Donald Diabo Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 (edited) I am fed up with reading about certain persons opinion. Mind you,that is all it is, their opinion. Is this a forum for discussion or not???? We, as free people have the right to question our leaders. Or one another. But this forum section is dedicated to the J.F.K. assassination. Therefore, we, who participate in such, will do so. If you just want to be here and post crap and attempt to belittle people, please do not!! Go to the "Warren Commision" believers forum. Thus sparing all of us your communist propaganda. Go ahead and spout your dung. just as long as you leave and we don't have to read your crap. It's not about closing one's mind... It's about the murder of John F. Kennedy. While i'm at it, Bush is an idiot. My opinion, but also a world wide known fact. Edited September 2, 2006 by Donald Diabo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Come on,"Miller", get it in writing. Alleged phone callsare only hearsay. Whose birthday were your celebrating? When? Where? Why would Robert bother with you since you took over as a shill for Deb? He hates her and anyone who fronts for her. Once when I had two invitations to be on the JFK programs, I chose Lancer instead of COPA, and a friend of Robert's said I was a traitor for not supporting COPA, where he was the main attraction. I picked COPA merely because it would have about 300 in attendance and COPA only about 50. You are incapable of truth. Jack It was on Robert's Birthday - 11/22 - we ate at this Asian place in Dallas that Robert likes to frequent. You know, Jack ... you can call Robert at any moment and confirm what I have said or is it better for you not to check the facts beforehand??? I also know that Gary Mack has notified you that he and Robert have had those same discussions concerning your alteration claims and that Gary has heard the same things come from Robert's own mouth. And don't wory about Copa or Lancer ... they are not inviting you back any time soon to talk about alteration. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Diabo Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Dear Bill and B.S., Have they ever invited either of you to attend ? Or did you buy a ticket just to insult everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Dear Bill and B.S., Have they ever invited either of you to attend ?Or did you buy a ticket just to insult everyone? Show us your face and then I'll give you the time of day. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Diabo Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Dear bill. It's in the works. Be patient. there you go sidetracking, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 2, 2006 Author Share Posted September 2, 2006 Because of "Miller's" lies about Robert Groden, I emailed Robert tonight. Here is part of his reply: "> He alleges you said the following: > > ..."he (GRODEN) says that Jack is not a photo expert and is one of the worst > people he has > seen at photo interpretation." > > Is the above quote accurate? > > No. I did not say that. " What followed was an amicable personal discussion. Plus, he added that "he had heard THAT I HAD BEEN SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT HIM". Hmmmmmm. I wonder who told him THAT LIE? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 (edited) Dear bill. It's in the works. Be patient.there you go sidetracking, again. Donald - I think you were talking to someone else. Bill Miller Edited September 2, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 (edited) Because of "Miller's" lies about Robert Groden, I emailed Robert tonight. Here is part of his reply: "> He alleges you said the following: > > ..."he (GRODEN) says that Jack is not a photo expert and is one of the worst > people he has > seen at photo interpretation." > > Is the above quote accurate? > > No. I did not say that. " What followed was an amicable personal discussion. Plus, he added that "he had heard THAT I HAD BEEN SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT HIM". Hmmmmmm. I wonder who told him THAT LIE? Jack Jack, Your reputation and legacy is fine - don't let these bastards bother you....best to [if you can] ignore them as they are as meanspirited as they are out, in the end, to denegrade the best of your work - while 'posing' as critical of the lesser of it. Character assassins only.......snipers from their internet lairs. OH Peter, I see you are a member of the LOON squad. Jacks works have been shown TIME AND TIME again with COLD HARD FACT to be nothing more than ignorant ramblings. So for you to say that his legacy is intact can only mean one thing...his legacy of photographic disinformation and downright falsehoods IS intact. You are among the most ignorant of the bunch of LOONS ( Shanet is a very close second) when it comes to the photography of JFK. Your stupidity allows you to wallow in the gross incompentence of Jack White and somehow (maybe due to the lack of functioning brain cells) tag along with the disimformation, calling it truth. You too it seems are incabable of truth. (big suprise) I am fed up with reading about certain persons opinion. Mind you,that is all it is, their opinion.Is this a forum for discussion or not???? We, as free people have the right to question our leaders. Or one another. But this forum section is dedicated to the J.F.K. assassination. Therefore, we, who participate in such, will do so. If you just want to be here and post crap and attempt to belittle people, please do not!! Go to the "Warren Commision" believers forum. Thus sparing all of us your communist propaganda. Go ahead and spout your dung. just as long as you leave and we don't have to read your crap. It's not about closing one's mind... It's about the murder of John F. Kennedy. While i'm at it, Bush is an idiot. My opinion, but also a world wide known fact. WOW! I'm thinking YOU just might get to go right to the head of the LOON class! Keep up the good work there donnie.... Edited September 2, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 (edited) OH Peter, I see you are a member of the LOON squad. Jacks works have been shown TIME AND TIME again with COLD HARD FACT to be nothing more than ignorant ramblings. So for you to say that his legacy is intact can only mean one thing...his legacy of photographic disinformation and downright falsehoods IS intact. You notice that Peter will say such things, but had nothing to say about post 64 which dealt with the evidence. Bill Miller Because of "Miller's" lies about Robert Groden, I emailed Robert tonight. Here is part of his reply: "> He alleges you said the following: > > ..."he (GRODEN) says that Jack is not a photo expert and is one of the worst > people he has > seen at photo interpretation." > > Is the above quote accurate? > > No. I did not say that. " What followed was an amicable personal discussion. Plus, he added that "he had heard THAT I HAD BEEN SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT HIM". Hmmmmmm. I wonder who told him THAT LIE? Jack I am not going to play your game, Jack. Gary Mack has told you that Robert has said the same things to him as I said on this forum. If Robert denys saying such things to you, then shame on Robert. However, I will wait to hear what Robert says in his defense because I know how you like to edit peoples remarks to fit your purpose. In the meantime, this is what I said to Robert upon reading the nonsense that you posted .... the images are not attached. Robert, I am troubled by some of the things Jack White has recently posted on the JFK forums concerning our discussions pertaining to Jack's photo and film alteration claims. Let me share with you the latest remarks by Jack concerning you and I's discussions .... "Because of "Miller's" lies about Robert Groden, I emailed Robert