Jump to content

Jack White: Questions


Recommended Posts

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

Mr. White, I can appreciate your thinking you have put more time than I into studying of the photographical record pertaining to the JFK assassination even though no data as to how long I have been at it has been made known. Let me share this observation with you. Back in my old school days there were those students who had to study much more than others just to get a passing grade and it didn't seem fair at times that they still recieved lower marks on their test scores than those students who spent less time studying. So the amount of time one stares at a photograph or film doesn't mean much in my opinion if they are misreading the data.

Now about your position: If you feel that the Nix film is fake and also the Zapruder film is fake, then why would you be attempting to use one to disprove the other? According to your three points listed above - you said that one film cannot be used to verify the other, yet that is exactly what you did in TGZFH when trying to show fakery.

Your mistake has nothing to do with film fakery, but rather your not considering the geography of Dealey Plaza better than what you did. For this next example, I borrowed the map that Richard Trask uses in his book "The Pictures of the Pain" to demonstrate your error. I have placed colored funnels to represent the field of view from Nix to Zapruder and from Zapruder to the Frazen's as seen in each photographers film frames. The missing people are seen in the Zapruder film just to the left and over the shoulder of James Altgens. The same alleged missing people seen in the Nix frame are in a direct line between Nix and the Frazen's. A simple cross referencing can show their position on Trask map. I have placed an "F" for Frazen's and a "MP" for Missing People accordingly on the said map. The results speak for themselves.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Now about your position: If you feel that the Nix film is fake and also the Zapruder film is fake, then why would you be attempting to use one to disprove the other? According to your three points listed above - you said that one film cannot be used to verify the other, yet that is exactly what you did in TGZFH when trying to show fakery.

Mr. Peters...you still do not comprehend what I say.

I am not using one film to disprove the other! I am

showing that the films DO NOT CORRESPOND WITH

EACH OTHER. I am saying that those who faked the

films made mistakes. I am saying that NEITHER film

is genuine. Can you not see this distinction?

I am using Nix to say that NIX IS NOT GENUINE,

because the fakery is inept....regardless of what

Zapruder shows.

I have previously said that both films are altered.

Therefore comparing them is meaningless. It is

a simple concept.

Jack White ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now about your position: If you feel that the Nix film is fake and also the Zapruder film is fake, then why would you be attempting to use one to disprove the other? According to your three points listed above - you said that one film cannot be used to verify the other, yet that is exactly what you did in TGZFH when trying to show fakery.

Mr. Peters...you still do not comprehend what I say.

I am not using one film to disprove the other! I am

showing that the films DO NOT CORRESPOND WITH

EACH OTHER. I am saying that those who faked the

films made mistakes. I am saying that NEITHER film

is genuine. Can you not see this distinction?

I am using Nix to say that NIX IS NOT GENUINE,

because the fakery is inept....regardless of what

Zapruder shows.

I have previously said that both films are altered.

Therefore comparing them is meaningless. It is

a simple concept.

Jack White ;)

Some here may be mystified about what Mr. Peters

is referring to.

Here is my specific research which he finds fault with.

It appears both in MIDP and TGZFH.

Jack White ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for putting up the picture, Mr. White. As you can see - the two film frames (one from the Nix film and the other from Zapruder's film) match the overhead diagram I posted. Zapruder's camera had already passed over the two people in question when he filmed James Altgens at Z345 and as the film shows - Zapruder kept panning away in a southwesternly direction until he reached Z369. There is no reason to have believed that the people seen in the Nix film should be seen in the Zapruder film at frame 369.

I am showing that the films DO NOT CORRESPOND WITH

EACH OTHER. I am saying that those who faked the films made mistakes.

And I am saying that the two films show exactly the same thing and that you totally messed up by not understanding the geography of the Plaza. The overhead map shows this quite clearly. If the Zapruder film and all the other assassination images have been altered or faked, then let them be exposed in that light for the right reasons and not because of someone's faulty approach to testing them.

Now would you like for me to explain the mistake you made about Toni Foster appearing to be seven feet tall?

