My four videos now free online...

[Jack White]

Over the years I have had many requests from researcher to share

my research. As a result, in the 90s, I produced four videos. After

recovering my production costs of about $25,000, I now feel that it

is time to share them with everyone on the internet free.

I am constructing a new JFK website, thanks to the generosity of

David Percy of London, who hosts my Apollo and 911 sites. I have

just barely begun the pages, which will feature photos and my

research. I hope to complete at least a page a day, and hope it

will become a valuable research tool.

The videos are now up and running. I think they are available in

two browser formats, so I hope everyone can access them. Just in

the past week of testing the format, the site had more than 500

visitors without being publicized. Let me know if you access the

videos and what you think. Check back to the site frequently to

see the latest additions.

To give it a try, go to:

http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html

Remember, the site is just now opening and will be under construction

constantly in the coming months, so please bookmark it and visit

frequently to see new pages as they are added.

Below...the four videos.

Enjoy.

Jack

Edited August 3, 2006 by Jack White

[Steven Tomlinson]

The link is missing the 'l' from html.

ST

[Jack White]

The link is missing the 'l' from html.

ST

Thanks...I guess when highlighting, I missed it. I have corrected it.

Jack

[James Richards]

Good stuff, Jack.

I just watched the presentation on the backyard photographs and found it most interesting. I had always wondered whether or not the clothes LHO allegedly wore in the photographs were found amongst his possessions. The fact that they weren't is telling I believe.

I think there is no doubt that some photographic trickery was employed here which begs the question, who posed as Oswald? I can't see a long line of volunteers prepared to potentially incriminate themselves. I guess one would have been wise to wear a disguise to make sure this photograph didn't come back to haunt one.

Thanks for sharing this material.

James

[David G. Healy]

congrat's Jack White -- Great looking site!

I too, had to add the "l" (as in LIMA) in the url. Look forward to new site additions.

David healy

[Jack White]

Good stuff, Jack.

I just watched the presentation on the backyard photographs and found it most interesting. I had always wondered whether or not the clothes LHO allegedly wore in the photographs were found amongst his possessions. The fact that they weren't is telling I believe.

I think there is no doubt that some photographic trickery was employed here which begs the question, who posed as Oswald? I can't see a long line of volunteers prepared to potentially incriminate themselves. I guess one would have been wise to wear a disguise to make sure this photograph didn't come back to haunt one.

Thanks for sharing this material.

James

Thanks, James. To find who I think posed for the backyard photos, look at

THE MANY FACES OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD, which covers that. Not to spoil

it for you, I think evidence shows the liklihood that the man holding the gun

was ROSCOE WHITE. This video was done AFTER we learned about Roscoe,

about 1992 or 93. The FAKE video was done about 1989 or 90...so the new

Roscoe material was included in the FACES video.

Jack

Edited August 4, 2006 by Jack White

[James Richards]

Thanks, James. To find who I think posed for the backyard photos, look at

THE MANY FACES OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD, which covers that. Not to spoil

it for you, I think evidence shows the liklihood that the man holding the gun

was ROSCOE WHITE. This video was done AFTER we learned about Roscoe,

about 1992 or 93. The FAKE video was done about 1989 or 90...so the new

Roscoe material was included in the FACES video. (Jack White)

Interesting, Jack.

Regarding Roscoe White and the fire in which he was killed, do you know if any research was done into the background of Richard Adair, the man injured in the fire? I am trying to find out if he is the same Richard Adair, ex fireman, ex marine, who brought a suit against the City of Dallas and the Fireman's Pension Fund for money he alleged was due in deliquent pension payments.

James

Edited August 4, 2006 by James Richards

[Robert Howard]

Thanks, James. To find who I think posed for the backyard photos, look at

THE MANY FACES OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD, which covers that. Not to spoil

it for you, I think evidence shows the liklihood that the man holding the gun

was ROSCOE WHITE. This video was done AFTER we learned about Roscoe,

about 1992 or 93. The FAKE video was done about 1989 or 90...so the new

Roscoe material was included in the FACES video. (Jack White)

Interesting, Jack.

