Although Jack White very publicly announced the availability of his new "research"
video in as many forums as he could last year, he also later announced that
he would not address critiques nor debate the merits of this video through
those same JFK-related newsgroups.(*)
Instead, he has chosen a mail list service with no apparent archiving nor searching
capability and a "bulletin board-type" message system run by - and fraught with -
very "pro-Jack" supporters ... even to the point of messages being deleted there
that the system administrator deems "confrontational."
Not exactly the manner in which most people would promote any project they
believed in ... but that's how Jack wants it.
As a public service to those who are not participants in either of Jack's chosen
venues, I submit Jack's replies to questions posed to him regarding his video.
I am sure that ANY serious researcher who has just produced a
new video that he believes in wouldn't mind being quoted in as
many forums as possible as he promotes and defends his research.
This is fascinating reading...yet it is really sad, too. You cannot find a single
person who demeans Jack personally (even when Jack labels anyone who
doesn't buy into his latest as "denialists" and "disinformation artists"). ALL
serious researchers respect him as a man, and none doubt his sincerity. But
when Jack claims that ALL photographic evidence taken in Dealey Plaza has
been sinisterly altered to back up his "Moorman must be in the in the street"
claims, we might be witnessing the demise of what once was a respected
Keep an open mind. Read it all. Judge for yourself.
Instead, he has chosen a mail list service with no apparent archiving nor searching capability and a "bulletin board-type" message system run by - and fraught with - very "pro-Jack" supporters ... even to the point of messages being deleted there that the system administrator deems "confrontational."
Not exactly the manner in which most people would promote any project they believed in ... but that's how Jack wants it.
As a public service to those who are not participants in either of Jack's chosen venues, I submit Jack's replies to questions posed to him regarding his video.
I am sure that ANY serious researcher who has just produced a new video that he believes in wouldn't mind being quoted in as many forums as possible as he promotes and defends his research.
This is fascinating reading...yet it is really sad, too. You cannot find a single person who demeans Jack personally (even when Jack labels anyone who doesn't buy into his latest as "denialists" and "disinformation artists"). ALL serious researchers respect him as a man, and none doubt his sincerity. But when Jack claims that ALL photographic evidence taken in Dealey Plaza has been sinisterly altered to back up his "Moorman must be in the in the street" claims, we might be witnessing the demise of what once was a respected researcher.
Keep an open mind. Read it all. Judge for yourself.
Jack White read my Comments regarding his video, and wrote his response publicly...
JACK: Seldom have I seen so much misrepresentation in one posting. Bradford deliberately lies about most of the points I make in my Lancer video presentation.
No "deliberate lies" anywhere ... just comments and observations from one who has viewed Jack's video...
In my piece, I wrote: White is basing his main "proof" of Zapruder film alteration on the Moorman Polaroid and Jean Hill's changing stories.
JACK: A lie. My proof is NOT based on ANY story by Jean Hill, although she has always maintained she and Mary stepped off the curb to take the photo. My proof is based ON MY PHYSICAL OBSERVATION IN DEALEY PLAZA THAT THE PHOTO COULD NOT BE TAKEN BY ANYONE STANDING ON THE GRASS. This is a fact, not a theory. Anyone can determine this for himself by visiting the plaza, as the video shows. My observations VALIDATE the statements of Hill and Moorman, but do NOT RELY on their statements.
Jack must have forgotten that he repeats Jean Hills current, "I jumped out in the street..." not twice...not thrice...but FOUR TIMES in staccato fashion - because Jack states - on his video - that her statement "plays an important part" in his analysis.
Jack must have also forgotten his impromptu meeting with Michael Parks in Dealey Plaza last year. Michael writes:
PARKS: "I ran into Jack in Dealey Plaza a few weeks back and we went over his Moorman points. At first I saw logic in his thinking until I studied the films of the assassination.
"Moorman is placed correctly in the Zapruder film for her picture when compared to Muchmore and Nix. This location is still on the grass and not in the street. Locating this point using these three films is made easy because of the yellow curb section she stood near. Once standing in this spot, it is easy to see the pergola aligns right to left but not up and down. A problem? No!!!
