray hat

of a man in the foreground. The badly retouched area represents the crown of

the hat. But in ONE FRAME ONLY, a bizarre image was not painted out. Judge

the image for yourself, but do not tell me that it is actually a product of a single

frame Nix camera original. And it is not something that I have added, as some

have accused me of doing.

What would you (and others) have me do...IGNORE findings like this? To me,

it is clear that something that Nix photographed needed to be obscured.

I am sure with your vast collection that you can locate this frame for yourself.

Find it and THEN tell me that the Nix film is genuine.

Thanks for your opinion.

Best regards.

Jack

[Jack White]

Baker, Knight and Dugan are trying to make the Players List.

They have not the slightest idea what they espouse.

Sorry guys, you'll never make star status with such weak opinions. You ought

to at least be familiar with the photo fakery before making such claims.

Jack

Edited February 3, 2010 by Jack White

[Cliff Varnell]

I have just been considering comparing Z 204 and Willis 5 (same moment).

There are some interesting observations to be made.

Not to nit-pick, but it has been long generally agreed that Willis 5 matches Z202.

In my opinion the two most important photo analyses involve the Zapruder film.

Gil Jesus' "Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?"

Don Roberdeau's "Rosemary Willis Headsnap"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

Both of these analyses concentrate on the time of the first shot, the throat shot.

There is a 4 second sequence from Z186 to Z255 during which there is perfect

agreement between the Z-film and:

1) other Dealey Plaza photos -- Betzner 3 (Z186), Willis 5 (Z202), Altgens 6 (Z255)

2) the statements of the witnesses with the best view of JFK -- Nellie Connally,

Jackie Kennedy, Rosemary Willis, Linda Willis and Clint Hill.

3) the contemporaneous notes by Parkland doctors describing the throat

wound as an entrance.

4) the neck x-ray shows damage consistent with a small round fired

from the front, causing JFK's visible traumatic response.

5) the historical fact that the Central Intelligence Agency tested blood

soluble paralytics and toxins designed to "dissolve after contact" with the

blood stream. The CIA tested paralytics on humans and dogs designed

to incapacitate the target in two seconds.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

The Zapruder film shows JFk seizing up paralyzed in about two seconds.

Rosemary Willis' statements are consistent with what is seen in the Zapruder.

She described Black Dog Man as a "conspicuous" person who seemed to

"disappear the next instant." Thanks to Don's analysis, we can pinpoint that

"instant" as Z214.

The HSCA analyzed Willis 5 and concluded that Black Dog Man was a human

with a "distinct straight-line feature" in the region of the hands.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

At Bethesda the autopsists shared a "general feeling" that JFK had been

struck by rounds that "dissolve after contact."

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

Had the autopsist's hunch about blood soluble rounds been followed up

by the FBI, assassination-weapons-maker-extrodinaire Mitchell WerBell 3

and a handful of others would have been interrogated Saturday morning,

or so I'd reasonably speculate.

WerBell was an associateof such men as David Atlee Phillips, Richard Cain,

Frank Sturgis and John Martino -- all of whom were active in the attempt to

tie Oswald to Castro immediately after the assassination.

And thus Z186 thru Z255 offers a Moment of Clarity in the JFK assassination

evidence -- it is, indeed, the bedrock evidence in the case.

That and the throat entrance wound which Tink Thompson and his cohort deny.

I don't see any difference between those who wage jihad against

the film evidence and those who wage jihad against the witnesses,

as both obfuscate the obvious case against individuals connected to

the Central Intelligence Agency.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[John Dolva]

Forget the edge detection, it's just to get an idea of the pixelation. Because Jackie is in such relatively sharp focus Nix is panning. People are also moving. So there is a combination of camera blur and motion blur. Any stil object close to the film necessarily would have the camera blur impact more. Therefore it is possible that the foreground object is in reality narrower, and if it had been in focus and not panned across, who can say what it may have looked like.

[Jack White]

Forget the edge detection, it's just to get an idea of the pixelation. Because Jackie is in such relatively sharp focus Nix is panning. People are also moving. So there is a combination of camera blur and motion blur. Any stil object close to the film necessarily would have the camera blur impact more. Therefore it is possible that the foreground object is in reality narrower, and if it had been in focus and not panned across, who can say what it may have looked like.

On top of a man's hat? In just one frame? In sharp focus? Surely you jest.

[Jack White]

I have just been considering comparing Z 204 and Willis 5 (same moment).

There are some interesting observations to be made.

Not to nit-pick, but it has been long generally agreed that Willis 5 matches Z202.

In my opinion the two most important photo analyses involve the Zapruder film.

Gil Jesus' "Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?"

Don Roberdeau's "Rosemary Willis Headsnap"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

Both of these analyses concentrate on the time of the first shot, the throat shot.

There is a 4 second sequence from Z186 to Z255 during which there is perfect

agreement between the Z-film and:

1) other Dealey Plaza photos -- Betzner 3 (Z186), Willis 5 (Z202), Altgens 6 (Z255)

2) the statements of the witnesses with the best view of JFK -- Nellie Connally,

Jackie Kennedy, Rosemary Willis, Linda Willis and Clint Hill.

