a CHALLENGE for the provocateurs...

[Craig Lamson]

jason:

what i did with that gif was to put the nix film and the zapruder film on split screens. they both start at one frame before the headshot.

these were versions i got from the web or other researchers from here.

not the best quality. and they vary in speed as well.

now i could take the time (which i may just do)

and take the frames from zapruder that are available all over the web and rebuild it that way.

this whole argument about "frame numbers" and "film fakery" will become moot when the two are compared on a frame to frame basis.

it's also more compelling when they are cropped, stabilized and montaged.

it is my opinion that by using one to compare to the other, that the theories on film speed issues, missing frames, headsnaps etc etc will become more clear.

the chances that nix was "faked" in exactly the same fashion as the ZAP film are next to none so if there are speed issues (ie; it was sped up) then we will be able to see.

the most consistant factor between both films are clint hills feet in terms of a visual guide.

i am making another version of that gif there which i will post tonight or later tomorrow so you can all see what i mean.

cheers.

Blair,

You offer an interesting exercise but it will fail to address the basic point of Jacks theory, that the hand placements in the z and nix film do not match for two specfic frames.

So great, now you have stablized cropped whatever matched versions of each film but you still can't deal with misconceptions of Whites latest "theory".

The fact that this theory is even being discussed is beyond me. This is simple line of sight stuff. For anyone who fails to grasp the fact that the two frames depict the same action, just draw a simple overhead diagram of the scene and plot the lines of sight from both cameras to the hands and arms in question. Then factor in the elevated camera height of Zapruder and this whole silly game is done. There is nothing amiss with these frames...period.

But hey you want to do the video thing, go for it. It will not however resolve this issue.

[Blair Dobson]

i agree with you craig, if jack's theory is that flawed, why bother?

i can see that the "proof" offered is not compelling, i was merely trying to say it isn't even worth arguing about.

but a simple sequence of these frames in motion would put this argument to rest would it not?

[Bill Miller]

i agree with you craig, if jack's theory is that flawed, why bother?

i can see that the "proof" offered is not compelling, i was merely trying to say it isn't even worth arguing about.

but a simple sequence of these frames in motion would put this argument to rest would it not?

In the past when these unfounded claims by the alterationist have been met with cross checking other films and photos - their responses was that these other images must also have been altered so to match one another. It never ends with these people.

Bill

Edited April 24, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

i agree with you craig, if jack's theory is that flawed, why bother?

i can see that the "proof" offered is not compelling, i was merely trying to say it isn't even worth arguing about.

but a simple sequence of these frames in motion would put this argument to rest would it not?

Blair,

I think Bill said it best, with these guys it never ends. Its rare indeed for White to retract a claim even in the face of daunting evidence. I suggest you visit Evan Burtons rebuttal of Whites Apollo stuff to see what I mean. Mostly when faced with massive evidence that his work is wrong, White will simply stick his fingers in his ears and pretend not to hear. Then he will claim that those people who have provided evidence are not to be trusted, governmental agents, etc. And on it goes. In a few months he will recycle his discredited work on some forum again and the cycle will start anew. It never ends.

Now over the years many folks have undertaken massive efforts to try and resolve these silly claims investing time and money to try and educate those with limited understanding of this stuff. One example is the moorman in the street claim. I was part of that debunking effort again we went way overboard to try and deal with every part of the claim made by White and company. It was amazing because his claim was based on a simple error in viewing a copy of the moorman. Of course now that the work is done and it has been shown that he was in error, White has simply moved on with his claim and now its the MOORMAN that has been altered in the area where he made his mistake...but not where he claims "badgeman' exists. Over time it will become clear that its a fools errand.

Now for this claim. Even with his total lack of understanding of the photographic process, White has a very good understand of the advertising game. Thats how he works his claims. He is selling ice to eskimos. In this one he has set him self up to alway be right because he based his claim on an "opinion" that can't be shown to be totally false. In this case its his claim that Jackie is grabbing Hills arm in Nix. Of course there is no way to prove that she is or is not doing such a thing because the Nix frame does not show enough detail or sharpness. Of course it does not show enough for Jack to make the claim either but he still does and quotes it as fact.