"Let's take a serious look at the evidence before making any half cocked conclusions. In both Z303 and 305, we have a clear picture of Moorman. Check out her feet. She is standing with her feet wider than shoulder width. This lowered her somewhat. Now, look at her right leg and overall body posture. She appears to be slightly bent over, again, lowering her head. This can be confirmed by measuring her height to Hill. In this "shooter's stance," she appears almost a head shorter than Hill when she really was only a few inches.
"Now, check out Moorman's Polaroid camera. For those of you that have not seen one of these older cameras, the eye sight was several inches above the camera shutter. Again, this lowers her camera line-of-sight.
"Therefore, she could have taken number 5 and still been in the grassy area.
"By her earliest reports and those of Hill, they did not "step into the street" until after most the motorcade had passed and they headed across the street. So, all this shows no reason to claim the Z, Muchmore and Nix films were altered."
Also, neither gentleman includes the inherent lens distortion factor of that area of the Moorman Polaroid ... more on this later.
When I wrote: ALL those films and slides have been tampered with by the FBI and/or other agencies, Jack tells us.
JACK: This is another misrepresentation. Check it for yourself on the video.
I guess Jack forgot his pronouncement that ALL OTHERS exposures taken that day by Altgens, Bond, Nix, Muchmore, Bronson, Towner, Hughes, Bell, Martin, Grant, Bothun, Burroughs, and Murray (and probably others I have missed that don't show Hill and Moorman moving to/from the street) have ALL BEEN SINISTERLY TAMPERED WITH:
JACK: THE MOORMAN PHOTO IS GENUINE. IT COULD ONLY BE TAKEN IF MOORMAN IS STANDING IN THE STREET. ANY OTHER IMAGES WHICH SHOW HER ANYWHERE EXCEPT IN THE STREET ARE SUSPECT. IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM CAN BE TAMPERED WITH, THEN ALL FILMS WHICH WERE IN GOVT POSSESSION (ALL WERE) COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO MATCH. BEING A POLAROID WHICH WAS PHOTOCOPIED WITHIN 2 HOURS AND PRINTED AROUND THE WORLD IMMEDIATELY, THE MOORMAN POLAROID ESCAPED THE FBI DRAGNET. IT COULD NOT BE ALTERED.
Jack later retreats, and offers this:
JACK: I present a dozen or so anomalies which either PROVE or SUGGEST tampering. MAYBE I could be wrong on some of them. Maybe some have an innocent explanation which I have overlooked or not yet discovered. BUT ... WHAT IF EVEN ONE OF MY POINTS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE???? IF ONE POINT IS TRUE, THE THE FILM MUST, I REPEAT MUST ... BE TAMPERED WITH! Does anyone have an answer for this? The anti-alterationists MUST DISPROVE EVERY POINT or admit the film if fake! Can they?
I haven't found an "absolutely true" point from Jack, though. Certainly NOT on his video...certainly NOT in his posts since he released the video.
And I see nothing "innocent" in Jack bring up "anomalies" that have been shown to be anything BUT abnormal, like "30 seconds of missing film between Z-132 and Z-133," "ghost images in the intersprocket area," "people who do not move," et al.
JACK: Two of my proofs are indisputable, in my opinion...that Mary Moorman took her photo while STANDING IN THE STREET, and the LENGTH OF THE YELLOW CURB STRIPE providing a perfect scale for comparison with Z frames.
Again, Michael Parks begs to differ with this "indisputable" proof:
PARKS: "The video tells of the three yellow curb sections found on the south side of Elm and seen in the Z-film. (There are really 12 such sections, but Ill let that slide for the sake of argument.)
"In an e-mail message, Jack states: "Using the curb markers as a scale, it is easy to determine the Z background has been enlarged 130 percent."
"In an earlier message, he claims the sections are 40 inches long. In reality, they are 60 inches long. Wonder where the 130 percent enlargement came from?"
I wrote: The video goes on and on proving absolutely nothing regarding Zapruder film alteration..."cardboard people" along the motorcade route, Jack 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)...
JACK: Why is he making up all this stuff? I make NO MENTION OF CARDBOARD PEOPLE.
