Jack White's latest video release starts out by proclaiming that the Zapruder Film is a fraud and is of no value to serious researchers.

But there's nothing in the video that supports this proclamation.

White claims the Mary Moorman photo is genuine, although we cannot be sure of its chain of possession. White claims other materials are altered for bizarre reasons - but I guess we can ignore the chain of possession problem, and agree that the Mary Moorman Polaroid in question is genuine.

But White wants us to believe that Moorman was standing in the street when she took her most famous Polaroid photograph. And his basis for this claim? Not Jean Hill's INITIAL statements to the media (when she never mentioned this movement, and when she plainly stated that she didn't see anyone firing a weapon, only heard the shots [later embellished to her seeing smoke and a shooter...].

And White does not rely upon Hill's original recollections of the event - but her later stories...stories that changed dramatically from her initial statements.

Nor does White believe in Hill's Warren Commission Testimony (he buys Mark Lane's and Hill's theory that her testimony was significantly altered). Of course, the "testimony alterers" left IN Jean Hill's statements that were critical of the Warren Commissions' basic findings, like:

"I have always said there were some four to six shots. There were three shots---one right after the other, and a distinct pause, or just a moment's pause, and then I heard more."

...and...

"I think there were at least four Or five shots and perhaps six, but I know there were more than three."

...and...

"I won't say positively, I think I can still seemingly hear it, and I would still say there were more, you know, I'm saying 4 to 6. I know there were at least 4, and I just almost swear that I heard 5 or 6."

...and...

"Well, I just think that he was hit after Kennedy was hit because, well, Just the way that it looked, I would say that he [Governor Connally] was hit later."

...and...

"Well, evidently I didn't because the only conscious recollection I have of that---I mean---until all this other came out---I had always thought that they came from the knoll."

...and this exchange...

Mr. SPECTER. Any conscious impression of where this third shot came from?

Mrs. HILL. Not any different from any of them. I thought it was just people shooting from the knoll---I did think there was more than one person shooting.

Mr. SPECTER. You did think there was more than one person shooting?

Mrs. HILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. What made you think that?

Mrs. HILL The way the 'gun report sounded and the difference in the way they were fired-the timing.

Mr. SPECTER. What was your impression as to the source of the second group of shots which you have described as the fourth, perhaps the fifth, and perhaps the sixth shot?

Mrs. HILL. Well, nothing, except that I thought that they were fired by someone else.

Mr. SPECTER. And did you have any idea where they were coming from?

Mrs. HILL. No; as I said, I thought they were coming from the general direction of that knoll.

You would think that the Warren Commission's "testimony alterers" could do a better job promoting their employers' cause than leave the above statements IN the official Record.

So...White is basing his main "proof" of Zapruder film alteration on the Moorman Polaroid and Jean Hill's changing stories.

White is accepting as fact Jean Hill's statement that she jumped out in the street in front of the Presidential limo. And because the Zapruder film doesn't show this movement - the Zapruder film is a hoax.

But there's other photographic evidence that we need to look at. The Bond slides, Nix, Muchmore and Bronson films all show that Jean Hill is mistaken - they show that neither Hill nor Moorman jumped into the street in front of the Presidential limo.

But White has an answer for that, too. ALL those films and slides have been tampered with by the FBI and/or other agencies, Jack tells us.

Does ANYONE really believe that ALL these films have been tampered with - to merely change the movements of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman? You HAVE to believe that they were - if you buy Jack White's theory.

Jack doesn't like how the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film "line up" with each other - thereby proving Zapruder film alteration. But Michael Parks' study shows us that due to Moorman's physical posture and the design of the Polaroid camera, Jack's height "discrepancy" theory is explainable, and is in no manner, shape, nor form a "proof" of Zapruder film alteration.

So...here we are, well into the video's major "alteration theory," yet we have absolutely NO proof of Zapruder film alteration.

White now shows us overlays of the Zapruder film versus the Turner Network study's recreation of the assassination. But, OOOPS! There's an error in the recreation, so all of White's comparisons are moot.

