Josiah Thompson

alt The most direct evidence we have concerning the windshield is photographic.... the undamaged windshield apparent in Altgens #6 and the windshield damage apparent in Altgens #7. The damage in Altgens #7 matches the location and character of both Frazier's notes and the photo he took of the windshield in the early morning hours of November 23rd. The results of Frazier's examination of the windshield is echoed in various reports from percipient witnesses including Secret Service agents who passed their fingers over the windshield to determine whether there was a perforation. All of this is very direct evidence from Noveber 22nd and 23rd and indicates the windshield was struck a glancing blow from the rear leaving a lead smear on the interior surface of the windshield. Are Altgens' photos to be disbelieved? Have they been altered? What about Frazier's photo? Was it altered or was it just faked up after the fact? Was Frazier and his crime scene search unit all part of some consiracy to hide the fact of a hole in he windshield? You say a lot about Whitaker but very little about the evidence from November 22nd and 23rd that has the most probative significance. Or does "probative significance" not matter anymore once we are in the hall of mirrors where ever widening conspiracy makes white black and black white? For starters, how about telling us what you make of Altgens #6? Josiah Thompson

Thank you, Jack. Altgens #6 was shot at Z 255 and Altgens #7 a few seconds later. But wouldn't it be useful if Mr. Weldon answered these questions first so we'd have an idea where he stands on these fundamental points? So I reask the questions: First question: Is it the case that Altgens #6 (taken at Z 255) shows damage to the windshield? Or is it the case that no discernible damage to the windshield is present in Altgens #6? Second question: Would you agree that Altgens #7 shows damage to the windshield in the approximate spot where Frazier's notes and photo show damage to the windshield? Can you discern any difference between the damage shown in Altgens #7 to the windshield and the later damage to the windshield memorialized in Frazier's notes and photo? Josiah Thompson

First question: Is it the case that Altgens #5 (taken at Z 255) shows damage to the windshield? Or is it the case that no discernible damage to the windshield is present in Altgens #5? Second question: Would you agree that Altgens #6 shows damage to the windshield in the approximate spot where Frazier's notes and photo show damage to the windshield? Can you discern any difference between the damage shown in Altgens #6 to the windshield and the later damage to the windshield memorialized in Frazier's notes and photo? Josiah Thompson

Pat, I hope you and others can understand my bewilderment. About a decade ago Jack White misread the Moorman photo and proclaimed seeing a line-up in the photo that doesn't exist. The exact nature of the mistake was pointed out nine years ago. This last thread shows that Todd Vaughan was in Dealey Plaza when they performed the "experiment" they have been crowing about for years. He looked through the transit they set up and could see clearly that they had not done what they claimed they had done. Mantik's notes of the same "experiment" show it was what Vaughan's experience indicated it was.... a scam. Yet, when this is all pointed out with photos illustating the crucial points, all Jack White can do is yell, "I'm right. He's wrong. I'm right. He's wrong. Off with his head!" Meanwhile, Fetzer (who said "Oh xxxx!" when Vaughan arrived near the transit) contents himself with telling people to read more of his books and dumps on you. Neither one will defend themselves against the obvious judgments that spring from Vaughan's explicit memories and Mantik's notes. Sometimes it seems like this whole discussion has passed through the looking glass. Josiah Thompson

Fine Jack. Let’s take your words... not mine... from MIDP. And, while we’re at it, let’s take your illustration from MIDP. Here it is: You say on the facing page to this illustration: “I discovered a point within the photo that aligned 2 widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight. At the left is a graphic image of the points of reference I aligned, which are easily located in the plaza. Two edges of the window openings in the rear of the paragola (sic) A and B in the photo exactly coincide with the top and south edge of the pedestal C and D. As you can see, the angles AB and DC for a large cross (+)..” Now let’s remove the wide red lines that you and Fetzer superimposed on the Moorman photo: Do “the two edges of the window openings in the rear of the paragola (sic) A and B in the photo exactly coincide with the top and south edge of the pedestal C and D?” Do “the angles AB and DC form a large cross (+)..?” Of course they don't. You've been wasting everyone's time for years with this kind of evasion, Jack. Josiah Thompson