Sorry, folks. Jack now calls them "apparently motionless people." But when confronted with evidence of very obvious motions (13 distinct motions) by another researcher two years ago, he backed down and admitted that they weren't really motionless. "Almost motionless," was the phrase Jack started to use. Then Jack started to tell people that MOTION WAS ADDED BACK IN to the Zapruder film in Frames 133 to about 196.
Now, it's "almost totally motionless..." Who is Jack trying to fool by conveying this moot point again?
JACK: I DO NOT MISSTATE WC TESTIMONY.
He sure does. When he uses Zapruder's Warren Commission testimony to make people think Abraham Zapruder testified that he filmed the entire motorcade uninterrupted, Jack White intentionally misrepresents the truth.
JACK: I DO NOT MENTION THE CLAY SHAW TRIAL.
Of course he doesn't...because Abraham Zapruder - under oath - verified that the footage shown there was, indeed, the film he shot that day.
JACK: I DO NOT CLAIM 30 SECONDS OF MISSING FILM. Watch the video yourself and decide what it shows.
This is really weird...Jack himself uses the "30 seconds" figure in describing what he believes is "missing" between Z-132 and Z-133.
To bolster his claim of missing frames, he misrepresents the known nature of how the Zapruder camera operates, too. In describing Z-132: "There is no apparent fade-out, as is often customary when releasing the shutter..." Jack misrepresents. He continues to disregard published studies of the Bell & Howell 414PD camera when he describes Z-133: "There is no fade-in exposure as is sometimes customary..."
JACK: My observations VALIDATE the statements of Hill and Moorman...
Pardon me - where does Moorman state she jumped into the street in front of the Presidential limo?
Jack saved his "ace I had up my sleeve" for just recently, though. This monumental discovery is so apparent that it "missed" being on his video or being mentioned in Dallas last November.
Jack wants us to compare different, un-cited versions of the Zapruder film's frames 303 and 312, taking into account the status of Jackie's side window. He wants us to believe that the film alteration team forgot to put the window in in Z-312. In this approximately one-half second, Jack surmises,
"I guess Jackie turned around and CRANKED THE WINDOW DOWN SO IT CAN NO LONGER BE SEEN. Half a second. Window is gone. Please explain...if you can. Or admit I am right. Otherwise shut up ... I repeat, the animators left out the window in z312. Comments welcomed."
When told where to look for the window in Z-312, citing the MPI Home Video release and Jackie's window being clearly visible just above the grass line in Z-312, Jack immediately ceased commenting on this "ace up his sleeve."
I wrote: In your video, you tell us that Mary Moorman and Jean Hill stepped out into the street for Mary to take her Polaroid #5.
JACK: THAT HAS TO BE TRUE. THE PICTURE CAN BE TAKEN FROM NO OTHER PLACE. YOU CAN SEE THIS FOR YOURSELF BY GOING TO DEALEY PLAZA. PEOPLE OF AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE CAN COMPREHEND IT BY WATCHING MY VIDEO.
There's my problem ... I have been advised I am above average in intelligence... Michael Parks is fairly intelligent, too ... and fails to "buy" this theory. Martin Shackelford is of "above average" intelligence, also.
I wrote: But Moorman and Hill are seen in exposures taken by Bond, Nix, Muchmore, Bronson, Towner, Hughes, Bell, Martin, Grant, Bothun, Burroughs, and Murray...ALL these exposures show that Jean Hill did NOT step into the street - almost touching the Presidential limo...
JACK: YOU LEFT OUT ALTGENS, WHICH IS THE ONLY ONE OF SIGNIFICANCE WHICH I CANNOT EXPLAIN. ALL THE OTHERS EITHER DO NOT SHOW HILL AND MOORMAN AT THE CORRECT TIME, OR WERE IN THE HANDS OF THE FBI AFTER THE FILM DRAGNET. BOTHUN AND TOWNER, FOR INSTANCE, DO NOT SHOW HILL AND MOORMAN AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING. NIX, MUCHMORE, BRONSON, AND ALTGENS ARE THE ONLY RELEVANT COMPARISONS, AND NIX IS PROVABLY RETOUCHED. IN BRONSON THEIR FEET CANNOT BE SEEN. AS I STATED, I HAVE NO ANSWER FOR ALTGENS, SINCE I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN ALTERED. (PLEASE REVISE YOUR INCORRECT LIST TO LIMIT IT ONLY TO EXPOSURES WHICH SHOW HILL AND MOORMAN DURING THE SHOOTING.)