To his credit, White includes a printed "disclaimer" with copies of his video: "My narration notes that the replica JFK limo placed in the Z313 location by professional surveyors is probably about 8 feet too far east, which also places Mary Moorman too far east by the same amount. I do not know whether this egregious error resulted from faulty furnished documentation, human error, or some unknown motive by Turner Network Television, producers of a documentary which hired the surveyors. My use of limo photos in this slightly errant position has no significant effect on my research or conclusions, but you should be aware of the surveyor error."

Yes - yet ANOTHER conspiracy. But we can toss the first ten minutes of White video.

White then wants us to believe that the Zapruder film alterers were SO adept that they were able to take the far curb as a "break point" and enlarge ONLY the background 130 per cent throughout the Zapruder film. But because White's "yellow curb marker stripes" argument is based on the inaccurate TNT positioning of the Presidential limo, this portion of the video presents nothing proving Zapruder film alteration, either.

White then wants us to believe that the Zapruder film alterers add or subtract a passing pick-up truck bed's cargo. White doesn't tell us that the two exposures he wants us to compare were taken about 20 seconds apart, though.

The video goes on and on proving absolutely nothing regarding Zapruder film alteration. White discusses "cardboard people" along the motorcade route, mis-states Zapruder's own WC testimony regarding the filming of the motorcade and Zapruder's authenticating his film during the Clay Shaw trial, tells us that 30 seconds or more is "missing" from the Zapruder film (we have film footage taken by at least four other photographers showing what would be in the "missing" portion of Zapruder's film - the Presidential limo making that final turn...a sequence, of course, which lasts no where near White's proclaimed "30 seconds" of missing film).

White ends the video by offering information about William Reymond. Reymond claims to have seen a copy of the "original" Zapruder film! (White continues to ignore Zapruder's Clay Shaw trial testimony in which Zapruder authenticates his footage, of course.)

This "original" Zapruder film that White wants us to believe in is further evidence of the alteration of the Towner, Hughes, Bell and Martin films - because Reymond describes a "very wide turn" that doesn't exist on either these others photographic records.

Reymond wants us to believe that the non-existent wide turn of the Presidential limo caused the professional assassins to "miss" JFK's head and hit him in the throat. Well - think about that. A LATERAL, HORIZONTAL "error" of a few feet make assassins miss their target VERTICALLY? And Reymond states that the best shooters in the world were on this assignment!

Reymond wants us to believe that the Stemmons Stret sign was hit by an errant shot around Zapruder Frame 202. Now we have to add one of the Willis photos to our list of sinisterly "altered" images - because it shows no such damage to the Stemmons sign. And those alterers of the Zapruder film sure had their work cut out (no pun intended) for them - because many Zapruder frames clearly show no damage to the Stemmons sign.

But wait - there's MORE altered photos, if we are to believe Reymond and White! Clint Grant took a photograph of the Stemmons sign from the motorcade's Camera Car, showing NO damage to the sign. And Richard Oscar Bothun's "Number Four photograph" shows an undamaged Stemmons sign. And Life Magazine's photographer Arthur Burroughs Rickerby took an exposure of the Stemmons sign...no damage evident, either. And, of course, at least four of Wilma Bond's slides show no damage to the Stemmons sign...but White has already declared her images to be altered.

There's MORE...Free-lance photographer Jim Murray took photographs that included the Stemmons sign in the background (you'll remember one of his photos, taken a few minutes after the assassination - a low angle shot - as Officer Foster is kneeling and pointing back towards the Texas School Book Depository). This and other photos taken by Murray show no Stemmons sign damage.

Again - if we are to believe the Reymond story promoted and endorsed by Jack White, ALL the above photographic evidence has been altered!

Recapping: For you to believe the theories touted and promoted by Jack White and Reymond in this video, you MUST accept these facts:

1. The Mary Moorman photograph is authentic; but

2. The exposures taken by Bond, Nix, Muchmore, Bronson, Towner, Hughes, Bell, Martin, Grant, Bothun, Burroughs, and Murray (and probably others I have missed) have ALL BEEN SINISTERLY TAMPERED WITH.

Reymond's story is demonstrably nonsense. Jack White's video is not believable. Do not waste your time nor money on this "research."