Jump to content

Jack White: Questions


Recommended Posts

But okay, here is a question about Jack's research:

Jack, please show us how you arrived at the conclusion that the old "tramp" is E. Howard Hunt, and how your research precludes it is Chauncey Holt?

Wim

The reason Chauncey Holt is not the Old Man tramp is simple. One of the tramp photos shows a man who is identical to CIA man E. Howard Hunt. No photo of Holt can be matched to the photo.

Jack White B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Jack!

Personally, I'd like to know more about the Zapruder Waltz.  There was a lot of detail in 'Murder in Dealey Plaza,' but I'm interested in your professional opinion -- specifically as to whether you believe one of the positions can be used as a 'template' or 'genuine' Zapruder/Sitzman whereby the other photos can be judged.

- lee

Lee...I prefer not to give opinions or speculation... only what I see in photos. So I have no opinion on your template question.

However, I have done many comparisons of all the photos which show 2 persons on the pedestal. I believe all of them are fabrications based on the differing positions and relative sizes in a 6 second time frame. Here is a slide from my Duluth PowerPoint presentation for your study.

Jack White B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you respond to those who attack your credibility as a photo expert because of you HSCA testimony?  This is always brought up by critics of your work.

The PHOTOGRAMMETRY issue is a phony one...made up by Blakey.

I have worked with photos for more than fifty years. I am both a photographer, art director, darkroom technician and photoanalyst.

Despite being a photo expert, I had never heard the semi-scientific term PHOTOGRAMMETRY... which is used only by academics, not photo professionals. In lay terms, it means MEASURING PHOTOGRAPHS, which I did every day. I just called it measuring photos instead of the technical name.

Knowing the definition of a somewhat arcane word has NOTHING TO DO WITH PHOTOANALYSIS.

Jack White

PS...after lunch, my friend Seth Kantor, as well as NPR analyst Nina Totenberg blasted Blakey for his tactics, and his staff apologized to Seth and me...calling it "BLAKEY'S METHOD" with an ADVERSE WITNESS, even though I was a staff consultant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that Mr. Dankbaar uses one of my illustrations to make his point.

Jack White B)

That is because part of your work I respect. Other parts I dismiss, like the thesis that Hunt was the old tramp. Also, I have not seen credible evidence for many of your claims of alteration in the Zapruder film. Some of those claims are easily debunked. But what I miss most are the motives of the conspirators? What purpose did it serve them to alter the heights of Zapruder and Sitzman for example? Or put Moorman and Hill on the street? Or make Mrs. Frantzen dissapear? I could imagine they would want to make Kennedy's head move in such a way, that it suggests only shots from the back. But I don't see that either. It goes back and to the left. All I see is evidence for the headshot coming from the grassy knoll. So if they didn't alter crucial things, why did they worry about Zapruder, Morrman and Mrs. Frantzen?

I believe your conviction that these theories are correct, is sincere. This is also why I don't beleive you are a disinformationalist, at least not on purpose. However, I regret that you cite your reputation and photographic skills, both of which you undoubtly have, to endorse ALL your work. Because, even if the intention is sincere, it's still disinformation.

Now, let me point out some logic arguments for Holt, not Hunt, being the tramp as John suggested I should:

- Holt has acknowledged he IS the older tramp. Hunt has denied it.

- Hunt was a higher ranking CIA officer. Holt was a mere (expendable) pawn. It is simply unlikely that Hunt would dress up as a worker, tramp, whatever, to participate in an assassination project like this. If caught, he would not even have plausible denial.

- Holt has identified the other two tramps as Harrelson and Montoya (Rogers), who prove to have remarkable resemblance with the other tramps, even to Harrelson's own admission. Your hunch for the tall tramp is Frank Sturgis if I am not mistaken. It is a no-brainer to show that Sturgis does not even look like the tall tramp.

- Holt, Harrelson and Rogers have been confirmed by renowned facial expert and Houston Police forensic artist Lois Gibson. She does this for a living and is the most respected person in the world for this line of work. You may be a photographic expert, but you're not a facial recognition expert.

www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm

- Rogers has been confirmed from the tramp photos by at least two witnesses that knew him (Chuck Rolland of the Houston ice skaiting rink and a girlfriend who had dated him)

- Holt has (had) a multitude of documents to prove his confession, which by the way he says he made because all the principals were dead now and the american public had a right to know.

- There is a record for Harrelson that he admitted to involvement in the Kennedy assassasination. There is none for Sturgis.