The "all amateur films were swept up in the FBI dragnet" allegation is ridiculous. And Jack needs to let us, as viewers of his self-proclaimed "research video," know what exact Jean Hill story he wants us to believe ... Hill's story has changed from (a) never mentioning stepping in the street to (b) being in the street ahead of the limo to (c) "almost touching" the Presidential limo.
And unless Jack wants us to believe that Hill and Moorman could make super-human, split-second leaps into the street and back to the grass again, then every single exposure I cited - PLUS Altgens's exposures - are ENTIRELY relevant.
JACK: MY VIDEO STATES THAT THE LENS WAS 17.5 INCHES BELOW THE TOP OF MARY'S HEAD. I WOULD NOT SAY THAT IS A LITTLE TOO LOW. SINCE THE LENS IS ABOUT 5 INCHES BELOW THE TOP OF HER HEAD, IT IS AT LEAST A FOOT TOO LOW AS SEEN IN ZAPRUDER. STANDING IN THE STREET PLACES THE LENS A FOOT LOWER THAN ZAPRUDER SHOWS MOORMAN. LOOK AT THE VIDEO AGAIN...IT IS VERY OBVIOUS EVEN TO THE UNTRAINED EYE.
Jack bases the first 20+ minutes of his video on a very false premise: That the reference point derived from (a) a fixed point on the Zapruder perch to (b) a fixed point on the wall behind the perch can be relied upon. This "reference" appears in the upper-right of the Moorman photograph. Any SERIOUS study of that area of the Polaroid exposure MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT the nature of the cheap 100mm lens on Moorman's camera, and the resulting distortion of the image at the edges of the exposure.
If Jack's "reference point" was closer to the center of the exposure, then he might be able to get away with close measurements - because the center of an exposure typically contains less distortion than what appears at the edges.
Another key factor is the need to replicate Moorman's Polaroid camera acceptance angle. Someone trying to replicate the camera image capture area with modern optics would need to correlate the lens acceptance angle with the film format used.
The quality of the lens would have to do more with resolution and and corner sharpness. Polaroid's design requirements would have been limited to Macro viewing - therefore sharpness was not too critical.
JACK: YOUR UNINFORMED SPECULATION IS ABSURD. YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN TO DEALEY PLAZA TO SEE FOR YOURSELF.
To those I met, interviewed, wrote about, photographed, and bought drinks for in Dallas in 1995 and 1997, I apologize. I guess that wasn't me...'cause Jack says I haven't been to Dealey Plaza.
JACK: THE VIEWFINDER, AS ON MOST ANY NON-SLR CAMERA, IS NO MORE THAN ONE INCH HIGHER THAN THE LENS. GREATER DISTANCES CAUSE BAD PARALLAX PROBLEMS.
This is a ridiculous statement ... Sure wish Jack would cite, for instance, the Polaroid camera's physical characteristics, instead of making blanket foolish statements.
Maybe I realize this statement is patently ridiculous because I have been shooting pictures for thirty years ... or maybe because my Grandfather was a professional photographer for seven decades and a lot of his knowledge and experience "rubbed off" on me ... whatever. But I am holding in my hands a Rolleiflex "non-SLR" camera right now, and Jack's "no more than one inch" statement is absurd.
JACK: NIX IS THE ONLY OTHER ONE I CAN PROVE HAS BEEN ALTERED....
Even the copy that he viewed with UPI and authenticated?
JACK: BUT IF NIX AND ZAPRUDER HAVE BEEN ALTERED, WHY NOT MUCHMORE AND OTHERS? THE FBI COLLECTED ALL AMATEUR MOVIES AND STILLS, AND DID NOT RETURN THEM FOR WEEKS.
Of course, no citations of this all-inclusive "FBI project" to collect "ALL" amateur movies and stills are provided. Not in his video. Not in his written replies.
JACK (while describing the "French intelligence / Reymond" Zapruder film): The Stemmons sign can be seen to be hit by a bullet. Debris flies off the top edge.