Regarding Roscoe White and the fire in which he was killed, do you know if any research was done into the background of Richard Adair, the man injured in the fire? I am trying to find out if he is the same Richard Adair, ex fireman, ex marine, who brought a suit against the City of Dallas and the Fireman's Pension Fund for money he alleged was due in deliquent pension payments.

James

Jack, this is great material, your work alone on the Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald puts you in elite company; Great work.

[Brendan Slattery]

Poor Jack. Still "stuck on stupid." Marina Oswald took those backyard photos. She admitted as much on Nov 23 and does so today. His head. His body. His newspapers. His rifle. His revolver. Zero credible/scientific evidence of fakery. End of story.

[Robin Unger]

Thanks Jack.

Is it possible for you to email me a larger version of the GREEN cancellare which you have shown in the bottom right hand corner of your Cancellare study.

quaneeri2@bigpond.com

Thanks.

[Jack White]

Thanks Jack.

Is it possible for you to email me a larger version of the GREEN cancellare which you have shown in the bottom right hand corner of your Cancellare study.

quaneeri2@bigpond.com

Thanks.

I will look it up. I don't know where I got it. It is very poor quality.

Jack

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

The charm-school dropout returns to offer nothing of significance, while making his rounds as self-appointed hall monitor.

Poor Jack. Still "stuck on stupid."

Actually, BS, I think he got over you some time ago. It's over. Deal with it.

Marina Oswald took those backyard photos.

Citation?

She admitted as much on Nov 23 and does so today.

Not quite, Sherlock. On 11/22/63 she stated that he didn't even own a gun, of any sort. If you know of her stating a mere day later the direct opposite, and that she took photos of him with it, please provide a citation. This would be a particularly stunning admission on her part given that the photos weren't discovered until the afternoon of that day, meaning that police confronted her with the photos immediately. If you have a citation to that effect, please provide it. If not, get lost and make room for those who actually trouble themselves to state a case.

Moreover, the poor woman's story has shifted so many times, on so many points, one finds it impossible to understand why a self-admitted prevaricator is offered as a witness for anything, let alone the topic of the backyard photos.

For example, let's take a moment of candor in her testimony of Feb. 3/64:

"I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses."

And yet the Commission knew that there was a third such photograph, with Oswald holding the rifle above his head with both hands, for they heard testimony to that effect from Oswald's mother. Oddly enough, they chose not to ask Marina about this third photo when she was subsequently questioned by them.

What the Commission didn't know was a fourth such photograph existed in the personal effects of the DeMohrenschildts, which surfaced in 1967.

What the Commission didn't know was a fifth such photograph existed in the personal effects of DPD Officer Roscoe White, which surfaced via his widow in the mid-1970s. It may be easy to forgive Marina mistaking two photos for one, but how does a person mistake five distinctly different photos for one?

Further, Marina has stated that when she took her photo, her back was to the stairs, yet the very same stairs are clearly shown in the photo.

Marina stated that the photos were taken in the early afternoon, on a date the Commission pegged as being Sunday March 31 '63. Subsequent investigation revealed that the photos couldn't have been taken on that date [not Marina's fault, since she didn't pick the date], as the weather bureau reported it was overcast with occasional drizzles of rain, facts inconsistent with the sunny weather depicted in the photos. More problematic, however, is that irrespective of the date on which the photos were taken, the shadow patterns dictate that the photos were taken early in the morning, shortly after 9 am, not in the afternoon as Marina recalled.

And speaking of her recall, it left much else to be desired. Shown two cameras on Feb. 6/64, she recognized a Russian one, but not the second one. Little wonder. FBI didn't take possession of the Imperial Reflex used to take the backyard photos until Feb. 24. So good so far.

Yet, on Jan 29/64 Marina had been shown photos of two cameras, one Russian and one a US made Realist camera, and she ID'ed them as being her husband's. Shown the very same photos on Feb. 17/64, she claimed that the Realist was not her husband's, and that she'd never seen it before [despite having been shown the very same photo less than three week earlier and claiming it was her husband's.] Then, FBI claimed that on Feb. 25/64 she had been shown the Imperial Reflex camera it obtained on the preceding day, and that she "... immediately identified it as the American camera which belonged to her husband and the one which she used to take the photograph [SINGULAR, you will note] of him with the rifle and the pistol." Only problem is, either FBI never delivered such a Feb. 25/64 Marina interview report to the Commission, or the Commission received it and failed to include it among the 50-odd such Marina interview reports it chose to print.