- Woody Harrelson is pretty sensitive about the subject. James Richards could give us a story on that. Why would Woody be jumpy if the story about his father is so obviously fake?

Wim

PS: Here's a point of light: We do agree that the photographed tramps were not Doyle, Gedney and Abrams.

Edited by dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that Mr. Dankbaar uses one of my illustrations to make his point.

Jack White B)

That is because part of your work I respect. Other parts I dismiss, like the thesis that Hunt was the old tramp. Also, I have not seen credible evidence for many of your claims of alteration in the Zapruder film. Some of those claims are easily debunked. But what I miss most are the motives of the conspirators? What purpose did it serve them to alter the heights of Zapruder and Sitzman for example? Or put Moorman and Hill on the street? Or make Mrs. Frantzen dissapear? I could imagine they would want to make Kennedy's head move in such a way, that it suggests only shots from the back. But I don't see that either. It goes back and to the left. All I see is evidence for the headshot coming from the grassy knoll. So if they didn't alter crucial things, why did they worry about Zapruder, Morrman and Mrs. Frantzen?

I believe your conviction that these theories are correct, is sincere. This is also why I don't beleive you are a disinformationalist, at least not on purpose. However, I regret that you cite your reputation and photographic skills, both of which you undoubtly have, to endorse ALL your work. Because, even if the intention is sincere, it's still disinformation.

Now, let me point out some logic arguments for Holt, not Hunt, being the tramp as John suggested I should:

- Holt has acknowledged he IS the older tramp. Hunt has denied it.

- Hunt was a higher ranking CIA officer. Holt was a mere (expendable) pawn. It is simply unlikely that Hunt would dress up as a worker, tramp, whatever, to participate in an assassination project like this. If caught, he would not even have plausible denial.

- Holt has identified the other two tramps as Harrelson and Montoya (Rogers), who prove to have remarkable resemblance with the other tramps, even to Harrelson's own admission. Your hunch for the tall tramp is Frank Sturgis if I am not mistaken. It is a no-brainer to show that Sturgis does not even look like the tall tramp.

- Holt, Harrelson and Rogers have been confirmed by renowned facial expert and Houston Police forensic artist Lois Gibson. She does this for a living and is the most respected person in the world for this line of work. You may be a photographic expert, but you're not a facial recognition expert.

www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm

- Rogers has been confirmed from the tramp photos by at least two witnesses that knew him (Chuck Rolland of the Houston ice skaiting rink and a girlfriend who had dated him)

- Holt has (had) a multitude of documents to prove his confession, which by the way he says he made because all the principals were dead now and the american public had a right to know.

- There is a record for Harrelson that he admitted to involvement in the Kennedy assassasination. There is none for Sturgis.

- Woody Harrelson is pretty sensitive about the subject. James Richards could give us a story on that. Why would Woody be jumpy if the story about his father is so obviously fake?

Wim

PS: Here's a point of light: We do agree that the photographed tramps were not Doyle, Gedney and Abrams.

Back and to the left? Is that all the evidence you have for the head shot? No bullet striking the head could have propelled Kennedy back with such violence. Since there is no other reasonable explanation, film alteration is a distinct possibility.

Why is it so difficult to accept the arrest records? Even one of the tramps' sisters identified him.

Edited by maynardsthirdeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No bullet striking the head could have propelled Kennedy back with such violence. Since there is no other reasonable explanation, film alteration is a distinct possibility.

1) I am sorry, I don't follow your logic. Are you saying the back and left movement is not the result of a bullet? And if so, in what way was the movement altered and why? To conceal what?

2) On your question of the "arrest records" for the tramps, they are obvious fakes. First of all, they were "discovered" only a good decade ago, conveniently and incidently contempory with the time Chauncey Holt disclosed his knowledge.

Secondly they have no photographs (mugshots) and fingerprints. Would you not say that is at least unusual for an arrest in connection and just after the killing of a US President?

Thirdly, no contemporary photographs of these tramps were ever produced to compare them with the Dealey Plaza photographs. Not even pictures withn 20 years from 1963, let's say of the seventies. The argument of promoters of the story, is that tramps do not have their picture taken. Well, even tramps have their pictures taken now and then, but these tramps were not even tramps anymore in the late seventies.

Finally, bone and facial structures do not alter with age. I say a child can already see that Doyle, Gedney and Abrams are not the "tramps" in the photographs. But if you don't believe your own eyes, any facial expert will tell you the same.

Wim

Edited by dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No bullet striking the head could have propelled Kennedy back with such violence. Since there is no other reasonable explanation, film alteration is a distinct possibility.