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for putting up the picture, Mr. White. As you can see - the two film frames (one from the Nix film and the other from Zapruder's film) match the overhead diagram I posted. Zapruder's camera had already passed over the two people in question when he filmed James Altgens at Z345 and as the film shows - Zapruder kept panning away in a southwesternly direction until he reached Z369. There is no reason to have believed that the people seen in the Nix film should be seen in the Zapruder film at frame 369.
I am showing that the films DO NOT CORRESPOND WITH

EACH OTHER. I am saying that those who faked the films made mistakes.

And I am saying that the two films show exactly the same thing and that you totally messed up by not understanding the geography of the Plaza. The overhead map shows this quite clearly. If the Zapruder film and all the other assassination images have been altered or faked, then let them be exposed in that light for the right reasons and not because of someone's faulty approach to testing them.

Now would you like for me to explain the mistake you made about Toni Foster appearing to be seven feet tall?

I made no mistakes about the Franzens nor Toni Foster.

You have shown nothing to the contrary. What qualifies

you to say I have no understanding of the geography of

Dealey Plaza?

Think what you will. Some people prefer not to know.

Jack White

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made no mistakes about the Franzens nor Toni Foster.

You have shown nothing to the contrary. What qualifies

you to say I have no understanding of the geography of

Dealey Plaza?

Mr. White, If you have a problem with Richard Trask map, then please point out the error in it. It's really quite a simple process to follow. One takes a Nix frame and marks who is between Nix and Zapruder ... I did that for you and plotted it on Trask map. Then you take Z369 and see what is beyond the Frazen's and you will find it is the Main Street lamp post and I also plotted that on Trask map. If you plot the two lines from Zapruder to Nix and from Zapruder to the Frazen's - you will see that they do not intersect and because they do not intersect there is no reason to expect to see that couple in Z369 when they are seen back in Z345.

Think what you will. Some people prefer not to know.

Jack White

That's what it really boils down to, isn't it. Some people prefer not to know. You didn't address Trask map and the points I made. In your mind you believe that you have studied the JFK assassination photos and films longer than I, so you must be right no matter what evidence is shown to you to the contrary. John Kennedy once said, "A mistake is not a mistake, unless one refuses to correct it." You seemingly have grown so arrogant with time that you refuse to admit a mistake even when faced with the facts.

What's wrong with your Toni Foster claim - I'll tell you. You measured half the distance between two 14' lamppost and drew a straight line from post to post. You then placed Toni Foster near the 7' high line you had drawn. You believed that because the halfway mark up each post was 7', then if Toni Foster's head appears to be close to the line in your composite, then she must also be 7' tall. What you failed to do is consider that Zapruder is elevated well above the street and looking downward at the south pasture. Zapruder's elevated view gives the false impression that Toni Foster's head appears to almost be touching the imaginary line you had placed at 7' off the ground. If you would climb down off Zapruder's perch and walked down to the street and viewed Foster from ground level, then her head would have fallen well below the 7' mark on the lamppost and you'd see she really is 5' tall in the Zapruder film.

The higher one is elevated above the south pasture - the closer the 7' line will appear to the ground line. The closer one gets to being at ground level, the further apart the 7' line will appear against the ground line. How many of us have climbed a tree as kids and looked down at our mothers hanging the laundry on a clothes line and from our elevated position it looked like Mom was as tall as the clothes line. But when we got down on the ground, we then saw that Mom had not really grown taller, but rather it was an illusion due to angles and changes in perspective. That's what you failed to consider and is why you will never get one photographical expert to support the 7' Toni Foster claim you made.

Now how about another one? How about Moorman and Hill being in the street as the limo and cycles passed their position or maybe the pickup man claim? I am willing to go through each and every claim that was made in the name of film and photo fakery until we find one that has an ounce of merit to it if you're game.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made no mistakes about the Franzens nor Toni Foster.

You have shown nothing to the contrary. What qualifies

you to say I have no understanding of the geography of

Dealey Plaza?

Mr. White, If you have a problem with Richard Trask map, then please point out the error in it. It's really quite a simple process to follow. One takes a Nix frame and marks who is between Nix and Zapruder ... I did that for you and plotted it on Trask map. Then you take Z369 and see what is beyond the Frazen's and you will find it is the Main Street lamp post and I also plotted that on Trask map. If you plot the two lines from Zapruder to Nix and from Zapruder to the Frazen's - you will see that they do not intersect and because they do not intersect there is no reason to expect to see that couple in Z369 when they are seen back in Z345.