tonight. Here is part of his reply: "> He alleges you said the following: > > ..."he (GRODEN) says that Jack is not a photo expert and is one of the worst > people he has > seen at photo interpretation." > > Is the above quote accurate? > > No. I did not say that. " Robert, not 12 hours ago we had discussed Jack's photo interpretation skills pertaining to his alteration claims. We both acknowledged that Jack had done some good work in the past pertaining to the backyard photographs of Oswald and the Badge Man work that he and Gary Mack had done. However, at the same time we both agreed that Jack's more recent work pertaining to Zfilm alteration was crap! We agreed that Jack's interpretation of the photographical record and how it applied to Zfilm alteration was some of the worst we had seen. You went as far as to say that you felt Jack's ability to do such work went south after his attack some years back. Now I don't like putting you on the spot, but I don't like you sharing your opinions with me only to then deny them to others. This isn't about Jack being a good guy or bad guy, but rather about the accuracy of the alteration claims he has made. Below are excerpts from post I made on the JFK education forum ... "These alterationist know so little about the subject they are pretending to understand that they say things that are really absurd. Healy tells people to read Costella's web page. On that very web page, Costella finds it suspicious that the Life Magazine's prints are clearer than the MPI version of the Zapruder film. Costella fails to see that Life Magazine made prints from the camera original and MPI took photographs of the camera original's frames - ran them through a series of processes (some of which lose clarity/sharpness) - and then transferred the images onto film made for research purposes. Now in a court of Law, which picture would you find more reliable - a 1st generation photo or a third generation photo that has been filtered down? Groden becomes so disgusted at these guys because they have not bothered to learn the subject well enough to discuss it intelligently. Look at the colors seen on the Life print and compare them to the same colors on the MPI version ... this is just one aspect of determining whether one is looking at copies that are generations away from the original. The differences are so noticeable that one doesn't need to be an expert to see them with your own eyes even if you didn't know the causes for them - that's where people like Groden or Zavada come into play ... they know the "why's". You should do a search and go back and read the responses Healy gave and when you do - you will trust Groden's opinions even more. Bill Miller" Robert, you may recall our discussion concerning the magnification of the RR car in the Nix film. Here are some post that we discussed. Jack writes .... Robert, you and I discussed Jack's inability to understand perspective and angles pertaining to the assassination images. We agreed that Jack is terrible at these things and the above illustrations of Jack's prove the point. What follows are some replies back and forth that Jack and I had ... "Jack, this has been addressed many times to you. Can't you see the shelter is rotated between photos, thus the fields of view from the two photographers location would be different from one another. Did you never think to check this out during the many times that you have visited the plaza? Remember - you are supposed to be a master at understanding perspective. Bill Miller" Jack posted: "The reason for the train looking so large in one camera compared to another is a type of foreshortening effect even though that is probably not the correct term to use. The camera lens magnifies the more distant objects and this is why in the Nix film for instance ... the train looks to be parked right behind the fence despite it actually being across the RR yard. Bill Miller" Robert, here is what Jack specifically said about the information you had given me .... "Miller's photographic knowledge is abyssmal. A CAMERA LENS DOES NOT MAGNIFY MORE DISTANT OBJECTS". A lens captures the scene it sees. It does not magnify anything more than anything else. According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of an image. Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars or a telescope. It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends to know photography. Jack" ___________________________ "Alfred Hitchcock used the foreshortening effect in many of his movies. In vertigo when Jimmy Stewart was having a vertigo attack - Jimmy stayed the same size while the background was growing larger - that is one example of something that you just said does not exist. The "Foreshortening effect" can be researched on the Internet by doing a simple google search. "Images taken with long telephoto lenses exhibit a characteristic perspective distortion known as compression of space. Objects that are actually far apart appear unusually close together, and observed texture gradients and optic flows impart a distorted sense of orientation and depth." Bill Miller" ____________________________ "What "Miller" describes is known as SFX or special effects. But he is ignorant of such things. No known lens can stay in focus in the foreground and have the background zoom. As David Healy can instruct, Hitchcock frequently used REAR PROJECTION SCREEN backgrounds to achieve such effects. Alternately, they can be produced with matte insertions. Nowadays such effects are done with greenscreen backgrounds and computers. "Miller" needs to understand photography before he instructs senile researchers. Jack" ___________________________ Robert, you may recall the responses I cited you concerning a man who has over 40 years experience in photography. Craig Lamson said ... "Actually ANY lens can stay focused on the foreground while zooming in tighter on the background....." ___________________________ "Craig, don't try and educate Jack for he knows it all. When I read Jack's nutty response to Groden today - Robert about blew a gasket. Jack can say what he wishes ... the things I said were things that Robert Groden told me and Robert has forgotten more than Jack will ever know when it comes to photography. Jack has spent so much time with his alteration game that he has forgotten most of what he once knew about the basics concerning camera lenses and what they do. Bill Miller" ___________________________ "Lets take a look at your misinformation (or should that be DISinformation?) "According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of an image." This is only partially true and then in only one specfic instance. A lens will only crop an image, over a lens of a different focal length ONLY if the two lense are used from the exact same camera to subject distance. Period. Change the camera to subject distance between lenses and your above statement does not apply. "Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars or a telescope." Totally untrue. The size relationship between objects in the foreground and the background is dependant on both the focal length of the lens and the distance from the camera to the foreground subject and the distance from the camera to the background subject. The size between the foreground and background will not always enlarge nor reduce equally. The foreshortening effect of a telephoto lens is a prime example. "It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends to know photography." Actually Miller has it right. It is YOU who is providing the misinformation. And it seems it is YOU who is pretending to know photography. Craig" ___________________________ "Below is an example of what Jack said cannot be done. Just swap the building for the train car seen in the Nix film and you have your proof that it looks closer than it really is