1) I am sorry, I don't follow your logic. Are you saying the back and left movement is not the result of a bullet? And if so, in what way was the movement altered and why? To conceal what?

2) On your question of the "arrest records" for the tramps, they are obvious fakes. First of all, they were "discovered" only a good decade ago, conveniently and incidently contempory with the time Chauncey Holt disclosed his knowledge.

Secondly they have no photographs (mugshots) and fingerprints. Would you not say that is at least unusual for an arrest in connection and just after the killing of a US President?

Thirdly, no contemporary photographs of these tramps were ever produced to compare them with the Dealey Plaza photographs. Not even pictures withn 20 years from 1963, let's say of the seventies. The argument of promoters of the story, is that tramps do not have their picture taken. Well,  even tramps have their pictures taken now and then, but these tramps were not even tramps anymore in the late seventies.

Finally, bone and facial structures do not alter with age. I say a child can already see that Doyle, Gedney and Abrams are not the "tramps" in the photographs. But if you don't believe your own eyes, any facial expert will tell you the same.

Wim

No, the backward movement is not the result of a bullet. Dr. David Mantik suggests that the backward movement was originally a much slower movement of Jackie lifting her husband up to look at him after the first head shot. I believe that two headshots were condensed into one. I think that the first headshot knocked Kennedy forward and the second shot occured as Jackie was lifting her husband up to look at him.

Edited by maynardsthirdeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

How do you account for the Old Tramp looking older than Hunt was in 1963?

I believe the picture of Hunt posted for comparison with the tramp is from the Watergate days, some 10 years after Dealey Plaza. There is a strong resemblance between the pictures, but that's due partly to Hunt having aged 10 years.

What kind of disguise could Hunt have been wearing to have an older face? And what would be the point of him looking like himself except older?

On Holt, there is similarly an age problem. Holt was too young in 1963 to be the tramp. Unless, of course, he borrowed some kind of disguise from Hunt to look older.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, thanks. I have another question though.

I'm watching you right now in the documentary, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." Do you still believe that the Badgeman figure is a real person in the photograph?

Mr. Thirdeye...here is a good enlargement of Badgeman

from my Duluth PP presentation. What do you think?

Jack White :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that Mr. Dankbaar uses one of my illustrations to make his point.

Jack White :)

That is because part of your work I respect. Other parts I dismiss, like the thesis that Hunt was the old tramp. Also, I have not seen credible evidence for many of your claims of alteration in the Zapruder film. Some of those claims are easily debunked. But what I miss most are the motives of the conspirators? What purpose did it serve them to alter the heights of Zapruder and Sitzman for example? Or put Moorman and Hill on the street? Or make Mrs. Frantzen dissapear? I could imagine they would want to make Kennedy's head move in such a way, that it suggests only shots from the back. But I don't see that either. It goes back and to the left. All I see is evidence for the headshot coming from the grassy knoll. So if they didn't alter crucial things, why did they worry about Zapruder, Morrman and Mrs. Frantzen?

I believe your conviction that these theories are correct, is sincere. This is also why I don't beleive you are a disinformationalist, at least not on purpose. However, I regret that you cite your reputation and photographic skills, both of which you undoubtly have, to endorse ALL your work. Because, even if the intention is sincere, it's still disinformation.

Now, let me point out some logic arguments for Holt, not Hunt, being the tramp as John suggested I should:

- Holt has acknowledged he IS the older tramp. Hunt has denied it.

- Hunt was a higher ranking CIA officer. Holt was a mere (expendable) pawn. It is simply unlikely that Hunt would dress up as a worker, tramp, whatever, to participate in an assassination project like this. If caught, he would not even have plausible denial.

- Holt has identified the other two tramps as Harrelson and Montoya (Rogers), who prove to have remarkable resemblance with the other tramps, even to Harrelson's own admission. Your hunch for the tall tramp is Frank Sturgis if I am not mistaken. It is a no-brainer to show that Sturgis does not even look like the tall tramp.

- Holt, Harrelson and Rogers have been confirmed by renowned facial expert and Houston Police forensic artist Lois Gibson. She does this for a living and is the most respected person in the world for this line of work. You may be a photographic expert, but you're not a facial recognition expert.

www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm

- Rogers has been confirmed from the tramp photos by at least two witnesses that knew him (Chuck Rolland of the Houston ice skaiting rink and a girlfriend who had dated him)

- Holt has (had) a multitude of documents to prove his confession, which by the way he says he made because all the principals were dead now and the american public had a right to know.