Of course, anyone who touts the Reymond film as "authentic" completely ignore the fact that Abraham Zapruder authenticated his footage during the Clay Shaw trial.
This "original" Zapruder film that White wants us to believe in must mean that the Towner, Hughes, Bell and Martin films have all been altered - because Reymond describes a "very wide turn" that doesn't exist on either these others photographic records.
Reymond wants us to believe that the "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 makes 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 Street 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...
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 cited photographic evidence has been altered!
Since Jack won't address critiques of his video in the most common venues, I asked Michael Parks for permission to reprint his nine "points" in a forum where Jack could respond to them.
Instead of addressing the issues, Jack responded:
JACK: Bradford is getting desperate. He is reposting all of Parks nonsensical **proofs** from a.c.jfk refuting my Lancer presentation. They were so far off base, I did not even bother to respond to them there. I will not here either. Parks does not have a copy of my video, and all his points are from his hazy memory of perhaps seeing my video one time at the Lancer meeting. His comments indicate he did not pay attention very well.
Nice try, Bradford, but you strike out again. How about giving everyone some of YOUR observations, instead of posting this lame crap?
Wow ... "non-sensical," "off-base," "hazy memory," "he did not pay attention," "lame crap..."
Here are Michael Park's posts, just for the record, that Jack refuses to address.
PROOF NUMBER ONE
The Great Zapruder Hoax shows Cancellare photo number one as proof the Z-film had been altered. This pictures shows a pickup parked on Commerce with a man in the bed. This man is not seen in the Z-film. Bingo....PROOF!!!
But, Cancellare was at the corner of Main and Houston when the shots were fired. The limo was seen going under the underpass while he was still on Houston. At the corner of Elm and Houston, he jumped out of the car, crossed the street and ran to the knoll where he took this picture. This all came directly from the person in Camera Car Two which was the seventh car behind JFK.
How much time was this? How long was the whole Z-film? One fourth this time? One sixth this time? Look at how much action transpired in the Z-film. Couldn't someone have jumped into the pickup bed in 4 times this span? Is this proof of alteration? Not hardly.
PROOFS NUMBER TWO AND THREE
The Great Zapruder Hoax showed the 'Stickman' or 'Amoebaman' or whatever he is called today. This is the man seen in Z416 running right to left. Because of the light background bleeding over into the darker objects (the man in this instance), it was stated this showed the Z-film was altered.
Within this same section of the film there is a car parked on Commerce that in one frame, Z-419, appears to be a pickup. Again, this is a case of the lighter background bleeding into the darker object or the car. (Frame numbers may vary depending upon which film, CD or slides you view.)
It should be noted that, as in Proof One, these events transpire in a section of the Z-film were there is NO reason to alter it. The limousine is fleeing Dealey Plaza, all the shots have been fired and Greer has put his piston away (ha ha). Hope you never advanced this theory too.
PROOF NUMBER FOUR
In the questionable video of proofs, there is found an interview with French journalist William Reymond. He claims to have seen a copy of the Z-film we have not seen before. It does not show the pause between the motorcycles entering Elm and the limousine. This film shows the limousine stopping and the Stemmons sign being shot.
This would, indeed, be proof the film we see has been altered. But no one has seen this mysterious French version of the Z-film but Reymond. He has yet to produce this film or even one missing frame for researchers to study. All we have, therefore, is his word for it. Until this film has been shown to the real world, we can not accept it as authentic and as proof.
PROOF NUMBER FIVE
The video tells of the three yellow curb sections found on the south side of Elm and seen in the Z-film. (There are really 12 such sections, but I'll let that slide for the sake of argument.) In an e-mail message, Jack states: "Using the curb markers as a scale, it is easy to determine the Z background has been enlarged 130 percent." In an earlier message, he claims the sections are 40 inches long. In reality, they are 60 inches long.
Wonder where the 130 percent enlargement came from?
PROOF NUMBER SIX
In the video The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, Jack White tells the viewer:
1) Mary Moorman and Jean Hill stepped in the street when Mary take her Polaroid picture number 5,
2) Moorman and Hill are not seen stepping into the street, in any film,
3) Using a new line-of-sight, he states the location of the limousine is 8 feet too far west,
4) And that the Polaroid was taken over a foot too low to align to the Bryan Pergola.
