Willis 5 is heavily retouched

[Jack White]

This comparison of Willis 5 and Moorman leave NO DOUBT that they depict different anomalous images.

Jack

[Jack White]

This comparison of Willis 5 and Moorman leave NO DOUBT that they depict different anomalous images.

Jack

An earlier study.

[Duke Lane]

That being the case, how do we know which of the two is incorrect, or whether it is neither or both that is (or are) incorrect?

More to the point, how was any of this done without the knowledge and/or cooperation of the photographer(s)?

Were Phil's negatives modified and then returned to him? If so, what other changes were made to the other images? If none, why not?

A Polaroid Land camera did not, of course, have any negatives. Is that, together with early publication, a reason to eliminate Moorman from being an alteration candidate?

How do chains of custody figure into any of this? What do other images of this area show? At least one point in this brief study (the bushes) can be attributed to perspective; would need a clearer image to determine if the shade issue is another.

[Jonathan Cohen]

That being the case, how do we know which of the two is incorrect, or whether it is neither or both that is (or are) incorrect?

More to the point, how was any of this done without the knowledge and/or cooperation of the photographer(s)?

Were Phil's negatives modified and then returned to him? If so, what other changes were made to the other images? If none, why not?

A Polaroid Land camera did not, of course, have any negatives. Is that, together with early publication, a reason to eliminate Moorman from being an alteration candidate?

How do chains of custody figure into any of this? What do other images of this area show? At least one point in this brief study (the bushes) can be attributed to perspective; would need a clearer image to determine if the shade issue is another.

Duke, all very astute points, but ones which Jack will no doubt not address. I have on a few occasions asked to discuss and/or speculate how any of these alterations could actually have been accomplished, but he refuses.

[Kathleen Collins]

That being the case, how do we know which of the two is incorrect, or whether it is neither or both that is (or are) incorrect?

More to the point, how was any of this done without the knowledge and/or cooperation of the photographer(s)?

Were Phil's negatives modified and then returned to him? If so, what other changes were made to the other images? If none, why not?

A Polaroid Land camera did not, of course, have any negatives. Is that, together with early publication, a reason to eliminate Moorman from being an alteration candidate?

How do chains of custody figure into any of this? What do other images of this area show? At least one point in this brief study (the bushes) can be attributed to perspective; would need a clearer image to determine if the shade issue is another.

Duke, all very astute points, but ones which Jack will no doubt not address. I have on a few occasions asked to discuss and/or speculate how any of these alterations could actually have been accomplished, but he refuses.

Easy. Men claiming they were Secret Service or FBI asked for the films and photographs, which would be given back. Most, probably, came back; but when they did, the pictures were retouched and most likely, the photographers didn't realize it, because they hadn't seen them yet.

Kathy C

[Jack White]

That being the case, how do we know which of the two is incorrect, or whether it is neither or both that is (or are) incorrect?

More to the point, how was any of this done without the knowledge and/or cooperation of the photographer(s)?

Were Phil's negatives modified and then returned to him? If so, what other changes were made to the other images? If none, why not?

A Polaroid Land camera did not, of course, have any negatives. Is that, together with early publication, a reason to eliminate Moorman from being an alteration candidate?

How do chains of custody figure into any of this? What do other images of this area show? At least one point in this brief study (the bushes) can be attributed to perspective; would need a clearer image to determine if the shade issue is another.

Duke, all very astute points, but ones which Jack will no doubt not address. I have on a few occasions asked to discuss and/or speculate how any of these alterations could actually have been accomplished, but he refuses.

Easy. Men claiming they were Secret Service or FBI asked for the films and photographs, which would be given back. Most, probably, came back; but when they did, the pictures were retouched and most likely, the photographers didn't realize it, because they hadn't seen them yet.

Kathy C

Thanks, Kathy. Good answer.

[Jack White]

This comparison of Willis 5 and Moorman leave NO DOUBT that they depict different anomalous images.

Jack

So far nobody has addressed what is shown by this study...mostly just

attacks on me for not explaining HOW it was done. Good grief! I do not

know how it was done; I am just showing that it WAS done...but certain

people prefer to kill the messenger.

[John Dolva]

I'm not surprised. The shadow is on the wall of the triple underpass and the guy's behind the sign. It's just same old same old

[Duke Lane]

Men claiming they were Secret Service or FBI asked for the films and photographs, which would be given back. Most, probably, came back; but when they did, the pictures were retouched and most likely, the photographers didn't realize it, because they hadn't seen them yet.

I can appreciate that aspect, but can you provide a single documented instance of that actually happening?

The key word here is "documented." By that I mean not just claims by various people that this occurred, but something that legitimizes that claim, even to the extent of a letter written or complaint lodged with any agency, anywhere, that this took place? A statement under oath saying "I had my camera and was taking pictures, but a police officer took the film from me" would suffice, even if it was never followed up, or a letter to, say, the ARRB stating that the writer had taken pictures or films and wanted them returned?

In this particular instance, is there any indication whatsoever that anyone other than Phil Willis and the person who developed his slides ever had possession of his film, even for an hour, prior to his first seeing the developed product? Possession, it seems, would be a prerequisite to any doctoring of any sort, wouldn't you agree? If possession can't be even hinted at, much less proved, how then can there be any suggestion of "doctoring" unless it's accompanied by the charge that Phil Willis did it himself.

... And if he did, wouldn't it have been much simpler to just never have taken the picture rather than to go through the bother of altering it?