- There is a record for Harrelson that he admitted to involvement in the Kennedy assassasination. There is none for Sturgis.

- Woody Harrelson is pretty sensitive about the subject. James Richards could give us a story on that. Why would Woody be jumpy if the story about his father is so obviously fake?

Wim

PS: Here's a point of light: We do agree that the photographed tramps were not Doyle, Gedney and Abrams.

But what I miss most are the motives of the conspirators? What purpose did it serve them to alter the heights of Zapruder and Sitzman for example? Or put Moorman and Hill on the street? Or make Mrs. Frantzen dissapear? I could imagine they would want to make Kennedy's head move in such a way, that it suggests only shots from the back. But I don't see that either. It goes back and to the left. All I see is evidence for the headshot coming from the grassy knoll. So if they didn't alter crucial things, why did they worry about Zapruder, Morrman and Mrs. Frantzen?

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.

Now, let me point out some logic arguments for Holt, not Hunt, being the tramp as John suggested I should:

- Holt has acknowledged he IS the older tramp. Hunt has denied it.

IT IS LOGICAL THAT IF CIA OFFICER HUNT WAS IN THE PLAZA HE WOULD DENY IT.

- Hunt was a higher ranking CIA officer. Holt was a mere (expendable) pawn. It is simply unlikely that Hunt would dress up as a worker, tramp, whatever, to participate in an assassination project like this. If caught, he would not even have plausible denial.

HUNT CONSIDERED HIMSELF A MASTER OF DISGUISE.

- Holt has identified the other two tramps as Harrelson and Montoya (Rogers), who prove to have remarkable resemblance with the other tramps, even to Harrelson's own admission. Your hunch for the tall tramp is Frank Sturgis if I am not mistaken. It is a no-brainer to show that Sturgis does not even look like the tall tramp.

IT WAS I WHO IDENTIFIED HARRELSON AS THE TALL TRAMP IN 1982...LONG BEFORE

ANYONE EVER HEARD OF HOLT. IT WAS WEBERMAN/CANFIELD WHO IDENTIFIED

STURGIS AS A TRAMP, WHICH I HAVE ALWAYS REJECTED! HARRELSON IS THE TALL TRAMP.

- Holt, Harrelson and Rogers have been confirmed by renowned facial expert and Houston Police forensic artist Lois Gibson. She does this for a living and is the most respected person in the world for this line of work. You may be a photographic expert, but you're not a facial recognition expert.

GIBSON'S IS A NICE ARTIST, BUT TERRIBLE ON PHOTO RECOGNITION. USING MY WORK,

SHE CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED HARRELSON. BUT SHE IS WRONG ON HOLT AND ROGERS.

NEITHER IS CORRECT. YOU KNOW KNOTHING OF MY CREDENTIALS.

- Holt has (had) a multitude of documents to prove his confession, which by the way he says he made because all the principals were dead now and the american public had a right to know.

DOCUMENTS ARE EASILY FORGED. IN FACT, HOLT'S CHIEF CLAIM WAS THAT HE

WAS AN EXPERT DOCUMENT FORGER!

-

PS: Here's a point of light: We do agree that the photographed tramps were not Doyle, Gedney and Abrams.

YOU ARE CORRECT. THOSE ARE FORGED DOCUMENTS.

JACK WHITE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, thanks.  I have another question though.

I'm watching you right now in the documentary, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."  Do you still believe that the Badgeman figure is a real person in the photograph?

Mr. Thirdeye...here is a good enlargement of Badgeman

from my Duluth PP presentation. What do you think?

Jack White :)

I think that technicians at MIT analyzed the shape and said that "it took some imagination" to render it into a human figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

How do you account for the Old Tramp looking older than Hunt was in 1963?

I believe the picture of Hunt posted for comparison with the tramp is from the Watergate days, some 10 years after Dealey Plaza. There is a strong resemblance between the pictures, but that's due partly to Hunt having aged 10 years.

What kind of disguise could Hunt have been wearing to have an older face? And what would be the point of him looking like himself except older?

On Holt, there is similarly an age problem. Holt was too young in 1963 to be the tramp. Unless, of course, he borrowed some kind of disguise from Hunt to look older.

No one can say the age of persons in the photos.

IMO, there is no age discrepancy. The faces

match EXACTLY, regardless of age. Watergate

was less than 9 years after Dealey Plaza. An

adult's face does not change very much in 9

years. Hunt was an action spy who considered

himself a master of disguise (see Dita Beard).

Jack White

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...