because of the camera lens and not because a conspirator failed to alter the photo to get past Jack's eagle eye. Bill Miller" Robert, Jack had this to say about the Hitchcock information you had shared with me ... "Hitchcock used a filming technique called a dolly zoom to achieve the "vertigo effect": "The dolly zoom is an unsettling in-camera special effect that appears to undermine normal visual perception in film. The effect is achieved by using the setting of a zoom lens to adjust the field of view while the camera dollies (or moves) towards or away from the subject in such a way as to keep the subject the same size in the frame throughout. In its classic form, the camera is pulled away from a subject whilst the lens zooms in, or vice-versa. Thus, during the zoom, there is a continuous perspective distortion, the most directly noticeable feature being that the background appears to change size relative to the subject. As the human visual system uses both size and perspective cues to judge the relative sizes of objects, seeing a perspective change without a size change is a highly unsettling effect, and the emotional impact of this effect is greater than the description above can suggest. The visual appearance for the viewer is that either the background suddenly grows in size and detail overwhelming the foreground; or the foreground becomes immense and dominates its previous setting. Which of these two apparent effects predominates depends on which way the dolly zoom occurs. The effect was invented by Irmin Roberts, a Paramount second-unit cameraman, and was famously used by Alfred Hitchcock in his film Vertigo, although it appeared earlier at the climax to his film Spellbound." Nobody in Dealey Plaza used the "dolly zoom". Jack" _______________________ "Yeh, only Jack would tell us that a camera lens cannot make objects further away look much closer to the camera than they really are ... especially when we have several assassination photos showing a train car that is clear across the RR yard looking as if it is parked just behind the fence. I then posted such a photo of a statue whereas a building that is a block away looks like it is just beyond the statue, but who cares - Jack says it cannot happen. Move over David, we now have 'Baghdad Bob Jack White' in the house! Bill Miller" _______________________ Jack posted the following pertaing to your conversation with him ... "What followed was an amicable personal discussion. Plus, he added that "he had heard THAT I HAD BEEN SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT HIM". Hmmmmmm. I wonder who told him THAT LIE? Jack" Robert, I will close by saying that Jack has been notified by Gary Mack that the same type of discussions you and I have had about Jack's alteration work are the same ones that you and he (Gary) has had. Gary acknowledges the things that I have said about your opinions concerning Jack's poor interpretation of the photographical record and how it applies to his alteration claims. I won't judge you by the little bits that Jack posted on the Education Forum today because they may not reflect the entire conversation that you and he had ... Jack does like to edit peoples remarks in an attempt to win an argument. One such instance that I recall was when Jack posted an edited clip of Jean Hill saying she was in the street, while not acknowledging that Jean was also on record as saying she had gotten back out of the street before the first shot had been fired. Jack's last remark was that I had said that he had been bad mouthing you and that is not a correct statement. Did you confuse Jack's remarks pertaining to the foreshortening effect to those remarks that I told you that David Healy had made pertaining to your knowledge of film? Jack also seems to think he was talking about my information being garbage pertaining to Kodachrome II film, the altering of such film, and the alteration of nearly every assassination photo taken ... while not knowing that what I was saying had come from information you had given me over time. So in a way, when Jack bad mouths what information I have shared pertaining to the specifics - he is basically talking about the information you had given me, so take it how ever you like because I don't believe in the 'he's my buddy so I won't say publicly that he is full of beans' mentality. If Jack wants to make it an all for me or against me issue - that is between you and he. I can appreciate your not wanting to devulge all that you have said because of the compassion you hold for Jack pertaining to the reasons you gave me for believing why he says the things he does, but nothing that has happened to Jack equals what happened to John Kennedy in front of that colonnade. Either way - I have taken a stand on not what is right for Jack White, Robert Groden, or Bill Miller, but what is right pertaining to the truth about what happened to John Kennedy. Here is a quote that you might be interested in ... I don't think that I need to explain what it implies! Jack White: "Robert and I agree on nearly everything...EXCEPT his insistence that the Z film is NOT altered. I completely understand why he cannot change his stance, since all of his previous work depends on his being "the expert" on the film." Sincerely, Bill PS: Here is one of the "double talk" examples I told you about pertaining to Jack's alteration claims .... Dawn, also keep in mind that these alteration claims are so bogus that the people making them are contradicting themselves at times. Jack has people believing that Moorman was standing in the street, while at the same time Jack is saying that Altgens 6 is genuine. Altgens 6 shows Brehm, Moorman and Hill's shadows coming from the south pasture and over the curb. If this argument was presented to you in a court of law - YOU'D HAVE A FIELD DAY! Red arrow points to Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the grass. Jack White says the Altgens photo is unaltered/genuine and yet Jack claims Moorman and Hill are in the street. I am not aware of a single person who supports alteration ever pointing this grave error out to Jack or Fetzer. If the error was pointed out, then it went into print anyway. Since that time, the error has been presented to these JFK forums and you still will see Jack trying to sell that bogus claim, as well as Healy. How much credibility would you give them in one of your court trials if they double talked like this in front of your jury??? These alterationist know so little about the subject they are pretending to understand that they say things that are really absurd. Healy tells people to read Costella's web page. On that very web page, Costella finds it suspicious that the Life Magazine's prints are clearer than the MPI version of the Zapruder film. Costella fails to see that Life Magazine made prints from the camera original and MPI took photographs of the camera original's frames - ran them through a series of processes (some of which lose clarity/sharpness) - and then transferred the images onto film made for research purposes. Now in a court of Law, which picture would you find more reliable - a 1st generation photo or a third generation photo that has been filtered down? Groden becomes so disgusted at these guys because they have not bothered to learn the subject well enough to discuss it intelligently. Look at the colors seen on the Life print and compare them to the same colors on the MPI version ... this is just one aspect of determining whether one is looking at copies that are generations away from the original. The differences are so noticeable that one doesn't need to be an expert to see them with your own eyes even if you didn't know the causes for them - that's where people like Groden or Zavada come into play ... they know the "why's". You should do a search and go back and read the responses