If, as Jack said, every other photo and film that depicts this area shows three men while Willis only shows two, and IF absolutely nobody had possession of his negatives other than himself, does this not suggest instead that every other film and photo was altered if Phil's couldn't have been?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

A good friend of mine, in explaining the difference between assassination researchers and assassination "buffs," said that the first attempts to answer questions while the latter merely raises them. Is it an "research" when someone says "I see something that doesn't make sense to me" and asks someone else to try to explain it to his satisfaction? What explanation is "good enough" if it can be dismissed by simply saying that someone lied or that the presumed "explanation" might not have taken some nebulous factor into consideration?

Here, Jack could have at least shown the possibility that Phil Willis's photo could have been doctored by showing that Phil had surrendered the undeveloped film to someone, or given any original, developed prints or slides he might ever have had - that is, something that he had seen and may have retained copies of to refer back to.

Jack is very specific that Willis's image was retouched, implicitly discounting the possibility that all of the other images had been. After all, whoever did all of this alteration of every available image was really, really good and amazingly thorough; why is that not possible? Is it easier to believe that Willis's film could have been taken, altered and returned without his knowledge - like the Tooth Fairy plucking a child's tooth from beneath his pillow and leaving a quarter - even despite there being no evidence that any such thing even could have happened?

Again, some documented proof of anything like this happening to anyone would be useful, and I'm not referring to people who simply get in front of a camera 20 or 30 years later to spout something that sounds nefariously suspicious. Someone who was concerned enough about it to bring it to official attention. And preferably without claims of such complaints having "mysteriously disappeared" rendered as "proof" that they'd actually made one.

It's like the claim, years ago, that arrest records of someone in custody in Fort Worth on the assassination afternoon "don't exist" and that the - or "a" - photograph taken of him had "mysteriously disappeared" from the archives of the newspaper that didn't even take the picture!

[Duke Lane]

Thanks, Kathy. Good answer.

This comparison of Willis 5 and Moorman leave NO DOUBT that they depict different anomalous images.

Jack

So far nobody has addressed what is shown by this study...mostly just attacks on me for not explaining HOW it was done. Good grief! I do not know how it was done; I am just showing that it WAS done...but certain people prefer to kill the messenger.

I think people are just trying to determine why you think it's a valid message.

Speaking only for myself, I'd simply asked if you could show that it was possible, that Willis lost or gave up possession of his originals and - to accomodate Kathy's defense of your question - he kept no copies to compare the "doctored" version against.

I've not asked you to explain how it was done, but rather if it was possible.

If not, and all of the others did, then I'd suggest that your point should be that all of the other images were doctored, and Willis's is the proof.

If you want to tell me that the dog ate your homework, at least show me a doggie dish!

[John Dugan]

the face of the bush is brighter than the side facing east. It's called perspective.

and WHY WOULD THE ALTERATIONISTS WANT TO FIX THE HEDGES? Was there a shooter in there jack?

[Ken Rheberg]

Peter said:

"To me the number of people on the steps has the greatest potential sinister factor."

Peter,

There's nothing sinister at all about the number of people on the steps. The number has always been three. That's just one of the many reasons why the F. Lee Mudd thread was so important.

The three men:

1. A 56 year old man who was caretaker of Dealey Plaza (Emmett Hudson).

2. A "young fellow" in his late twenties who worked "over on Industrial Blvd." in Dallas (name unknown).

3. A 60 year old man in Dallas on business from Shreveport, LA (F. Lee Mudd).

They're all accounted for now, and they can be seen in Moorman, Muchmore and Nix. And yes. Willis, too.

In Willis, our view of Hudson is blocked almost completely by the "young fellow." Still, you can see part of Hudson if you look close enough. Unfortunately, Jack has provided a Willis enlargement with a rectangle around the "young fellow" that partially blocks out Hudson.

Nothing sinister happening on the stairs, Peter. Or behind the retaining wall, for that matter.

Behind the fence is another story altogether.

Ken

[Bill Miller]

So far nobody has addressed what is shown by this study...mostly just

attacks on me for not explaining HOW it was done. Good grief! I do not

know how it was done; I am just showing that it WAS done...but certain

people prefer to kill the messenger.

Its addressed by simply saying 'poor photo interpretations' being offered from a less than sharp image by someone who isn't very good at understanding angles. The red shirted man on the lower steps is just off screen in the Willis field of view. Drawing a simple line from the Willis position to the furthest south-most reference point visible on the underpass in Phil's photo using a scaled overhead view of the PLaza would prove this to be true. Not addressing an obvious solution does not constitute photo re-touching.

The angle at which Willis is standing to the south face of the wall and hedge combined with a blurred image is what causes one to believe they stop at the same location. In the past you have claimed that the Dog Man was someone who was re-touched when it made no sense to have left him in the photo at all if he was to be hidden from the photographic evidence record. Now the same illogical approach is being given to the hedge. There simply was no reason to leave a possible conspirator above the wall so to spend time screwing with the hedge which is seen in so many other films and photos that showed it in plain view.

Consider your claim addressed.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Peter said:

"To me the number of people on the steps has the greatest potential sinister factor."

Peter,

There's nothing sinister at all about the number of people on the steps. The number has always been three.

Ken

I agree with Ken ... two of the men had their hands in their pockets and one was clapping like so many other witnesses were doing as the President was traveling down Elm Street. If someone finding any of that scenario somehow sinister, then they'll really be amused at the idea that those were not children with the adults along Elm Street, but rather sinister dwarf assassins who were involved somehow despite there not being any evidence to support such a claim. But then there is the contention that they would have been caught in their acts had not all the films and photos not been altered.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

the face of the bush is brighter than the side facing east. It's called perspective.

and WHY WOULD THE ALTERATIONISTS WANT TO FIX THE HEDGES? Was there a shooter in there jack?

Wrong.