More astonishing by far, however, is that FBI located about 75 photos in the various search-and-seizure operations around the Paine home and Oswald's boarding room. They were shown to Marina, and she identified them all. Oddly, the only ones taken with the Imperial Reflex were the backyard photos and the shots of General Walker's home. In other words, those taken that most incriminated Oswald were shot with a camera that wasn't located during multiple searches of the Paine home and Oswald's rooming house, a camera that wasn't even located until February of the following year, despite the meticulous searches conducted.

In 1970, Dallas reporter Jim Marrs was investigating the backyard photographs when he interviewed Robert and Patricia Hester, who worked at the National Photo Lab in Dallas. They said they were very busy processing photographic material for both the FBI and the Secret Service the night of the assassination. In 1970, the Hesters told Marrs that the FBI had color transparencies of the backyard photographs on the night of the assassination and had one color transparency that had nobody in the picture. Yet, this was the night before the photographs were allegedly found among Oswald's effects.

Perhaps rather than indulge in drive-by smears of Jack White, BS could trouble himself to instead impeach the Hesters, for they offer as much proof of photographic forgery as Jack White and a number of others. [should BS care to try, I've appended precisely what the Hesters referred to in their conversations with Marrs in 1970, which was located in DPD holdings 22 years after the Hesters made their assertions. If they were wrong, how did DPD come to possess precisely what they referenced? And if what is appended is unrelated, how did the Hester's know of its existence 22 years prior to it surfacing? Have at it, BS. We're waiting.....]

BS glosses over these details as though unimportant, because, after all, we have Marina's word. What else could we possibly need.

His head.

Even Oswald admitted that much. Though the tell-tale crop lines by his chin weren't very subtle or professional, were they?

His body.

Photo experts from around the world have already eviscerated that contention. BS would know this if he'd bothered to read their accounts. Or perhaps he has done, and merely hopes to skate by on the assertion alone, in the hope that others haven't read those accounts. [sorry, BS, but some of us have.] In either case, Jack White stands in excellent company when he maintains - as did Oswald - that the accused's face was superimposed on another man's body.

His newspapers.

Then they were presumably found among his effects. Citation for that contention, please?

His rifle.

Never demonstrated. If you know otherwise, citation please?

His revolver.

Never demonstrated. If you know otherwise, citation please?

Zero credible/scientific evidence of fakery.

Only for those who refuse to read anything other than the Warren Report. In point of fact, the only Forum member who regularly shows up with "zero evidence" is the same one who smears other Forum members while refusing to offer any basis.

End of story.

Clearly that is your wish, dear boy. But if it were so, why are we still here 42-plus years later? You cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube, PR boy, no matter how hard you try. And I dare say that far better men than you have laboured to do so in the past, and been found sorely wanting. If they could not do so, with logic and passion you've yet to demonstrate, by what unbridled arrogance do you think yourself capable of the task? You have offered nothing new or unique. Why are you even here? Glutton for punishment? Enjoy parading your boundless uncritical credulity for all to see? Or just perennially dateless?

Credit where it's due, though: at least you didn't sign off with "case closed."

[Brendan Slattery]

Aging virgin Robert wrote:

The charm-school dropout returns to offer nothing of significance, while making his rounds as self-appointed hall monitor.

Poor Jack. Still "stuck on stupid."

Actually, BS, I think he got over you some time ago. It's over. Deal with it.

Oh please. Jack is the crazy uncle hidden in the attic. Sadly, you’re on the very same trajectory.

Marina Oswald took those backyard photos.

Citation?

WC: Two photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle were found among Oswald's possessions in Mrs. Ruth Paine's garage at 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex. In one, Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, Oswald is holding the rifle generally in front of his body; in the other, Commission Exhibit No. 133-B, he is holding the rifle to his right. Also found at Mrs. Paine's garage were a negative of 133-B and several photographs of the rear of General Walker's house. An imperial reflex camera, which Marina Oswald testified she used to take 133-A and 133-B, was subsequently produced by Robert Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald's brother.