Now a thinking person would go to the zapruder frame and see what it shows them and then compare to Nix. Doing so we can see that Jackies hand on the trunk is located in such a manner that when viewed from the nix line of sight and elevation it could APPEAR to be grabbing Hills elbow. In other words what we see in Zapruder validates what we see in Nix. If one was so inclined this could be proven emperically by simply taking a few pictures. This is not rocket science. But its amazing that someone who bills himself as an expert on the JFK photography and photography in general would make such a silly claim.

Its a case of you can't always believe your eyes. Unless you take the time to deal with the line of sight issues and the optical compression issues caused by the lower nix camera elevation it possible to think that the frames don't match. Now when you are selling ice to eskimos you have to bank on the fact that they don't have a clue about what you are selling. In that respect White has his suckers figured out to a tee. Its simply the game he plays and he plays it very well. The problem is that he is not peddling the truth, but rather disinformation. And unfortunatly he finds a lot of willing but ignorant buyers.

Now if you feel you can offer some work that can clear some of this up, great. Just be forewarned as to what you will face when you do. Me, I've given up trying. Those with a real desire will do the work to find the truth. Those with a belief system to support will follow along regardless of the facts because they "know better" and will never change their minds.

Edited April 24, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

'provocateurs' (Agents provocateurs)

'incometentuers'(?) Definition needed + source reference. Webster?

'poser'

'clueless'

'chicken s__t '/ chicken salad?

'same mutts'

'foaming at the mouth'

'morons'

'coward'

What ever happened to understatement?

EBC

Edited April 24, 2006 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Guest Stephen Turner]

What ever happened to understatement?

EBC

Its holidaying, on the dark side of the moon, wuth Elvis, Bruce Lee and the Balinese Godess of plenty

[JL Allen]

In my opinion, Jack White is the Godfather of Discovery with regard to the JFK case. His remarkable identifications of the inherent aberrations contained within the original backyard photograph CE 133-A (which appeared on the cover of LIFE) mark him as an exceedingly important contributor to the ascertainment of truth in the JFK assassination. The fact that he had assembled an extremely powerful and cogent presentation which he attempted to offer to the Warren Commission in 1964 - which he was not permitted to describe in it's entirety - places him in a league far beyond most "johnny-come-latelies" in my book. It would behoove the forum to remember just how difficult it is to establish sure-fire, doubt-free evidence in a case which may have had so much of it's original depictions altered and tainted through the years. It would probably also be worthwhile for it to ask itself whether it feels fortunate to have Jack White as a contributor - or, whether it would rather have his gaggle of rude detractors. Remember, Jack had it all together for the Warren Commission. Nobody else was in the same "hemisphere". People should remember this when they talk to him - there are all kinds of crazy theories... Jack's are not crazy... R-E-S-P-E-C-T... JMO

[Jack White]

Thank you for the kind words Mr. Allen!

By the way, a PROVOCATEUR is one who engages in

PROVOCATION as a DISTRACTION. I have identified four

such provocateurs on this forum. THEY FOLLOW ME

REGARDLESS OF FORUMS I PARTICIPATE IN. They

were booted off of JFKresearch Forum for their

constant provocations. Unfortunately this forum

ALLOWS PERSONAL ATTACKS in lieu of facts or

evidence. If you notice, they only post to subjects

about which I have initiated or posted to.

Everyone knows the identity of these spooks.

They are nothing more than a nuisance. They

are fewer than the noise they create indicates.

Unlike most, you were willing to speak out against

them. Ignore them like I generally do. Thanks.

Jack

PS...I am sure you meant the HSCA, not the Warren

Commission. Probably you will be attacked for this!

They have nothing better to do than attack people

for a simple typo.

Edited April 24, 2006 by Jack White

[Bill Miller]

Thank you for the kind words Mr. Allen!

I agree with Mr. Allen, as many CTs do and that is your earlier work right up to the badge man work was remarkable.