Healy gave and when you do - you will trust Groden's opinions even more. Bill Miller Edited September 2, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 The following piece comes from: http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id74.htm While reading it, Forum members may wish to bear in mind precisely where this information originated, because much of it is the direct result of Jack White's past work. The indications of alteration that came from others can also be attributed in large part to Jack White, since it was his initial discoveries that led others to take a closer look at the Z-film and reassess what it contained. It is because Jack White has played so great a role in this aspect of the investigation that others focus their energies on attacking him. One notes that the coterie of those who assert alteration of the Z-film includes many intelligent and highly credentialled persons of scientific expertise. One wonders why the venom directed at Jack White rarely includes attacks on those esteemed persons. Is it because it is easier to mock Jack White as a senile old man than to actually refute the observations of those who hold multiple degrees and possess a lifetime's experience in such matters? [i should make it clear here that, for myself, I think the Z-film issue is secondary and has been superceded by other evidence in the case. That being said, however, Jack White has devoted a good portion of his life to plumbing this issue, and has done so in the face of unrelenting personal attacks. His is the story of a single man whose dogged pursuit of knowledge has earned him the most vile attacks from some, but the gratitude of many others. Love him or loathe him, Jack had been a lone voice for many, many years, shouting into a vacuum against all odds in the hope that his message might be heard. Now that it has been, he remains the lightning rod for abuse. When will his detractors address the issues raised by Dr. Mantik, Darryl Weatherly and all the other credentialled experts, and drop their obsessive singular focus on Jack White, as though he were a single delusional character? No time soon, apparently.] EVIDENCE OF ALTERATION IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM Michael T. Griffith 1998 @All Rights Reserved Third Edition Revised and Expanded on 4/8/98 What follows are some of the indications that the Zapruder film has been altered. By "altered" I mean that certain frames have been removed and that others are composites. Why was the film altered? To remove episodes and images that clearly showed there were more than three shots (at least one from the front) and therefore that there were multiple gunmen involved in the shooting. I have gathered most of these points from the historic new book Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out On The Death Of JFK, about which more will be said further on in this article. * Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down drastically for a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about half a second) during the time period corresponding to about frames 311-319 of the Zapruder film. This event is not seen in the Zapruder film; in fact, the limousine never comes close to performing this action in the current film. Opponents of alteration cite the virtually invisible, extremely brief slowing identified by physicist Dr. Luis Alvarez. This slowing occurs from about Z295-304, as the car decelerates from approximately 12 to 8 mph in half a second. However, in the film this event is so subtle that it is usually not noticed by viewers. No one appears to have noticed it, in fact, until Dr. Alvarez, through careful study and analysis of the film, detected it. It seems highly unlikely that this subtle, half-second slowing is what the witnesses were describing when they said the limousine came to a full stop or slowed down drastically. * However, the sudden slowing of the limousine from 12 to 8 mph in Z295-304 does present another problem for the film's authenticity. Though the slowdown is not very noticeable in the film, it represents a deceleration of about 0.37 g. Physicist Art Snyder notes that such a rapid slowing would be expected to toss things around, and he adds that most cars do not decelerate more than 0.4 g. When one examines the frames immediately after this deceleration, one sees no visible effect on the occupants from such a dramatic slowing. The fact that JFK is not moved by this deceleration is particularly interesting because he no longer had voluntary muscular control and should have been thrown forward. Yet for many frames before and after this event he appears to be quite immobile. So, assuming Dr. Alvarez's data are accurate, the sudden reduction in speed that he detected would seem to constitute further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film. Could it be that this half-second slowing is a remnant of what was originally a much longer, more noticeable deceleration? * Dr. Roderick Ryan believes he has discovered that the limousine is actually standing still in Z303 but is moving in Z302, even though the limousine appears to be moving at a nearly uniform speed in the film during this time (Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason, Rancho Santa Fe, CA: Laurel Publishing, 1997, pp. 158-159, 164-165). Notes Noel Twyman, Experience tells us that the limousine could not have decelerated from 11 miles per hour to a complete stop in 1/18 second. (Bloody Treason, p. 165) Dr. Ryan made this discovery by analyzing the blurring of background images in the two frames. Moreover, Dr. Ryan's son, who also works in motion picture film technology, studied the film and confirmed his father's discovery (Bloody Treason, p. 159). In case some might be wondering about Dr. Ryan's background, he is a retired scientist from Kodak. He holds a Ph.D. from USC, majoring in cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film technology. He is a recipient of the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He has authored numerous books on motion picture technology and several articles on motion picture science. In addition, he is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. * In Z353-356 we see Malcolm Summers diving to the ground. Summers is to the right of James Altgens. In Z353 Summers' left leg is extended most of the way out. But, in the very next frame, Z354, amazingly, the foreleg is bent markedly backward. Can anyone flex their foreleg to that degree so quickly? In 1/18th of a second? In Z355 Summers' left leg is bent even farther backward. Can anyone move their foreleg that much in 1/9th of a second (from its position in Z353 to its position in Z355)? Then, in Z356, the left foot seems to be on the ground. Can anyone whip their left foreleg backward and then put their foot on the ground in the space of three frames, 1/6th of a second? * Another seemingly impossible action in the Zapruder film is the extremely rapid and precise movement of Charles Brehm's son in Z277-287. In Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father. Then, from Z277-287, or in just over half a second, he bolts out from behind his father and comes to stand beside him, clapping his hands no less. In other words, in Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father, but, just ten frames later, he is standing calmly and steadily beside him and clapping his hands--all in a fraction over half a second. Ten frames of the Zapruder film, calculated at the assumed speed of 18.3 frames per second, equals .56 seconds (or 560 milliseconds). I attempted to duplicate the speed of the son's movement, but was unable to do so in the manner seen in the film. When I moved myself around a chair fast enough to appear from behind it to beside it in the required time, I was unable to come to a stop the way the son does in