Think what you will. Some people prefer not to know.

Jack White

That's what it really boils down to, isn't it. Some people prefer not to know. You didn't address Trask map and the points I made. In your mind you believe that you have studied the JFK assassination photos and films longer than I, so you must be right no matter what evidence is shown to you to the contrary. John Kennedy once said, "A mistake is not a mistake, unless one refuses to correct it." You seemingly have grown so arrogant with time that you refuse to admit a mistake even when faced with the facts.

What's wrong with your Toni Foster claim - I'll tell you. You measured half the distance between two 14' lamppost and drew a straight line from post to post. You then placed Toni Foster near the 7' high line you had drawn. You believed that because the halfway mark up each post was 7', then if Toni Foster's head appears to be close to the line in your composite, then she must also be 7' tall. What you failed to do is consider that Zapruder is elevated well above the street and looking downward at the south pasture. Zapruder's elevated view gives the false impression that Toni Foster's head appears to almost be touching the imaginary line you had placed at 7' off the ground. If you would climb down off Zapruder's perch and walked down to the street and viewed Foster from ground level, then her head would have fallen well below the 7' mark on the lamppost and you'd see she really is 5' tall in the Zapruder film.

The higher one is elevated above the south pasture - the closer the 7' line will appear to the ground line. The closer one gets to being at ground level, the further apart the 7' line will appear against the ground line. How many of us have climbed a tree as kids and looked down at our mothers hanging the laundry on a clothes line and from our elevated position it looked like Mom was as tall as the clothes line. But when we got down on the ground, we then saw that Mom had not really grown taller, but rather it was an illusion due to angles and changes in perspective. That's what you failed to consider and is why you will never get one photographical expert to support the 7' Toni Foster claim you made.

Now how about another one? How about Moorman and Hill being in the street as the limo and cycles passed their position or maybe the pickup man claim? I am willing to go through each and every claim that was made in the name of film and photo fakery until we find one that has an ounce of merit to it if you're game.

This is not a sports contest. I do not do debates, despite

you ambition to "take me on."

I have no complaint about your "Trask map" except that

you should refer to it a the "Cutler map". Bob Cutler was

a painstaking architect, and all of his DP maps were

generally accurate, except one where he had the scale

of feet wrong.

You seem not to understand: The map is irrelevant IF

THE FILM FRAMES YOU ARE STUDYING ARE FABRICATED.

We are not playing on the same field if you fail to understand

that simple proposition. Discussion ended.

Jack White ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem not to understand: The map is irrelevant IF

THE FILM FRAMES YOU ARE STUDYING ARE FABRICATED.

We are not playing on the same field if you fail to understand

that simple proposition. Discussion ended.

I can only hope that all those student s that have viewed this brief exchange can see for themselves what we have to deal with. Someone like yourself comes up with a notion that the Zapruder film is a fake because it doesn't show what you want it to. Then when someone else presents another assassination image that supports what is seen on the Zapruder film, then you call it a fake as well. Not one witness who was in Dealey Plaza has ever said that a film or photo taken during the assassination didn't show anything other than what they recalled happening. Yet you make such unfounded claims without offering any room for you being in error. In other words, why would a conspirator want to move the people seen in the Nix film from Z369 back to Z345? There is no logic for those two people to have been moved or those frames to have been altered.

It's just like your claiming of Hill and Moorman standing in the street during the shooting. Yes, Jean Hill said she stepped off the curb and into the street as JFK rounded the corner onto Elm Street, but she also said she thought better of doing it and got back up over the curb before the shooting started. What was your reply? You presented an edited film clip of Jean Hill saying "I stepped into the street" and iyour clip stops before she can say she then got back out of the street. It is my opinion that what you attempted to do is little better than what you claimed was done to all those assassination films and photos. According to you, Jean Hill and Mary Moorman both stepped into the street even though Moorman's affidavit taken the day of the assassination says differently. A few years ago on a different matter, you had said that the Altgens 6 photo went out on the news wire within the hour from the time the assassination had taken place, thus there was not enough time to alter it and now because it shows Moorman's and Hill's shadows coming from south of the Elm Street curb, meaning they were in the grass during the shooting, you now claim the Altgens photo must also be faked. Like I said before - if the Zapruder film has been altered, then let it stand up to vigorous checks and balances and be declared for what it is.

