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."