I ran into Jack in Dealey Plaza a few weeks back and we went over his Moorman points. At first I saw logic in his thinking until I studied the films of the assassination. Moorman is placed correctly in the Zapruder film for her picture when compared to Muchmore and Nix. This location is still on the grass and not in the street. Locating this point using these three films is made easy because of the yellow curb section she stood near. Once standing in this spot, it is easy to see the pergola aligns right to left but not up and down. A problem? No!!!
Let's take a serious look at the evidence before making any half cocked conclusions. In both Z303 and 305, we have a clear picture of Moorman. Check out her feet. She is standing with her feet wider than shoulder width. This lowered her somewhat. Now, look at her right leg and overall body posture. She appears to be slightly bent over, again, lowering her head. This can be confirmed by measuring her height to Hill. In this shooter's stance, she appears almost a head shorter than Hill when she really was only a few inches.
Now, check out Moorman's Polaroid camera. For those of you that have not seen one of these older cameras, the eye sight was several inches above the camera shutter. Again, this lowers her camera line-of-sight. Therefore, she could have taken number 5 and still been in the grassy area.
By her earliest reports and those of Hill, they did not "step into the street" until after most the motorcade had passed and they headed across the street. So, all this shows no reason to claim the Z, Muchmore and Nix films were altered.
PROOF NUMBER SEVEN
On his video, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, Jack White states: "A comparison of 31 motionless people with other photos of them reveals startling unexplained discrepancies." These are the people seen on the north side of Elm in the Zapruder film. In the Zapruder film, there are over a dozen different signs of movement from these people. Granted, they don't appear as active as the people on the south side of the street, but they are far from motionless.
The video compares the Zapruder film to others taken that day, but not at the exact same time!!! It has been pointed out to me, even though I did not catch it at the time, that in one comparison, Jack numbered the people backwards in his comparison!!! Jack pointed out that some of the peoples' clothes changed colors while not allowing for the backside shadows or front side sun light. And this is proof the film was altered???
PROOF NUMBER EIGHT
In The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, Jack White shows a picture of Dealey Plaza with an overlay clip from the Zapruder film. He then draws a set of parallel lines between the tops and bottoms of two lamp posts. He claims to know the height of these lamps and this allowed him to measure Jodi Foster (lady in the tan coat see in and around Z-313). His measurements placed her at seven feet tall!!!
It was pointed out before the production of this video that the overlay was out-of-scale to the picture of Dealey Plaza. But Jack claims this proves the Zapruder film background was enlarged 130 percent. It should be noted that the line drawn between the lamp bases is straight, not allowing for the curvature of the land.
Is this proof the Zapruder film was altered? I still believe it was doctored but the Hoax is not the kind of research we should place our hands in.
PROOF NUMBER NINE
In his Great Zapruder Film Hoax, Jack White shows frame Z-403 (Medio CD) that has a trapezoidal shape in it that is not seen in any other frame. This shape is where the rear wheel should be on the black pickup parked on Commerce. Not showing up in other frame means the Zapruder film was altered to Jack. He offers no proof of alteration or reason for this spot appearing in the film. If you look at this frame it become apparent this trapezoid was caused by the blurring of the frame.
This concludes all the points from The Great Zapruder Film Hoax I can recall. Should someone remember any other and wish to discuss them, please post them. - Michael Parks
Personally, I'll take (1) the testimony of Zapruder himself as he authenticated his own film under oath at the Clay Shaw trial, (2) the scores of exposures taken by several other photographers in Dealey Plaza that day, and (3) the studies and articles on our The Zapruder Film is Authentic page - rather than a mysterious Frenchman or a shoddy, contemptible "research" video.
Reymond's story is demonstrably nonsense. Jack White's "research" video falls short of following the basic tenets of any serious research work. Let's move on.
(*) - JACK: "I have changed my mind about where I will talk about the video. I will use only Queenbee and Rich's Board, since the atmosphere at a.c.jfk and Startext are too hostile with certain confrontational residents there. I had previously told Bradford I would respond on any of the groups, so I hope he sees this."
Comments? Please email: