Jack White Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 There is no doubt that Willis 5 is heavily retouched. Some here, however, will dispute this obvious evidence with vicious personal attacks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 There is no doubt that Willis 5 is heavily retouched.Some here, however, will dispute this obvious evidence with vicious personal attacks. Jack Jack, there have been many good researchers who have pored over the assassination photos .... have you ever wondered why you are the only one who keeps making all theses alleged finds ??? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 22, 2006 Author Share Posted August 22, 2006 When baffled, the provocateurs post non-sequitur xxxx instead of addressing the research. Why should anyone take them seriously on any subject? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 There is no doubt that Willis 5 is heavily retouched.Some here, however, will dispute this obvious evidence with vicious personal attacks. Jack Jack, What you see as the pant legs of the man in the red shirt...could it be part of the base of the streetlight? The problem with that is obvious....the lamppost is several feet away. Could these photos have been designed to divert attention away from some other, more important, details? Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 22, 2006 Author Share Posted August 22, 2006 There is no doubt that Willis 5 is heavily retouched. Some here, however, will dispute this obvious evidence with vicious personal attacks. Jack Jack, What you see as the pant legs of the man in the red shirt...could it be part of the base of the streetlight? The problem with that is obvious....the lamppost is several feet away. Could these photos have been designed to divert attention away from some other, more important, details? Chuck Thanks, Chuck. At first I thought that it was a post, it was so sharp. Then I saw it was an extension of his legs. Definitely not "photographic". Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Thanks, Chuck. At first I thought that it was a post, it was so sharp. ThenI saw it was an extension of his legs. Definitely not "photographic". Jack Well, Jack ... you're the man! After all, wasn't it you that found the Elm Street midget. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Good points Jack -- except I wouldnt' use the worthless Moorman polaroids to prove ANYTHING..... best wishes and hang in there.........because of your work on the Kennedy assassination, the Lunar Photos and the 9/11 photos you have earned the distinct honor of having disinformation agents dogging you............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 The blue box on the right supposedly shows the same section of fence in Willis 5 as in Moorman. But the box actually shows where the fence meets the overpass and that area is NOT visible in Moorman. Willis 5 shows shadow on the side of the fence just like Moorman. The same is true for the shadows on the concrete wall. Both the UPI Moorman photo and Willis 5 show the same shadows. Jack chose to use the AP version of Moorman and the tonal quality of that version is terrible. It is NOT an accurate copy of the original Polaroid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Mr. Jack - Thank God we have had your questioning viewpoints to consider over these decades as opposed to the pablum offered up by your detractors. They serve up their gruel and claim that it is both delicious and nutritious. It is neither - as any nutrition-starved patriot knows. I have also been comparing Willis #5 to Zapruder frames and am wondering about the following... thanks for blazing the trails... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 22, 2006 Author Share Posted August 22, 2006 Mr. Jack - Thank God we have had your questioning viewpoints to consider over these decades as opposed to the pablum offered up by your detractors. They serve up their gruel and claim that it is both delicious and nutritious. It is neither - as any nutrition-starved patriot knows. I have also been comparing Willis #5 to Zapruder frames and am wondering about the following... thanks for blazing the trails... Excellent observations, JL. I will look into them! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kennedy White Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Mr. Jack - Thank God we have had your questioning viewpoints to consider over these decades as opposed to the pablum offered up by your detractors. They serve up their gruel and claim that it is both delicious and nutritious. It is neither - as any nutrition-starved patriot knows. I have also been comparing Willis #5 to Zapruder frames and am wondering about the following... thanks for blazing the trails... Excellent observations, JL. I will look into them! Jack Speaking of Willis... Jack, have you or any of the other photo gurus done a detailed study of Black Dog Man with today's technology? Given what came out of the tiny Moorman photo (Badgeman) I would guess more detail is resident in Willis... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 23, 2006 Author Share Posted August 23, 2006 Mr. Jack - Thank God we have had your questioning viewpoints to consider over these decades as opposed to the pablum offered up by your detractors. They serve up their gruel and claim that it is both delicious and nutritious. It is neither - as any nutrition-starved patriot knows. I have also been comparing Willis #5 to Zapruder frames and am wondering about the following... thanks for blazing the trails... Excellent observations, JL. I will look into them! Jack Speaking of Willis... Jack, have you or any of the other photo gurus done a detailed study of Black Dog Man with today's technology? Given what came out of the tiny Moorman photo (Badgeman) I would guess more detail is resident in Willis... Hi, John White. My late father John White would have been 112 years old next week were he still here. I have studied the blackdogman for more than 30 years. No good image exists of "him". "He" appears only in Willis5 and Betzner. I have concluded that he probably did not exist at all, but was added by retouching. I base that mostly on the Moorman image. Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kennedy White Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Mr. Jack - Thank God we have had your questioning viewpoints to consider over these decades as opposed to the pablum offered up by your detractors. They serve up their gruel and claim that it is both delicious and nutritious. It is neither - as any nutrition-starved patriot knows. I have also been comparing Willis #5 to Zapruder frames and am wondering about the following... thanks for blazing the trails... Excellent observations, JL. I will look into them! Jack Speaking of Willis... Jack, have you or any of the other photo gurus done a detailed study of Black Dog Man with today's technology? Given what came out of the tiny Moorman photo (Badgeman) I would guess more detail is resident in Willis... Hi, John White. My late father John White would have been 112 years old next week were he still here. I have studied the blackdogman for more than 30 years. No good image exists of "him". "He" appears only in Willis5 and Betzner. I have concluded that he probably did not exist at all, but was added by retouching. I base that mostly on the Moorman image. Thanks. Jack Fair enough... Is it possible that the Dog Man does not appear in Moorman because of the angle and the dark background? Or, that "he" was a "round 1" shooter only and began his exit after the throat shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Jack What exactly would be the point of altering details of blurry photos like these? What do you think was “covered up” by these alterations? What would the point be of deleting “the third man” from this photo? Don’t you think that all these supposed alteration you see are really just the result of the poor resolution of these images. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now