the film. In the film the son, after just over half a second, is standing calmly beside his father clapping his hands. I could not duplicate this feat. Again, when I did move myself around the chair fast enough, I could not stop with that kind of speed and precision and come to be clapping my hands by the time I stopped. While working on the present edition of this article, I conducted a simulation with my eleven year-old son, Jacob. I had Jacob stand behind a chair and asked him to duplicate the actions of Brehm's son as quickly as possible. I showed him exactly what he had to do. Jacob carried out the movements twelve times. With a stop watch in hand, I timed each attempt. Jacob's times were as follows: .97, .99, .89, .92, 1.03, .92, .89, .99, .97, .85, .82, and .77, as compared to Brehm's son's amazing time of .56. Jacob was unable to perform the required actions as rapidly as Brehm's son performs them in the Zapruder film. For his last three attempts, Jacob was practically jumping out from behind the chair. And, bear in mind, Jacob was purposely trying to move as rapidly as he could. Yet, he was unable to duplicate the feat of Brehm's son. I have pressed opponents of alteration to explain this amazing feat of Brehm's son. So far none has been able to do so. They cite the fact that Brehm's son also moves out from behind his father in the Muchmore film. However, as others have noted, the extant Muchmore film is not the original. What's more, an analysis of the Muchmore film seems to indicate that in that film the son takes about twice as long to perform the actions in question than he takes in the Zapruder film. I did a frame-by-frame analysis of the movement of Brehm's son in the Muchmore film. My conclusion is that the movement under discussion takes nearly twice as long in the Muchmore film as it does in the Zapruder film. As I've said in JFK discussion groups on the Internet, I would invite anyone to attempt to duplicate the movement of Brehm's son--to whip around an object, turning sharply in the process, stop on a dime with no need to steady himself, and clap at the same time, all in the equivalent of ten frames, or in just over half a second. To put it another way, to duplicate this movement, a person would need to be standing behind an object one moment and then come to be calmly standing and clapping beside it just 10/18th of a second later. If someone claims he or she can do this, I would invite that individual to videotape the feat and make the tape available for others to view. At this time, I am convinced this movement is impossible, and that this episode is proof of alteration in the Zapruder film. * Several witnesses said Kennedy was knocked visibly forward by a shot to the head, and Dan Rather reported seeing this event when he viewed the film the day after the shooting. No such motion of the head is now visible in the film, only the split-second forward movement from Z312-313, which no one could have noticed. Former FBI official and J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach recently provided further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film (albeit unintentionally and unknowingly, I'm sure). DeLoach recalls in his book Hoover's FBI that he watched the Zapruder film at FBI HQ the day after the shooting and that he saw Kennedy "pitching suddenly forward" in the film. No such motion, of course, is seen in the current film. Newsman James Altgens, who was standing on Elm Street, to the left front of the limousine, with an excellent view of the shooting, when asked if he saw the backward head snap, replied that he didn't see it and that he thought reports of it were based on an optical illusion. Special Agent George Hickey, riding in the follow-up car, said the final shot made Kennedy "fall forward and to his left." William Newman, who was standing on the Elm Street sidewalk right in front of the grassy knoll and who had one of the best views of the shooting, tried to tell New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison that JFK was knocked forward and to the left as if struck by a baseball bat, but Garrison wouldn't believe him because the event wasn't in the film. I believe the above is good evidence that the original Zapruder film showed Kennedy being knocked rapidly forward. How do defenders of the film's authenticity explain this testimony? They seem to have two approaches to this evidence: They either dismiss all of it as mistaken or they note that Kennedy does eventually fall forward and that this is what the witnesses were describing. Yes, Kennedy does eventually fall forward, but this occurs after the violent backward head snap and is a much slower motion, a motion that is clearly the natural result of Kennedy losing consciousness and simply falling over into his wife's lap. The witnesses, on the other hand, seemed to be saying that the impact of the head shot knocked or strongly pushed Kennedy forward, which is not seen in the current film. In the current film, Kennedy's head is knocked forward from Z312-313 by the impact of a bullet. No one disputes this. With regard to these frames, Itek noted, "the President's head is subjected to a large acceleration forward." Itek calculated that Kennedy's head is knocked forward 2.3 inches and his right shoulder about 1.1 inches from Z312-313. Bear in mind that each frame represents only 1/18th of a second. But, amazingly, by Z314 the head is suddenly moving backward. I suggest that in the original film the marked forward motion that begins at Z312 did not end at Z313 but continued for at least several frames and probably more, and that this was the forward movement seen and described by witnesses. * The violent, dramatic backward head snap in Z313-323, which for so many years was thought to be concrete proof of a shot from the front, actually constitutes further evidence of alteration. It has been established that no bullet striking the front of the skull could have caused the backward head snap. However, no bullet striking from behind could have caused this motion either. Warren Commission supporters have put forth two theories to explain how a bullet striking from behind might have caused the head snap, the jet-effect theory and the neuromuscular-reaction theory. Both theories are untenable (see, for example, ("Special Effects in the Zapruder Film: How the Film of the Century was Edited," in James Fetzer, ed., Assassination Science, Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1997, pp. 279-284; Mark North, Act Of Treason, New York: Carroll and Graf, 1991, pp. 383-385). So if neither a bullet from the front nor a bullet from behind could have caused the head snap, what caused it? A few researchers have speculated that Jackie was the cause of the head snap, that is, that she shoved JFK backward, but it is extremely doubtful that she was strong enough to throw her husband's torso backward with such terrific force. The head snap is a physical impossibility, at least according to everything we now know about physics and the human body. So how can we explain it? Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics, suggests that what we now see as the head snap was originally a much slower motion and was actually the action of Jackie lifting her husband back up to look at him. * Seemingly impossible inconsistencies occur in the streaking of background figures in relation to the camera's movement. Mathematician Daryll Weatherly's vector analysis of image streaking constitutes powerful evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film. Dr. Mantik explains, Weatherly, in an insightful analysis, takes [physicist Dr. Luis] Alvarez's work to its logical conclusion and raises new and curious issues related to image streaking. For example, between Z-193 and Z-194 the camera moves to the left. This is easily determined by simply looking at the right edge of the frame--the image shifts with respect to the frame edge, presumably as a result of uneven camera movement (i.e., poor tracking). As Alvarez noted, such a movement should produce streaking--of the background figures, the sign, and the closer bystanders. But none of this is seen--it is all quite paradoxical. Based on this, Weatherly proposes that this is a composite scene. This is a remarkably simple and powerful argument. It is difficult to avoid this conclusion. (Assassination Science, p. 315) Another case of inconsistent image streaking occurs in Z212. In this frame the posts on the Stemmons Freeway sign are noticeably blurred, but the holes in the masonry wall in the background are very well defined. "Since neither of these objects is moving," observes Dr. Mantik, "their visual definition should be similar--but it is not" (Assassination Science, p. 315). * A white spot on the grass behind the limousine is seen to behave in an unnatural manner. When the spot's width is measured in relation to the camera's tracking, the spot should be at its smallest when the image is at the left edge of the frame. But it doesn't do this. On some occasions, the spot's width is two to three times what it should be. And the frame to frame displacement of the white spot becomes especially egregious when the spot moves into the intersprocket area. Between Z334 and Z335, the displacement of the spot is 180 percent of normal. Critics of alteration note that the white spot also appears in a photo taken by Richard Bothun. This, however, does not explain the unnatural way the spot behaves in the Zapruder film. * The head turn of the driver, William Greer, from Z315-317 is too fast--it seems to be well beyond human capability. His head turns about 165 degrees in six frames, or in only 1/3rd of a second. Furthermore, attorney Mike Pincher and Roy Schaeffer argue that the Greer head turn should create blurring in the film since the human eye can't remain focused when following such a rapid movement, but no blurring is seen: If the reader flashes his hand in front of his face in approximation of one-third of a second, it appears as a blur. The eyes are incapable of staying in full focus in following this action. If Greer's 165-degree movement in one-third of a second truly depicted real time, it would likewise appear as a blur. But blurring of this nature is not seen in the Zapruder film. (Assassination Science, p. 223) * At least four witnesses saw blood and brain from Kennedy's skull blow out toward the rear of the limousine. Blood and brain splattered onto the left side of the follow-up car's windshield and onto the driver's arm. A considerable amount of blood and brain also splattered onto the two patrolmen who were riding to the limousine's left rear. At least one of those witnesses specified that the brain matter blew out from the back of the skull, and dozens of witnesses, including doctors and nurses, saw a large hole in the right rear part of President Kennedy's head. In the Zapruder film no blood or brain is seen to spray backward. (It cannot be said that the right frontal explosion of blood and brain, which is itself suspect, caused all the blood splattering. In the Zapruder film the right-frontal spray blows mainly forward, and also up and toward the camera, and quickly dissipates--in fact it dissipates in no more than three frames. This effusion of spray could not have caused all of the blood splattering that occurred.) Secret Service Special Agent Sam Kinney was the driver of the follow-up car in Kennedy's motorcade and thus had a bird's-eye view of the shooting. In interviews with Vincent Palamara between 1992 and 1994, Kinney made some interesting and important observations about what he saw and about his impressions concerning the shooting. Of particular interest are Kinney's comments about the large head wound in the President's head: He had no brain left [in the wound created by the shot]. It was blown out. . . . there was nothing left. . . . [The wound was in] the back of the head. I saw it hit and I saw his hair come out . . . . I had brain matter all over my windshield and left arm, that's how close we were to it. It was the right rear part of his head, because that's the part I saw blow out. I saw hair come out, the piece [of skull] blow out, then the skin went back in--an explosion in and out. ("The Secret Service Interviews," Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Summer 1997, p. 20, emphasis added) When Kinney was told about the description of the exit wound given by a number of the doctors who treated Kennedy at Parkland Hospital right after the shooting, he replied, I would say that, too. . . . ("The Secret Service Interviews," p. 20, emphasis added) Kinney's description of a large, blown-out right-rear exit wound matches the reports given by numerous Parkland doctors and nurses and by several witnesses at the autopsy. Also, his account of particulate matter exploding out the back of the skull and landing on his windshield and left arm agrees with Patrolman Bobby Hargis's report that the head shot sent blood and brain flying toward him so fast that when it struck him he initially thought he himself had been hit and that the debris got all over his motorcycle and uniform (in an interview he gave a few years ago, Hargis described the head shot as an "explosion"). Hargis, of course, was riding to the left rear of the limousine. * There are marked disagreements between the descriptions of those who saw the film soon after the assassination and what is now in the film. Dan Rather's reference to Kennedy's head being knocked forcefully forward is one case in point. Another example is the account of surveyor Chester Breneman, who was allowed to study enlargements of Zapruder frames to aid him in determining locations and distances. Breneman insisted that on some of the frames he saw a blob of blood and brain blow out from the back of Kennedy's head. No such event is visible on the current film. (As mentioned, some witnesses in the plaza likewise saw blood and brain blown backward.) * The bloody spray from the right-frontal explosion that is seen in the film blows upward, forward, and also toward the camera, and is really clearly visible for only one frame, and dissipates in two to three frames--or in no more than 1/6th of a second. Yet, in films of two ballistics tests the resulting spray is visible for multiple frames. In other words, the right-frontal effusion in the Zapruder film seems to disappear too quickly, with unnatural speed. * The 12/5/63 Secret Service survey placed the shots at approximately Z208, Z276, and Z358. A head shot at Z358 corresponds with the accounts of Emmett Hudson and James Altgens. Additionally, CE 2111, a Secret Service report, identifies the manhole cover on the side of Elm Street as being located almost opposite the limousine at the time of the last shot--the manhole cover is some 70 feet beyond the spot on the street that corresponds to Z313, which is when the head shot occurs in the current film. (There are several indications that there were TWO head shots. Dr. Mantik opines the first head shot occurred at around Z306-313 and that another one followed a short time later. He believes the current rapid backward head snap that starts at Z313 was originally a much slower motion and, as mentioned, might very well have been the action of Jackie lifting her husband back up to look at him.) * There is a "remarkably symmetric" plus sign at the center of Elm Street in Z028 (Z28). This might have been used as a register mark for aligning the film when it was being copied by those who altered the film. * There are magnification anomalies in the film for which there appears to be no credible natural or innocent explanation. One clear example of this is the measured width between the two