By the way, a PROVOCATEUR is one who engages in

PROVOCATION as a DISTRACTION. I have identified four

such provocateurs on this forum. THEY FOLLOW ME

REGARDLESS OF FORUMS I PARTICIPATE IN. They

were booted off of JFKresearch Forum for their

constant provocations. Unfortunately this forum

ALLOWS PERSONAL ATTACKS in lieu of facts or

evidence. If you notice, they only post to subjects

about which I have initiated or posted to.

Everyone knows the identity of these spooks.

They are nothing more than a nuisance. They

are fewer than the noise they create indicates.

Unlike most, you were willing to speak out against

them. Ignore them like I generally do. Thanks.

Jack

Jack, you mentioned the looney forum (JFK Research) and how some of us were booted from it ... the entire research community knows that it was only people who disagreed with you on the alteraion claims you were making who were the ones forced to leave. Tell the readers how you cannot get a gig at Copa or Lancer anymore since you started implementing some of the sloppiest research that has led to some of the most absurd claims ever to enter the picture concerning JFK's assassination.

Only you would make such a claim as that below ...

The fact that the baby in your illustration is looking at her dad in one photo - at her mother in another - and again at the camera in yet another should have told you the baby was real. The old Jack that worked on the backyard photos and the Badge Man images would have noticed such detail, but not the new Jack. So we point these errors out to the unsuspecting reader when you push them on those who have only the poor quality B&W images you offer them to rely on.

You then call us provacateurs as if we should sit idlely by and not counter these asinine observations you seem to come up with on a daily basis. The Ct's has had a hard enough time trying to get people of authority to take them seriously and then all of a sudden you decide to make it harder on them by pushing some of the most ridiculous claims imaginable. If you ever wanted to do anything for John Kennedy, then you should have quit long ago while you were ahead an never started coming up with claims that a 1st grader should be able to reason out.

Anytime you care to dance - just put on the music once again and I for one will be there. Maybe we'll start with that decietful crap you pulled on the looney forum where you ran a loop of Jean Hill stating 'I stepped into the street" so to make your claim appear valid. It was then that another member posted the link to Jean Hill's interview on Black Op radio where she was asked point blank about when she had stepped into the street. Let me remind you of what Jean told the caller ... she said she had stepped into the street as the president rounded the corner, but had stepped back out of it "BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT SOUNDED". This is also supported by the Altgens photo showing her and Mary's shadows coming from the south pasture and crossing the curb and stretching out into the street.

Yeh, Jack ... we must be the 'provacatuers' just like you have become one of the 'incompententuers'.

Bill

Edited April 25, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote

[...]

Jack, you mentioned the looney forum (JFK Research) and how some of us were booted from it ... the entire research community knows that it was only people who disagreed with you on the alteraion claims you were making who were the ones forced to leave. Tell the readers how you cannot get a gig at Copa or Lancer anymore since you started implementing some of the sloppiest research that has led to some of the most absurd claims ever to enter the picture concerning JFK's assassination.

[...]

**********************

Hey Bill, wear your ouster from JFKResearch as a badge, you were outed -- so move on.

Travel on over to alt.conspiracy.jfk -- many oldtime CTer's are being outed, as we speak... they're Lone Neuter's hiding out in CT clothing have been for a looooonnnnggggg time.... guess what, some of THOSE were booted from JFKResearch before you even knew what a negative was ... so rest easy, some here know the game...

And who wants a gig, anywhere? What do you think this is, American IDOL?

ahhwhen was the last time you did anything for a television camera, that aired in a town with a population over 500? Surely, you've garnered a little tv time? Jack surely has, all over the place...

Edited April 25, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

Hey Bill, wear your ouster from JFKResearch as a badge, you were outed -- so move on.

Travel on over to alt.conspiracy.jfk -- many oldtime CTer's are being outed, as we speak... they're Lone Neuter's hiding out in CT clothing have been for a looooonnnnggggg time.... guess what, some of THOSE were booted from JFKResearch before you even knew what a negative was ... so rest easy, some here know the game...

And who wants a gig, anywhere? What do you think this is, American IDOL?

ahhwhen was the last time you did anything for a television camera, that aired in a town with a population over 500? Surely, you've garnered a little tv time? Jack surely has, all over the place...

