Jack White Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 (edited) I think that technicians at MIT analyzed the shape and said that "it took some imagination" to render it into a human figure. Mr. Thirdeye...you are clearly wrong. It was Gary Mack and I who took the image to MIT for analysis. Their reaction was THE OPPOSITE of what you say. I was there. What I say cannot be disputed on this. Jack White Edited June 28, 2004 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kerrigan Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Then why does NOVA report otherwise? "In 1976, yet another shape materialized from the shadows in a Moorman blowup in Robert Groden's book JFK: The Case for Conspiracy. From the same image, Texas researchers Gary Mack and Jack White presented a shape they called "Badgeman" in the 1988 documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." That same year, at NOVA's request, technicians at MIT analyzed the shape, concluding it "took some imagination" to render it into a human figure. " http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ3.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 (edited) Then why does NOVA report otherwise?"In 1976, yet another shape materialized from the shadows in a Moorman blowup in Robert Groden's book JFK: The Case for Conspiracy. From the same image, Texas researchers Gary Mack and Jack White presented a shape they called "Badgeman" in the 1988 documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." That same year, at NOVA's request, technicians at MIT analyzed the shape, concluding it "took some imagination" to render it into a human figure. " http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ3.htm Mr. Thirdeye...quoting McAdams is akin to quoting Posner...meaningless. The NOVA show was a fraud. And as I recall, McAdams has the facts wrong as usual, though my memory is hazy. I would have to check my NOVA tape. As I recall, it was POLAROID which was involved in the analysis of the image, NOT MIT, and the work was done by two employees "off the record" without authorization from the company, though NOVA implied it was done by Polaroid itself. The employees got fired. You will not win friends among real researchers by quoting the CIA's propaganda website. Among other McAdams errors. Mack and I discovered the Badgeman image in 1982, not 1988, and it was not from a Groden book, but from a high quality slide. Jack White Edited June 28, 2004 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Are you still friends with Gary Mack or have you grown apart in your beliefs? Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Are you still friends with Gary Mack or have you grown apart in your beliefs?Wim Gary was "turned around" by "researcher" Dave Perry around 1990. As a result, he was able to become "Curator" of The Sixth Floor Museum, a high-paying job backed by the "establishment" promoting the "official story" of the assassination. However, he still claims to believe in the Acoustics Study and Badgeman...his two claims to fame. As a result of his turnaround, he broke off all contact with me...a friend of 15 years. Gary and Dave are now Posnerites. Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 ANSWER: INCOMPETENCE AND LACK OF TIME. THESE THINGS WERE NOT DONE ON PURPOSE FOR ANY REASON...BUT BECAUSE SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE QUICKLY. THEY PUT HILL AND MOORMAN ON THE GRASS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE IN THE STREET. Hi Jack. Here's my own theory, and I believe it complements your own: First efforts stage efforts were made to seize all photographic evidence, including film. Then certain seized photos were altered to remove anyone that appeared to be filming or taking pictures. So, it's all a question of poor communication and timing. Once it was discovered that Zapruder was too well publicized to have been 'removed,' they had to put him back. Hence your 'waltz.' This logic applies elsewhere. It would be interesting to develop this line of reasoning according to 'when' certain pictures were released, as compared to 'when' they became highly publicized. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 (edited) Are you still friends with Gary Mack or have you grown apart in your beliefs?Wim Gary was "turned around" by "researcher" Dave Perry around 1990. As a result, he was able to become "Curator" of The Sixth Floor Museum, a high-paying job backed by the "establishment" promoting the "official story" of the assassination. However, he still claims to believe in the Acoustics Study and Badgeman...his two claims to fame. As a result of his turnaround, he broke off all contact with me...a friend of 15 years. Gary and Dave are now Posnerites. Jack White Hey Jack, maybe we should emphasize the points where we agree and agree to disagree where we do not! Another researcher already told me that Perry was running Mack, while I thought it was the other way around. Good to see it confirmed. Oh well, I can be wrong too I guess. Wim Edited June 28, 2004 by dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 (edited) Are you still friends with Gary Mack or have you grown apart in your beliefs?Wim Gary was "turned around" by "researcher" Dave Perry around 1990. As a result, he was able to become "Curator" of The Sixth Floor Museum, a high-paying job backed by the "establishment" promoting the "official story" of the assassination. However, he still claims to believe in the Acoustics Study and Badgeman...his two claims to fame. As a result of his turnaround, he broke off all contact with me...a friend of 15 years. Gary and Dave are now Posnerites. Jack White Hey Jack, maybe we should emphasize the points where we agree and agree to disagree where we do not! Hey, Wim...It makes no difference to me who agrees with me and who does not. I do all my homework and turn in my papers to be graded. Most readers grade my work A+. Some are not qualified to judge. Some have pecuniary agendas such as Holt, Files and Baker. Some are provocateurs. I am not always right, but I will settle for 90%. I cannot be concerned about who agrees and who does not agree. My research stands on its on. If I am wrong, I will admit it. My most recent admission of error was that I always had considered the Moorman Polaroid was GENUINE. I now recognize that it has been tampered with. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I only worry about the harm they do spreading false beliefs. Jack White Edited June 29, 2004 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Some have pecuniary agendas such as Holt, Files and Baker. Now why don't you explain their pecunaiary agendas, Jack? Specifically for Mrs Baker? Can you show us the bank accounts that any of these people fattened with their testimonies? I don't mind people disagreeing with me. Yes, you do, Jack, because 1) you get vicious with people who get in your way, accusing them of fantasizing, specifically if they get in the way of theories you have worked on most of your life, and 2) you have a vested interest, either financially or emotionally, in some false theories, like Harvey and Lee and two Marguerites, to name just one. There were no two Oswalds, not to speak of two Marguerites. Judyth clarifies that, she got in your way. Hunt and Sturgis have always been two of the tramps to you. Holt got in your way. I am sorry I am not impressed with A plusses. Ford, Specter, Nixon, Bush and friends get A plusses too. They are still lying! I can give you this though: the difference is that they know it and you probably don't. You have just been taken in on some stories. As for your 90%, I'd tone it down to 50%, which is still not bad. See that as a positive. Anyway, I don't mind disagreeing either, as long as we keep discussing the facts and the evidence. I only worry about the harm they do spreading false beliefs. Well, there's another emotion we share! Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 I believe that the two commissions that have looked at these photographs have declared them to be genuine. I believe Marina Oswald confessed to taking them and as far as I can see, has never withdrawn this statement.Can you explain why you think they are fakes? I am particularly interested in the technical reason for this (rather than the political reasons that I have given. Robert Groden says that Marina claimed to have taken one photo of Lee in the Back Yard and she was facing the alley. Debra Conway of Lancer.com has spoken to Marina personally and can probably offer you some insight as to what she really claims to have done or not done concerning the Back Yard photos. conwayd@jfklancer.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 My most recent admission of error was that I always had considered the Moorman Polaroid was GENUINE. I now recognize that it has been tampered with.Jack White That would be interesting. Would you please elaborate? Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 (edited) Rather than specific questions be put to Mr. White concerning the "Hoax" book he took part in, maybe he would like to bring up any one of the claims he made concerning the photographical record of the assassination being faked and I'll as gently as I can tell him how he misread the photograph or film frame in my opinion. I have viewed the critiques of Mr. White's work concerning the 'Great Zapruder Hoax' and they seemed to be quite easy for anyone to follow and understand well enough that I believe I can relay their message fairly easily. For instance, Jack White mentions there being "missing people" from the Zapruder film in Z369. These are people that the Hoax book shows on the south pasture between Orville Nix's filming location along Main Street and the Franzen's who stood along the curb on Elm Street. Jack obviously misread the angle at which they should have been seen in the Zapruder film for these missing people to be found in Z369 as they are seen in the Nix film, Zapruder would have to be looking back the other way towards Nix at the same moment in time. When Orville Nix has his camera pointed directly at Abraham Zapruder we see Toni Foster and the limo between the two cameras. The Frazen's, nor the missing couple are anywhere along this line of sight in Nix frame 23 just as Zapruder is nowhere to be seen in the Nix frame Mr. White uses to show this missing couple. Thus the angle from Orville Nix to 'the missing people' and the angle from Zapruder to 'the missing people' were totally different and means that the couple that Mr. White claimed to be missing in the Zapruder film at frame 369 should not have been seen at that point in time. Mr. White's observation was in error and did not prove that the Zapruder film had been altered. If one simply looks above James Altgens in Z345, they will see this missing couple from their waist down to their shoes. Edited July 2, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Rather than specific questions be put to Mr. White concerning the "Hoax" book he took part in, maybe he would like to bring up any one of the claims he made concerning the photographical record of the assassination being faked and I'll as gently as I can tell him how he misread the photograph or film frame in my opinion. I have viewed the critiques of Mr. White's work concerning the 'Great Zapruder Hoax' and they seemed to be easy enough for anyone to follow and understand that I believe I can relay their message fairly easily. For instance, Jack White mentions there being "missing people" from the Zapruder film in Z369. These are people that the Hoax book shows between Orville Nix and the Franzen's. Jack obviously misread the angle at which they should have been seen in the Zapruder film for these missing people to be seen in Z369 as they are seen in the Nix film, then Zapruder would have to be looking back the other way towards Nix at the same moment in time. When Orville Nix has his camera pointed directly at Abraham Zapruder we see Toni Foster and the limo between the two cameras. The Frazen's, nor the missing couple are anywhere along this line of sight in Nix frame 23 just as Zapruder is nowhere to be seen in the Nix frame Mr. White uses to show this missing couple. If one simply looks above James Altgens in Z345, they will see this missing couple from the waist down to their shoes. The photographical record was simple misread by Mr. White. Mr. Peters...I have read your comments, but they do not seem to be a question for me. Do you have a question? I assume your statements are that I have misread what is shown in Nix in comparison to Zapruder. I remind you of my stated position: 1. The Zapruder film is faked or tampered with. 2. The Nix film is tampered with. 3. Saying I have erred because of WHAT THEY SHOW is meaningless if the films have been tampered with. You make the mistake of considering one or both GENUINE. The things I point out in TGZFH result from some of the tampering, so one film cannot be used to verify the other. I believe I have put in a great deal more time studying these films in great detail than most have. Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 My most recent admission of error was that I always had considered the Moorman Polaroid was GENUINE. I now recognize that it has been tampered with.Jack White That would be interesting. Would you please elaborate? Wim I refer you pages 254-257 in TGZFH for a full explanation. Don't have the book? Get it. Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 My most recent admission of error was that I always had considered the Moorman Polaroid was GENUINE. I now recognize that it has been tampered with.Jack White That would be interesting. Would you please elaborate? Wim I refer you pages 254-257 in TGZFH for a full explanation. Don't have the book? Get it. Jack White Here is the relevant illustration showing why the Moorman Polaroid has been altered. Jack White 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