Mr. White, you have become so bent on claiming everything is fake or altered that you are totally unaware that things you have said at times debunks the very claims you are making. For instance, you just said that the Nix and Zapruder films are fakes, but yet you mentioned how detailed and accurate the Culter map is. Do I need to point out that it was the Culter map that showed that the images in the Nix and Zapruder film are correct. They are correct because if the positions of these photographers located on the Culter map show what is seen on the films in question in relation to the alleged missing people, then they all three have to be fake or all three have to be legit because all three support one another.

Now when are you going to start admitting any of your mistakes that make up that 10% that you have previously said do occur some of the time?

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem not to understand: The map is irrelevant IF

THE FILM FRAMES YOU ARE STUDYING ARE FABRICATED.

Now when are you going to start admitting any of your mistakes that make up that 10% that you have previously said do occur some of the time?

Mr. Peters has a REMARKABLE TALENT for misquoting.

I said I would be satisfied if I were right 90 percent of the time. He now claims that

I have admitted to being wrong ten percent of the time.

Jack White :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made no mistakes about the Franzens nor Toni Foster.

You have shown nothing to the contrary. What qualifies

you to say I have no understanding of the geography of

Dealey Plaza?

What's wrong with your Toni Foster claim - I'll tell you. You measured half the distance between two 14' lamppost and drew a straight line from post to post. You then placed Toni Foster near the 7' high line you had drawn. You believed that because the halfway mark up each post was 7', then if Toni Foster's head appears to be close to the line in your composite, then she must also be 7' tall. What you failed to do is consider that Zapruder is elevated well above the street and looking downward at the south pasture. Zapruder's elevated view gives the false impression that Toni Foster's head appears to almost be touching the imaginary line you had placed at 7' off the ground. If you would climb down off Zapruder's perch and walked down to the street and viewed Foster from ground level, then her head would have fallen well below the 7' mark on the lamppost and you'd see she really is 5' tall in the Zapruder film.

The higher one is elevated above the south pasture - the closer the 7' line will appear to the ground line. The closer one gets to being at ground level, the further apart the 7' line will appear against the ground line. How many of us have climbed a tree as kids and looked down at our mothers hanging the laundry on a clothes line and from our elevated position it looked like Mom was as tall as the clothes line. But when we got down on the ground, we then saw that Mom had not really grown taller, but rather it was an illusion due to angles and changes in perspective. That's what you failed to consider and is why you will never get one photographical expert to support the 7' Toni Foster claim you made.

You are totally ignorant of the LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE, which I used in the Foster study.

We can have no meaningful discussion as long as you do not know what you are

talking about and DO NOT KNOW that you do not know. I do not have time to teach you.

Jack White :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please Mr. White - I don't need you to teach me about perspective. This is an educational forum and if you don't have time to teach the people who view this site, then I am not sure what good you can provide anyone. I am having trouble at this time getting images to attach to my replies, but once it gets resolved I will be happy to take the time to show the viewers what I am talking about. All one needs to do is look at Jean Hill in your Toni Foster fakery example and compare her size to the man standing next to the lamppost only a few feet away. Jean Hill is far too large before you ever got started.

You also made a mistake when you mentioned in TGZFH that Mrs. Franzen had grown in height between Zapruder frames 360 to 367. Overlays showing the mistake you made in this claim are also on the Internet. Mr. Franzen shifted his weight to his left leg and Mrs. Franzen stepped backwards between these frames and this is why her head grew higher in Zapruder's field of view. Anyone wishing to see the examples detailing the errors in your observations can go to

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...page=&mode=full

The sad part of the critique on the web address provided above was that it had to be done by a CT's so the outside world will know that there are some researchers who are more interested in the truth than anything else. Some of us feel that it is great to expose conspiracy where it exist, but it does not do any of us any good if we base our observations on faulty logic. This is why you get the challenges. I personally welcome any challenges to other researchers observations that I have shared for it's more important for me to see these observations tested and I certainly believe they are worth 'my time' to look at them more closely.