It was a few years ago in Dealey Plaza ... it aired on Channel 9 out of Chicago ... what's your point? Is it your position that because Jack has been on TV in the past that it somehow gives him the right to now make ridiculous claims based on poorly conducted research? Only you would think that!

Below is just another example of what you must think Jack has earned the right to do ... I guess Jack must have thought Mary Moorman had hooves like a cow!

JACK'S CLAIM

CLOSER LOOK SHOWING MOORMAN'S BLACK SHOE IN THE GRASS

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.” Rene Dahinden, August 1999.

=

Edited April 25, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

In my opinion, Jack White is the Godfather of Discovery with regard to the JFK case. His remarkable identifications of the inherent aberrations contained within the original backyard photograph CE 133-A (which appeared on the cover of LIFE) mark him as an exceedingly important contributor to the ascertainment of truth in the JFK assassination. The fact that he had assembled an extremely powerful and cogent presentation which he attempted to offer to the Warren Commission in 1964 - which he was not permitted to describe in it's entirety - places him in a league far beyond most "johnny-come-latelies" in my book. It would behoove the forum to remember just how difficult it is to establish sure-fire, doubt-free evidence in a case which may have had so much of it's original depictions altered and tainted through the years. It would probably also be worthwhile for it to ask itself whether it feels fortunate to have Jack White as a contributor - or, whether it would rather have his gaggle of rude detractors. Remember, Jack had it all together for the Warren Commission. Nobody else was in the same "hemisphere". People should remember this when they talk to him - there are all kinds of crazy theories... Jack's are not crazy... R-E-S-P-E-C-T... JMO

And another sheep checks in. So how about this claim? Crazy or not. Educate us.

'Bill Miller' wrote

[...]

Jack, you mentioned the looney forum (JFK Research) and how some of us were booted from it ... the entire research community knows that it was only people who disagreed with you on the alteraion claims you were making who were the ones forced to leave. Tell the readers how you cannot get a gig at Copa or Lancer anymore since you started implementing some of the sloppiest research that has led to some of the most absurd claims ever to enter the picture concerning JFK's assassination.

[...]

**********************

Hey Bill, wear your ouster from JFKResearch as a badge, you were outed -- so move on.

Travel on over to alt.conspiracy.jfk -- many oldtime CTer's are being outed, as we speak... they're Lone Neuter's hiding out in CT clothing have been for a looooonnnnggggg time.... guess what, some of THOSE were booted from JFKResearch before you even knew what a negative was ... so rest easy, some here know the game...

And who wants a gig, anywhere? What do you think this is, American IDOL?

ahhwhen was the last time you did anything for a television camera, that aired in a town with a population over 500? Surely, you've garnered a little tv time? Jack surely has, all over the place...

'Bill Miller' wrote

[...]

Jack, you mentioned the looney forum (JFK Research) and how some of us were booted from it ... the entire research community knows that it was only people who disagreed with you on the alteraion claims you were making who were the ones forced to leave. Tell the readers how you cannot get a gig at Copa or Lancer anymore since you started implementing some of the sloppiest research that has led to some of the most absurd claims ever to enter the picture concerning JFK's assassination.

[...]

**********************

Hey Bill, wear your ouster from JFKResearch as a badge, you were outed -- so move on.

Travel on over to alt.conspiracy.jfk -- many oldtime CTer's are being outed, as we speak... they're Lone Neuter's hiding out in CT clothing have been for a looooonnnnggggg time.... guess what, some of THOSE were booted from JFKResearch before you even knew what a negative was ... so rest easy, some here know the game...

And who wants a gig, anywhere? What do you think this is, American IDOL?

ahhwhen was the last time you did anything for a television camera, that aired in a town with a population over 500? Surely, you've garnered a little tv time? Jack surely has, all over the place...

And here we have the lead sheep. So David, where is your professional opinion of this latest claim of Jacks. You spend lots of time attempting to defend his "honor". Its time for you to actually defend his 'work". So hop to it there black sheep and show us some of that massive professional imaging experience claim to posess. Educate us for a change...if you have the guts.

Thank you for the kind words Mr. Allen!