3) the contemporaneous notes by Parkland doctors describing the throat

wound as an entrance.

4) the neck x-ray shows damage consistent with a small round fired

from the front, causing JFK's visible traumatic response.

5) the historical fact that the Central Intelligence Agency tested blood

soluble paralytics and toxins designed to "dissolve after contact" with the

blood stream. The CIA tested paralytics on humans and dogs designed

to incapacitate the target in two seconds.

The Zapruder film shows JFk seizing up paralyzed in about two seconds.

Rosemary Willis' statements are consistent with what is seen in the Zapruder.

She described Black Dog Man as a "conspicuous" person who seemed to

"disappear the next instant." Thanks to Don's analysis, we can pinpoint that

"instant" as Z214.

The HSCA analyzed Willis 5 and concluded that Black Dog Man was a human

with a "distinct straight-line feature" in the region of the hands.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

At Bethesda the autopsists shared a "general feeling" that JFK had been

struck by rounds that "dissolve after contact."

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

Had the autopsist's hunch about blood soluble rounds been followed up

by the FBI, assassination-weapons-maker-extrodinaire Mitchell WerBell 3

and a handful of others would have been interrogated Saturday morning,

or so I'd reasonably speculate.

WerBell was an associateof such men as David Atlee Phillips, Richard Cain,

Frank Sturgis and John Martino -- all of whom were active in the attempt to

tie Oswald to Castro immediately after the assassination.

And thus Z186 thru Z255 offers a Moment of Clarity in the JFK assassination

evidence -- it is, indeed, the bedrock evidence in the case.

That and the throat entrance wound which Tink Thompson and his cohort deny.

I don't see any difference between those who wage jihad against

the film evidence and those who wage jihad against the witnesses,

as both obfuscate the obvious case against individuals connected to

the Central Intelligence Agency.

Thanks, Cliff...good information.

Jack

[John Dolva]

I think you need to read what I wrote again, Jack.

Forget the edge detection, it's just to get an idea of the pixelation. Because Jackie is in such relatively sharp focus Nix is panning. People are also moving. So there is a combination of camera blur and motion blur. Any still object close to the film necessarily would have the camera blur impact more. Therefore it is possible that the foreground object is in reality narrower, and if it had been in focus and not panned across, who can say what it may have looked like.

[Josiah Thompson]

Very few researchers seem interested in doing photoanalysis.

I have just been considering comparing Z 204 and Willis 5 (same moment).

There are some interesting observations to be made.

But I am about to go to bed and will be gone much of tomorrow. Someone

may want to see whether they have any observations.

Jack

DELETE POST!

Edited February 3, 2010 by Josiah Thompson

[John Dolva]

There's one suggestion that comes to mind. I wonder if a tilted back polished police hat rim, hence a reflectivity of a curved surface that roughly corresponds with the location of the sun. If this guy just quickly walks past, looking at Kennedy, is it possible for it to appear in only one frame? That close to the camera. Someone walking diagonally towards Bell (before the sequence from Harrys office) his hat is there for only a few frames. And Bell isnt panning much then, and the guy's just strolling with a lady who presumably passes on Bells left.

[Josiah Thompson]

Very few researchers seem interested in doing photoanalysis.

I have just been considering comparing Z 204 and Willis 5 (same moment).

There are some interesting observations to be made.

But I am about to go to bed and will be gone much of tomorrow. Someone

may want to see whether they have any observations.

Jack

As others pointed out, your argument runs in circles. Take for example the dust-up over Officer Chaney. Chaney and a couple of other witnesses say Chaney rode ahead to tell Chief Curry what happened. The Zapruder film does not show this. You say the Zapruder film has been altered. People point out that the Nix, Muchmore and Bell film all agree with the Zapruder film. You say the Nix, Muchmore and Bell films have all been altered. We point out that the Daniels film and McIntire photo show the same thing as the other films and that the McIntire film was never in government hands. You say nothing.

You end up claiming that whoever altered the Zapruder film made sure that all other films "conformed" to this alteration. This is the last stop on the choo-choo train to the looney bin. Now the reality of what happened in Dealey Plaza is simply up to you. It is what you say it is unbothered by any confirmation or disconfirmation by any film or photo evidence. If any film or photo clashes with what you say, you say it has been altered and should be ignored. This is just plain nuts!!

The reality is quite different. After fifteen years of trying, you and Fetzer have shown not a single discrepancy between any film or photo shot in Dealey Plaza and any other. You have produced butkus. Meanwhile, on another thread on this forum, David Lifton's claim that the Zapruder film shows a unique kind of full frame left image penetration has just crashed and burned given the clear evidence of the Janowitz film. Those who turn to the photo record of Dealey Plaza as a self-authenticating whole in order to learn what happened are correct. That's what people have been doing from the beginning and your mny failures over the year only underline how correct they have been.

Josiah Thompson