posts on the back side of the Stemmons Freeway sign from Z312-318. This distance increases by over 12 percent in only six frames. Yet, from Z191-207 the interval remains constant. Some might attempt to explain this anomaly by suggesting that the lens was nonlinear for objects so far off the central axis. But, even if this were the case, it would still be unusual for such inconsistent changes to occur so abruptly within the lens, and lens aberrations do not normally occur in such an erratic fashion anyway. * Abraham Zapruder told CBS News that he began filming as soon as the President's limousine turned onto Elm Street from Houston Street, as one would logically expect him to have done. But the present Zapruder film begins with the limousine already on Elm Street at Z133. On the day after the assassination, Dan Rather of CBS News watched what was quite possibly an earlier version of the film. Rather reported that in the film he watched that day the limousine "made a turn, a left turn, off Houston Street onto Elm Street." Again, no such event is now seen in the film. In the current film there is a long gap between the earlier motorcycles and the limousine's first appearance at Z133. Why would Zapruder have expended valuable film on the motorcycles but not have taken as much footage as he could of the limousine? Why did he report he had filmed the limousine when it turned onto Elm Street? And what of the left turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street that Rather observed in the film when he viewed it the day after the shooting? Before I conclude, I would like to address two questions that have been raised by those who deny alteration: Why would the forgers, who were presumably trying to conceal or remove evidence of multiple gunmen and of shots from the front, produce an altered film that included the rapid backward head snap seen in the current film? And, why would the forgers have produced a film that contained indications of more than three shots? My answer to both of these objections is twofold: One, they do not explain the evidence of alteration. If there is scientific proof of alteration, then these philosophical objections must be rejected. Two, I do not believe the forgers were at all satisfied with the results of their tampering. I think they had to create the backward head snap because they had to remove images that were even more unacceptable and problematic. We must keep in mind that the Zapruder film was suppressed from public view for over a decade. In short, I believe the forgers concluded that even after all of their editing the film was still unacceptable, and that this is why the film was suppressed for so long. I stress that this list contains only some of the indications of fakery in the Zapruder film. I would urge the reader to read the chapters on the signs of alteration in the Zapruder film in the new book Assassination Science, edited by Professor James Fetzer of the University of Minnesota. Concerning the evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered, Dr. Mantik says the following: A strong case can now be made for extensive editing of the Zapruder film. In fact, the conclusion seems inescapable--the film was deliberately altered. No other explanation is in the same league, in terms of explanatory power, for the myriad of anomalous characteristics that are seen everywhere in this case. Many frames were excised, some individual frames were extensively altered, others were changed only enough to fill in for missing frames, and others were left alone. . . . What can be made of the absurd paradoxes of (supposed) camera tracking errors that are totally inconsistent with what actually appears in the relevant frame? When the frame contents shift by enormous amounts, corresponding blurs must be seen. There is no cinematic magic that can avoid such realities. And what can be said about intersprocket magnifications that are grossly different in two frames, particularly when tracking nonsense surfaces in the same frames? And now, thanks to Noel Twyman, we have the image of The Soaring Bird and of The Black Hole. These could have provided precisely the kind of reference points for pin registration that would be essential for frame to frame editing. Why else are these images there? They do recur persistently throughout the film. And when they are absent, where do they go--unless someone has deliberately omitted them? And where exactly did the intersprocket image of the right motorcycle come from? And why is it never visible in the central image? Why does the intersprocket image of the motorcycle skip around? Why is the intersprocket image darker after about Z235? Why do so many odd features occur within the intersprocket area? Why is the intersprocket image missing in frames Z413 and 414? And so the questions come, one after another, like automatic rifle fire. How much more evidence is required before reason prevails? At the very least, the proposal of film alteration deserves extensive consideration and serious discussion--even among those who are still inclined to be doubters. For these individuals, there is now much to explain. It is time for them to put on their ten-league boots and begin climbing this small mountain of data. (Assassination Science, p. 340) If you have not read Assassination Science, I would urge you to do so. It is quite possibly the most important book ever published on the death of President Kennedy. It is certainly among the best ever written on the case. It truly represents a breakthrough in the case. Noel Twyman's book Bloody Treason also presents evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film, along with other important developments relating to the assassination. Even if some of the apparent technical anomalies in the Zapruder film can be explained, strong indications of tampering would still remain. To put it another way, if opponents of alteration are able to explain the absence of background streaking in certain frames, the magnification anomalies, the odd behavior of the white spot, and other seeming difficulties, would this establish the film's authenticity? No. Otherwise, do we dismiss the witnesses who reported the limousine stopped or slowed drastically? Do we dismiss the witnesses who saw blood and brain blown visibly to the rear? Do we dismiss the fact that the backward head snap is physically impossible according to everything we know about physics and the human body? Do we dismiss the fact that Zapruder said he filmed the motorcade from the time it turned onto Elm Street? Do we dismiss the fact that Brehm's son is positioned behind his father one moment but half a second later is standing calmly clapping at his side? Do we dismiss the fact that the 12/5/63 Secret Service survey placed the last shot at Z358 and that this placement matches the testimony of Emmett Hudson and James Altgens regarding the explosive head shot? The numerous indications of alteration in the Zapruder film naturally raise some disturbing questions. The answer to the question of why the film was altered is fairly apparent--to conceal obvious evidence of a frontal shot, of multiple gunmen, and of more than three hits. But, who performed the alteration? Whoever they were, they were very well connected (so as to gain access to the film) and had at their disposal considerable technical expertise. It would seem self-evident that those who altered the Zapruder film were either working with or following orders from the men who were responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy. Though it has been 34 years since the shooting, a special prosecutor or a Congressional committee should be appointed to investigate this matter. A declassified CIA document indicates the Zapruder film was detoured to a sophisticated CIA photographic lab relatively soon after the assassination, and