HSCA: Volume VI (352) Marina Oswald was later questioned by the FBI about photographs. She said that she had taken them in the backyard

of the Oswald residence on Neeley Street in Dallas.

She admitted as much on Nov 23 and does so today.

Not quite, Sherlock. On 11/22/63 she stated that he didn't even own a gun, of any sort.

Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong? From “The Assassin's Wife and the Quaker Woman Who Took Her In,” by Thomas Mallon:

Someone knocked on the door. Ruth answered it and was confronted by a group of law-enforcement officers, including men from the Dallas County sheriff's department. She thought that they were there to serve papers in connection with her divorce, until one of them announced that Lee was in custody, charged with shooting a policeman. When the officers said they wanted to come in, she managed to ask if they had a warrant. They assured her they could get one right away. "That's O.K.," she told them. "We're all upset. Come on in."

Ruth thought that "they'd come in and sit on my sofa and talk to me." Instead, "six guys spread out all over the house right away, like water." They asked whether Lee owned a gun, and Ruth said no. She translated the question to Marina, using the Russian word for "long gun" because that was the only one she knew. Yes, Marina responded, to Ruth's astonishment, Lee did have a gun. Marina then led the way to the garage. No mention had yet been made of the President; only of a murdered patrolman. But Ruth now understood what this was really about.

When I asked her, nearly forty years later, to reconstruct what happened in the garage, Ruth groaned, before saying that Marina "showed this blanket roll, which was on the floor. The officer picked it up, folded it over his arm. It was empty. He didn't even have to open it. You could see it was empty. That was when I had this feeling, My God, it could have been Lee — that he came out last night, that the gun had been there. . . . That was probably the worst moment."

Yes, all of this transpired on the 22nd.

If you know of her stating a mere day later the direct opposite, and that she took photos of him with it, please provide a citation. This would be a particularly stunning admission on her part given that the photos weren't discovered until the afternoon of that day, meaning that police confronted her with the photos immediately. If you have a citation to that effect, please provide it. If not, get lost and make room for those who actually trouble themselves to state a case.

She stated on the 22nd that he owned a rifle. On that same afternoon, they find the incriminating photos in a box when they sweep through the Paine’s garage. Marina stated that she took the photos. Oswald was confronted with one of the photos on the 23rd. Simple enough for ya?

Moreover, the poor woman's story has shifted so many times, on so many points, one finds it impossible to understand why a self-admitted prevaricator is offered as a witness for anything, let alone the topic of the backyard photos.

So is she a “poor woman” swept up in a whirlwind of events or a flat out xxxx? You seem to want it both ways.

For example, let's take a moment of candor in her testimony of Feb. 3/64:

"I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses."

And yet the Commission knew that there was a third such photograph, with Oswald holding the rifle above his head with both hands, for they heard testimony to that effect from Oswald's mother. Oddly enough, they chose not to ask Marina about this third photo when she was subsequently questioned by them.

Yes, she was admittedly confused. She hadn’t seen or thought about the photos in months. She fails to meet your standards of perfection. BTW, all it takes is ONE photograph taken by her in the backyard for the game to be over. Are you saying that she took NONE of the photos? Let me gauge just how batxxxx crazy you really are.

What the Commission didn't know was a fourth such photograph existed in the personal effects of the DeMohrenschildts, which surfaced in 1967.

What the Commission didn't know was a fifth such photograph existed in the personal effects of DPD Officer Roscoe White, which surfaced via his widow in the mid-1970s. It may be easy to forgive Marina mistaking two photos for one, but how does a person mistake five distinctly different photos for one?

The same way some earwitnesses heard five shots in Dealey Plaza instead of three. Sometimes, you only commit to memory the things that are important to you. The photos were important to Lee, not her. I was at the San Diego zoo last January. Did I take three photos or seven? Beats me. I didn’t want to be there anyway. Had she said she couldn’t remember taking any photos, that would have been much more ominous/incriminating. But that was never the case.