By the way, a PROVOCATEUR is one who engages in

PROVOCATION as a DISTRACTION. I have identified four

such provocateurs on this forum. THEY FOLLOW ME

REGARDLESS OF FORUMS I PARTICIPATE IN. They

were booted off of JFKresearch Forum for their

constant provocations. Unfortunately this forum

ALLOWS PERSONAL ATTACKS in lieu of facts or

evidence. If you notice, they only post to subjects

about which I have initiated or posted to.

Everyone knows the identity of these spooks.

They are nothing more than a nuisance. They

are fewer than the noise they create indicates.

Unlike most, you were willing to speak out against

them. Ignore them like I generally do. Thanks.

Jack

PS...I am sure you meant the HSCA, not the Warren

Commission. Probably you will be attacked for this!

They have nothing better to do than attack people

for a simple typo.

You don't ignore us Jack, you stay way because you know you can't compete. Its the typical Jack tactic, apply a label and then stick your fingers in your ears and pretend not to hear the evidence that destroys yet again another ignorant Jack White theory. Then you will claim no one has debunked your crazy theory! What a wonderful ploy. Too bad its not very honest. Of couse by now its pretty claer to all with open eyes and an open mind that what you do has noting to do with honesty nor truth.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Its holidaying, on the dark side of the moon, wuth Elvis, Bruce Lee and the Balinese Godess of plenty

The dark side of the moon? You mean the backside of the moon or the 'anus lunae'?

With 'Elvis, Bruce Lee and the Balinese Godess' ?

Anyone else we know?

EBC

Edited April 25, 2006 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Guest John Gillespie]

Hey Bill, wear your ouster from JFKResearch as a badge, you were outed -- so move on.

Travel on over to alt.conspiracy.jfk -- many oldtime CTer's are being outed, as we speak... they're Lone Neuter's hiding out in CT clothing have been for a looooonnnnggggg time.... guess what, some of THOSE were booted from JFKResearch before you even knew what a negative was ... so rest easy, some here know the game...

And who wants a gig, anywhere? What do you think this is, American IDOL?

ahhwhen was the last time you did anything for a television camera, that aired in a town with a population over 500? Surely, you've garnered a little tv time? Jack surely has, all over the place...

It was a few years ago in Dealey Plaza ... it aired on Channel 9 out of Chicago ... what's your point? Is it your position that because Jack has been on TV in the past that it somehow gives him the right to now make ridiculous claims based on poorly conducted research? Only you would think that!

Below is just another example of what you must think Jack has earned the right to do ... I guess Jack must have thought Mary Moorman had hooves like a cow!

JACK'S CLAIM

CLOSER LOOK SHOWING MOORMAN'S BLACK SHOE IN THE GRASS

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.” Rene Dahinden, August 1999.

________________________________

These photos are reminiscient of Beverly Babushka and The Amazing Yellow Heel, as recently seen at a Forum near you...BTW: Agent Provocateur is someone who incites; Confusion Agent distracts. But, in this case, the lines are blurred - much like the photos themselves and the interpretations. Nonetheless, provocation or confusion, mission accomplished.

JG

=

Edited April 25, 2006 by John Gillespie

[Bill Miller]

"These photos are reminiscient of Beverly Babushka and The Amazing Yellow Heel, as recently seen at a Forum near you...BTW: Agent Provocateur is someone who incites; Confusion Agent distracts. But, in this case, the lines are blurred - much like the photos themselves and the interpretations. Nonetheless, provocation or confusion, mission accomplished.

JG"

Photo interpretation is not a science, but rather an art. There are varying degrees in photo and film clarity between photo sources and that is when one has to look for things within the image that tells the observer if the images are consistent to one another. In the comparison below it was the shape of the tops of Jean and Mary's shows against the light colored lower legs that told me that their shoes were visible in the Zapruder film even if the image wasn't sharp.

If one is not able to merely view a set of images and detect the similarities, then there is always the option of subjecting them to similar degrees of clarity. The Zapruder film is highly contrasted, shows motion blur, and is a distance from the subjects in questions compared to the close up still photographs that Mary Moorman and Jean Hill took of one another prior to the motorcade on 11/22/63. Below is an example clip showing some of the ways still frame and photos can put compared to one another by creating a set of circumstances that add balance between the set of images being tested.

Bill