I notice many comments about Jack White in this thread. Jack truly did embarrass himself before the HSCA. His lack of knowledge about the photographic sciences was astounding. And yet, until Jack’s death, Fetzer referred to White as a “leading photographic expert” on the JFK event. Not unlike Groden who was undressed at the OJ civil trial.
Jack White had an uncanny eye for something he felt was amiss in the photographic evidence. The problem was he had limited skills to evaluate his own claims. But as he more-or-less said, he was only asking questions and it was up to others to resolve it.
One of White's claims could be contained in a sentence, but disproving (the usual outcome) it could take years of experiments and back-and-forth debate. One claim that White actually investigated was the Moorman-on-the-grass claim for the 2000 book "Murder in Dealey Plaza".
His claim was that Moorman would have to be on the street (she is "off the curb in Bronson" per White) to account for the line-of-sight in her photo. White essentially claimed a corner of the Zapruder pedestal would have to align with the corner of a window in the background. The only place White could get the alignment was when he duplicated Moorman's lens height as if she were standing in the street. But others (
Link to two-part article ) found the window corner alignment was not in the Moorman photo to begin with, and that standing on the grass as she is in Zapruder matches the line-of-sight in her photograph.
Moorman's feet are not seen on the grass in Bronson because of the curvature of the lawn towards the curb. Probably sloped for rain drainage.