Further, Marina has stated that when she took her photo, her back was to the stairs, yet the very same stairs are clearly shown in the photo.

Um, you just laid the groundwork that this woman is either confused or a xxxx. So why can’t she be confused about the stairs? Suddenly she’s telling the truth?

Marina stated that the photos were taken in the early afternoon, on a date the Commission pegged as being Sunday March 31 '63. Subsequent investigation revealed that the photos couldn't have been taken on that date [not Marina's fault, since she didn't pick the date],

They said it was likely the 31st. No one ever nailed down the date definitively.

as the weather bureau reported it was overcast with occasional drizzles of rain, facts inconsistent with the sunny weather depicted in the photos.

Do you realize it can rain and be sunny on the same day? Remember November 22nd?

More problematic, however, is that irrespective of the date on which the photos were taken, the shadow patterns dictate that the photos were taken early in the morning, shortly after 9 am, not in the afternoon as Marina recalled.

Says who?

And speaking of her recall, it left much else to be desired. Shown two cameras on Feb. 6/64, she recognized a Russian one, but not the second one. Little wonder. FBI didn't take possession of the Imperial Reflex used to take the backyard photos until Feb. 24. So good so far.

Yet, on Jan 29/64 Marina had been shown photos of two cameras, one Russian and one a US made Realist camera, and she ID'ed them as being her husband's. Shown the very same photos on Feb. 17/64, she claimed that the Realist was not her husband's, and that she'd never seen it before [despite having been shown the very same photo less than three week earlier and claiming it was her husband's.] Then, FBI claimed that on Feb. 25/64 she had been shown the Imperial Reflex camera it obtained on the preceding day, and that she "... immediately identified it as the American camera which belonged to her husband and the one which she used to take the photograph [sINGULAR, you will note] of him with the rifle and the pistol." Only problem is, either FBI never delivered such a Feb. 25/64 Marina interview report to the Commission, or the Commission received it and failed to include it among the 50-odd such Marina interview reports it chose to print.

It wasn’t her camera. Why would she have intimate knowledge of it? Did the cameras in any way resemble each other? Were they both the same color?

More astonishing by far, however, is that FBI located about 75 photos in the various search-and-seizure operations around the Paine home and Oswald's boarding room. They were shown to Marina, and she identified them all. Oddly, the only ones taken with the Imperial Reflex were the backyard photos and the shots of General Walker's home. In other words, those taken that most incriminated Oswald were shot with a camera that wasn't located during multiple searches of the Paine home and Oswald's rooming house, a camera that wasn't even located until February of the following year, despite the meticulous searches conducted.

His brother had it, not some dark sinister force.

In 1970, Dallas reporter Jim Marrs was investigating the backyard photographs when he interviewed Robert and Patricia Hester, who worked at the National Photo Lab in Dallas. They said they were very busy processing photographic material for both the FBI and the Secret Service the night of the assassination. In 1970, the Hesters told Marrs that the FBI had color transparencies of the backyard photographs on the night of the assassination and had one color transparency that had nobody in the picture. Yet, this was the night before the photographs were allegedly found among Oswald's effects.

I see. Marina is a xxxx but the Hesters are pure as the driven snow. Have them sign an affidavit and get back to me. Otherwise, it’s hearsay whispered into a buff’s willing ear.

Perhaps rather than indulge in drive-by smears of Jack White, BS could trouble himself to instead impeach the Hesters, for they offer as much proof of photographic forgery as Jack White and a number of others.

An “accusation” is proof? Please don't tell me you practice law.

[should BS care to try, I've appended precisely what the Hesters referred to in their conversations with Marrs in 1970, which was located in DPD holdings 22 years after the Hesters made their assertions. If they were wrong, how did DPD come to possess precisely what they referenced? And if what is appended is unrelated, how did the Hester's know of its existence 22 years prior to it surfacing? Have at it, BS. We're waiting.....]

I’m still trying to figure out how the dirt poor Oswalds could afford color film. Am I supposed to be impressed that the Hesters haven’t budged from their story? Neither did the lady who claimed to be Princess Anastasia.