quite possibly on the night of the shooting. Professor Phillip Melanson has discussed this declassified document and what it reveals about the handling of the film in his famous article "Hidden Exposure: Cover-Up and Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film" in The Third Decade, November 1984. A summary of the main points of Melanson's findings is included in Assassination Science. Though many researchers have long suspected the Zapruder film was altered at the CIA, there is some indication that at least part of the alteration might have been done at the FBI. ----------------------------------------------------------- ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Excelsior College in Albany, New York, and two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force. He is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, in Arabic and Hebrew, and has completed advanced Hebrew programs at Haifa University in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. He is also a two-time graduate of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas, and holds an Occupational Instructor Certificate from the Community College of the Air Force. He is the author of the book Compelling Evidence: A New Look at the Assassination of President Kennedy (Grand Prairie, TX: JFK-Lancer Productions and Publications, 1996). His articles on the assassination have appeared in several journals that deal with the case. In addition, he is the author of four books on Mormonism and ancient texts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 (edited) No one attacks Jack - they attack the claims he makes. Here is an example of how a lack of forethought can lead to a bad conclusion IMO ... "Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down drastically for a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about half a second) during the time period corresponding to about frames 311-319 of the Zapruder film. This event is not seen in the Zapruder film; in fact, the limousine never comes close to performing this action in the current film." Which is the case - the limo stopped for a few seconds or it slowed down - it cannot be both ways! I am unaware of the brake lights coming on in the Muchmore film, not that it could not have happened. I recall the sunlight making the drivers rear tail light cover being illuminated, but I do not recall seeing the other tail light in shadow being lit. But lets assume the rear lights were lit - the limo doesn't have to stop for this to happen. All one needs to do is apply slight pressure to the brake pedal to make the tail lights come on. Bill Miller Edited September 2, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 No one attacks Jack - they attack the claims he makes. No one attacks Jack? Are you sure about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 2, 2006 Author Share Posted September 2, 2006 (edited) If I may...People debate Jack White so often because his theories and methodology go to the heart of the actual JFK assassination debate. Did LHO do it? Were there conspirators? Was someone shooting from the Knoll? All we have to help determine the truth is the evidence. Photo, film, eyewitness and surrounding events. Some people focus on the CIA, anti-Castro groups, etc. Some people focus on eyewitness testimony. But most people, IMO, center on the Zapruder film. Jack has made the Zapruder film the focus of his work. His theories are controversial. Therefore they attract the lion's share of attention. When Jack offers a theory, people seem to have one of several reactions: 1. Hmm...interesting. 2. Gee, I never thought of that. 3. Wait a minute, I don't think that's true. 4. Oh man, there he goes again. Because Jack has been at the center of the civilian investigation for so long, his theories garner a lot of attention. Along with that comes responsibility. I believe that if his theories are proven wrong - or even if a plausible explanation for his theory is offered - he has a responsibility to respond publicly to the assertion without accusing anyone of being a provocateur. I also believe that if his theories are shown to be correct - or difficult or impossible to *disprove* this should be publicly acknowledged. My bottom line: there will always be pro and anti Jack people within this community. So in the interest of focusing on the real goal, I would suggest that we acknowledge this, set it aside, and simply focus on the evidence without descending into venom. Mark....thanks! What a reasonable statement! What a revolutionary thought...disagree without making a personal attack! Indeed novel in this venue. However, I would correct a couple of points: 1. Study my work; you will find that I almost never engage in THEORIES. I simply do studies and present my findings. I leave it to the reader to decide. However, I do sometimes present CONCLUSIONS. These are opinions based on thorough study of the facts. For instance, after studying every facet of the JFK case since 1963, I conclude that early theories were correct...Lyndon Johnson was among the chief conspirators, based on available evidence. 2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT. I am not perfect by any means and study only the facts AVAILABLE AT THE TIME; sometimes new facts emerge which lead studies in other directions. Reasonable people looking at my studies will usually understand the facts I present. People that do not comprehend rely on untrue PERSONAL ATTACKS instead. 3. The Zapruder film is NOT THE FOCUS OF MY WORK, only the LATEST. For years I gave lectures on the entire gamut of JFK information using more than 500 slides; my specialties until the last few years are The Backyard Photos, The MC Rifle and Bullets, The Identity of LHO, and All the Photos of the Assassination. In the last few years, with the ready availability of all the frames, I concentrated on studying the Z film and compararing it to other facts and photos before CONCLUDING that it was a HOAX. This is not a theory, but a firm conclusion based on the evidence. Thanks again. Good thinking. Jack Edited September 2, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eagerthan anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT. I am not perfect by any means and study only the facts AVAILABLE AT THE TIME; sometimes new facts emerge which lead studies in other directions. Reasonable people looking at my studies will usually understand the facts I present. People that do not comprehend rely on untrue PERSONAL ATTACKS instead. OK, Jack ... was Moorman in the street or is Altgens 6 genuine ???? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 The Zapruder film is NOT THE FOCUS OF MY WORK, only the LATEST. For yearsI gave lectures on the entire gamut of JFK information using more than 500 slides; my specialties until the last few years are The Backyard Photos, The MC Rifle and Bullets, The Identity of LHO, and All the Photos of the Assassination. Jack White has repeatedly demonstrated knowledge about events surrounding President Kennedy's murder that borders on the encyclopedic. He is one of the few researchers left that have been there from the beginning, fighting for the truth. His familiarity with others' research extends far beyond just the photographic evidence, even though that is his area of specialty. In addition, Jack has spent his life in the DFW area, which has helped give him certain unique insights into the case. The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion. I agree with Robert Charles-Dunne when he said, ...."the Z-film issue is secondary and has been superceded by other evidence in the case." As usual, Robert quickly gets to the heart of a matter. A few weeks ago, Jack was going to give his thoughts on Donald Norton. I suspect he got sidetracked. 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