For those who view the attached web page - please be sure to view the example where you asked if there was a man with a camera at the fence. I believe it was called "B is for Betzner ... another camera?" The alleged possible figure you point out not only doesn't fit the Badge Man images seen in Moorman's photo, but the alleged figure is almost as wide as Zapruder and Sitzman put together despite the alleged individual being further away from the camera. This is a prime example as to why your current perspective comprehension abilities have justifiably been called into question.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

Jack's "mystery woman" IS Mrs. Franzen. She has NOT dissapeared. She has just taken a few steps back in horror after seeing Kennedy's headwound. You can actually see this if you watch the moving films (Nix) instead of still frames.

There is no conspiratory reason either to "replace" Mrs. Franzen with a "mystery woman". Not withstanding Jack's great work on other photographical topics, this is the kind of nonsense where he is simply mistaken and is thus promoting non-issues to point out conspiracy without knowing it, because he is so convinced of his "find".

JMO

Here you go:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/franzen.gif

Wim

Edited by dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure sounds like a reincarnation of Bill Miller, Mr. Peters?

Tell you what, let me make a request, one YOU might fill - that BM said he'd do, some 3 years ago. Got to do with Dr. Tink and his seamless Dealey Plaza film quote from a few years back.

He or someone from the 'Miller attack Jack White at every turn goon squad', was gonna produce the 4 assassinatiuon DP films into 1 film and show US just how SEAMLESS they *really* are, for film frame comparison purposes ONLY! Slight problem - BM, or the Tinkster never produced it! Why, I leave that to the readers to determine. However, it is reasonable to assume, they DON'T match!

Could you do this comnparison for us?

I'm not surprised to see this sort of grilling of going on -- plenty have tried, eh Jack? I'm beginning to think some have made it a career to take on Jack White! Guess they're too scared to take on Dr. John Costella's and his Physics in relationship to the Z-film?

Or is this the same such nonsense that's been floated on forums before, that of: "preserving current history"?

How 'bout you Mr. Peter's? or is it Bill Miller, James Gordon? :-)

David Healy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the most obvious indication that the Zapruder and Nix films don't match, Clint Hill? In the Zapruder Film, Hill doesn't reach Jackie until she is in the limousine. He just barely touches her in "Zapruder's" film. But in the Nix film, he seems to be grabbing on to her, forcing her into the limousine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised to see this sort of grilling of going on -- plenty have tried, eh Jack? I'm beginning to think some have made it a career to take on Jack White! Guess they're too scared to take on Dr. John Costella's and his Physics in relationship to the Z-film?

Or is this the same such nonsense that's been floated on forums before, that of: "preserving current history"?

How 'bout you Mr. Peter's? or is it Bill Miller, James Gordon? :-)

David Healy

Mr. Healy, preserving history has nothing to do with the mistakes being addressed here. For instance, if Mr. White has said in the past that the Altgens 6 photograph was sent out on the news wire within the hour of the assassination taking place and it could not have been faked, then it showing Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the grass speaks volumes and is just one step in showing Mr. White had erred. The problem isn't if someone could have altered a photo, but are the claims being made to show alteration justified. When White misreads two film frames and then thinks Mrs. Franzen has grown in height due to fakery - is it not right to point out why that occurred and to show that it didn't really have anything to do with film alteration?

I'm not sure what you meant by 'taking Jack on', unless you are referring to those who in the past have pointed out Mr. White's errors only to be booted from the forum Jack resided on. Outside of there - he has never done more than what has been shown here. As far as Mr. Costella goes - the last I read on him was he had first said Moorman was in the street, then he changed it to her being out of the street and eventually decided she was back in the street. Can we assume he used the same laws of Physics each time? What does he think about Jean Hill's interview on Black Op Radio where she was asked specifically about where she was and when when JFK came down Elm Street and she replied she stepped into the street when the limo rounded the corner onto Elm, but was back in the grass when the shooting started? So believe it or not - Mr. Costella can and does make mistakes.

I also think you have misstated what Josiah Thompson as repeatedly said. Thompson said that none of the assassination films contradict one another, not that they could all be made into a seamless film. None of which has anything to do with the claims Mr. White has made concerning film and photo fakery.

Edited by Larry Peters
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...