BS glosses over these details as though unimportant, because, after all, we have Marina's word. What else could we possibly need.

I thought Marina was a beloved martyr who now thinks her husband might have been framed? So she did the framing? On the 22nd, Marina desperately wanted to believe in her husband's innocence. Why would she say she took damning, incriminating photos if she didn't really take them?

His head.

Even Oswald admitted that much. Though the tell-tale crop lines by his chin weren't very subtle or professional, were they?

Yes, ‘cause lord knows LHO never lied.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leeslies.htm

His body.

Photo experts from around the world have already eviscerated that contention.

Citation? I can’t wait to see who you unearth.

BS would know this if he'd bothered to read their accounts. Or perhaps he has done, and merely hopes to skate by on the assertion alone, in the hope that others haven't read those accounts. [sorry, BS, but some of us have.] In either case, Jack White stands in excellent company when he maintains - as did Oswald - that the accused's face was superimposed on another man's body.

Jack is a buffoonish fraud and so are you. What else you got?

His newspapers.

Then they were presumably found among his effects. Citation for that contention, please?

No one ever said they were found among his effects, but I won’t rule it out.

HSCA (353): The left-wing newspapers Oswald is holding is dated March 11 and March 24 and were mailed on March 7 and March 21, respectively, both by second-class mail. According to postal authorities, both

newspapers would have arrived in Dallas by March 28.

His rifle.

Never demonstrated. If you know otherwise, citation please?

“Never demonstrated? What the f*ck are you talking about?

His revolver.

Never demonstrated. If you know otherwise, citation please?

Again, what the f*ck are you talking about? He absolutely owned those two weapons.

Zero credible/scientific evidence of fakery.

Only for those who refuse to read anything other than the Warren Report. In point of fact, the only Forum member who regularly shows up with "zero evidence" is the same one who smears other Forum members while refusing to offer any basis.

Warren and HSCA. You’re 0 for 2.

End of story.

Clearly that is your wish, dear boy. But if it were so, why are we still here 42-plus years later?

Because you’re a pathetic loser who has no life outside of this forum?

You cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube, PR boy, no matter how hard you try.

Still hung up on my job, eh? What, praytell, do you do for a living? Rubbish collector?

And I dare say that far better men than you have laboured to do so in the past, and been found sorely wanting. If they could not do so, with logic and passion you've yet to demonstrate, by what unbridled arrogance do you think yourself capable of the task?

Yep, all those experts at the WC and HSCA were fooled by 1963 cut-and-paste technology. But not you! You’re too clever for the conspirators! Sigh.

You have offered nothing new or unique. Why are you even here? Glutton for punishment? Enjoy parading your boundless uncritical credulity for all to see? Or just perennially dateless?

This from a man who has time to post on a Friday night. I guess you struck out at the men’s bathroom and headed on home.

Credit where it's due, though: at least you didn't sign off with "case closed."

CASE CLOSED, dumbass.

Nice avatar, btw. Too ashamed to show your ugly mug?

Edited August 5, 2006 by Brendan Slattery

[David G. Healy]

Poor Jack. Still "stuck on stupid." Marina Oswald took those backyard photos. She admitted as much on Nov 23 and does so today. His head. His body. His newspapers. His rifle. His revolver. Zero credible/scientific evidence of fakery. End of story.

Hey Measley Mouth Pencil D*ck,

you sure look like Jim Plunkett - can we have your autograph?

note: I sincerley apologize to the forum for calling you a Pencil D*ck

Okay, okay, I sincerley apologize to the forum for calling you a 'measley mouth' Pencil Dick.

How about dropping the D.C. PR nonesense Slattery, nobody believes you, anymore than they believe Bill Miller, so - jump in! Lone Nutter's are alive and well around here!

[Brendan Slattery]

Poor Jack. Still "stuck on stupid." Marina Oswald took those backyard photos. She admitted as much on Nov 23 and does so today. His head. His body. His newspapers. His rifle. His revolver. Zero credible/scientific evidence of fakery. End of story.

Hey Measley Mouth Pencil D*ck,

you sure look like Jim Plunkett - can we have your autograph?

And you look like you're at death's door. I win.