It is amazing that adults are continuing to argue the Moorman photo claim nine years after it was exposed as mistaken. Here is how it came to be. In 1967, I obtained the best copies available of the Moorman photo in order to evaluate the anomalous shape behind the stockade fence. Copies were obtained from Wide World and UPI. The copy from Wide World photos was called the Zippo copy. Copies from UPI were high resolution but were cropped and did not include the Zapruder pedestal. In addition, Moorman was paid to permit a professional photographer to copy her Polaroid and produce a negative as big as the original Polaroid. A print from this negative was called the Drum Scan copy. As Jack White pointed out, in the 1980s I provided the best copies I had to Gary Mack and Jack White. They used these copies in their work. In addition, at the same time they obtained a copy of the Polaroid from the FBI and also had a friend of Jack White’s copy the Polaroid.. (1) The Drum Scan copy, (2) the Gordon Smith copy, (3) the FBI copy were all in Jack White’s possession by the mid-1980s. These were all fairly high resolution copies of Mary Moorman’s Polaroid. In addition, Jack White had the Zippo copy that I had obtained from Wide World Photos. Taken with a box camera some feet away from the Polaroid, it suffered from grain break-up when enlarged. Jack White published his claim in MIDP by showing a photo of the high resolution Gordon Smith copy with red lines that obscured the line-up of the points (or lines) that founded his claim concerning the line-of-sight. At that time, it was fairly difficult to get access to a copy of the Moorman photo that included the Zapruder pedestal. I looked at the illustration in MIDP and went to my file of high resolution copies. These showed clearly that Jack White had misread the Moorman photograph, that the points (or lines) he said lined up did not line up. If one removed the red lines superimposed on the White/ Fetzer illustration, it was clear there was a significant gap. The true line-of-sight present in the Moorman photo was about six inches higher at Moorman’s position than the mistaken line-of-sight Jack White claimed. The true line-of-sight lined up perfectly with the position of Moorman’s camera as shown in the Zapruder film. All of this was pointed out and argued vehemently on the DellaRosa forum. It led to the famous “experiment” of November 16, 2001 performed by White, Fetzer and Mantik. It now has become clear that this purported “experiment” was simply a scam to support White’s mistaken reading of the Zapruder film. Why do I say it was a “scam”? Consider the following facts. White rented a surveyor’s transit and took it to Dealey Plaza. White and company set it up at Moorman’s location near the south curb of Elm Street and took many photos of them looking through it. This proves exactly nothing since anyone can take a transit to Dealey Plaza and position it so the two points (or lines) mentioned by White line up. It could be done now if anyone wanted to. The real question concerns where the transit was pointed. If it failed to taken into account what is shown clearly in higher resolution copies of the Moorman photo (that is, the gap), it is irrelevant. Fetzer and White later claimed that they included the gap in their aiming of the transit. However, later evidence shows that this claim is false. Todd Vaughan was present in Dealey Plaza that day. He tells a fairly hilarious story of what happened. According to a post from Vaughan on December 3, 2001, he chatted for awhile with an acquaintance named Tony Cummings. Fetzer asked Cummings who Todd was and Cummings replied, “Todd Vaughan.” Fetzer then said to Cummings, “Oh xxxx!” Vaughan then introduced himself to Fetzer who asked Vaughan, “What kind of work do you do?” Vaughan replied that he worked in “corporate security.” They parted and Vaughan had a similar short encounter with Jack White. Neither invited him to look through the transit. After the transit was lined up, Vaughan introduced himself to David Mantik and mentioned that they had met earlier. Mantik cordially invited Vaughan to look through the transit. Here is what Vaughan said: After the experiment appeared to be complete, but before the transit was moved and broke down, I introduced myself to Dr. Mantik. I mentioned that he and I had met before. Cordial as ever, he seemed to recall this and then invited me to look through the transit at the established line of sight. I did so, and immediately and clearly commented that I thought the alignment was close in the horizontal planes but was off in the vertical plane. I then examined three versions of Moorman that were being used in the alignment attempt. The first was a large blowup of the pedestal area mounted on stiff cardboard. It was obvious that this was an enlarged computer image that was somewhat pixilated, blurry, and off color, having a sepia like tone. It was also obvious that there was a crosshair overlaid that in the horizontal plane attempted to line up the bottom of the window with the top of the pedestal. As Josiah Thompson pointed out some months ago and here recently, those points DO NOT line up in Moorman. Rather there is a gap between them. I pointed all these facts out and commented that this version of Moorman did not allow one to see the correct relationship of the window to the pedestal. Dr. Mantik then produced an 8x10" glossy of Moorman. This was better quality, but as the area in question was not blown-up, it was of little use. I then looked at, on my own accord, a copy of Grodens' TKOAP that was being used. That version of Moorman was completely useless. In a later post on this forum, Vaughan wrote: Fetzer was rather stand-offish and confrontational, for some reason not discussing the experiment but rather demanding to know what I did for a living and where I worked. Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap. It is obvious what White and company could have done to verify their “experiment.’ Since the whole issue is where they aimed the transit, they could have rigged a camera to shoot through the eye-piece of the transit. Of, if that was too difficult, they could have taped a camera to the top of the transit and taken a photo of their alignment. They did neither. Instead, Fetzer said “Oh xxxx!” when he heard Vaughan was present and neither Fetzer nor White invited him to look through the transit. However, as Vaughan pointed out, David Mantik was “gentlemanly and cordial” and let him look through the transit. In addition, Manitk provided me with his notes of the “experiment” that confirm they simply ignored the gap and aligned the transit on the mistaken line-of-sight. Mantik’s notes show that the transit alignment crossed above the south curb of Elm Street at a height of 48.25". It’s fairly easy to go to Moorman position and take a photo with a line-of-sight that crosses the curb at height of 48". Here it is: It shows that such a line of sight simply lines up White’s mistaken reading of the photo by disregarding the gap. On the other hand, if you take a photo that includes the gap it crosses the curb at a height of 54". Here it is: I submit that Vaughan’s sighting through the transit and its confirmation via Mantik’s notes shows that this much vaunted “experiment” was little more than a scam to save a discredited claim. It’s companion piece is the original Fetzer/White illustration that covered up the misalignment of the two points (or lines) with superimposed red lines. Subsequent to this time, White has used the bleary Zippo Copy to make his claim since it’s grain break-up makes it virtually impossible to gauge the relative positions of the two points (or lines). When confronted with the fact that he switched the evidence, White claimed he used the Zippo copy in the Fetzer/White illustration. However, as Craig Lamson pointed out, internal evidence in the illustration clearly showed that one of the high resolution copies (not the Zippo copy) had been used in the MIDP illustration. Then White changed his story and said he did not remember what copy he used. It is appalling that a simple mistake in reading the Moorman photo by Jack White is still the subject of debate nine years after the mistake was exposed. The unwilligness of Fetzer and White to admit a simple mistake has led to the waste of hundreds of hours of research time on a discredited claim. Should anyone wish to see the full posts by Todd Vaughan they can be found on this forum under the thread “Jack, let’s try an experiment...” at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...15423&st=60. Josiah Thompson

Why do I speak of points lining up? Why do I speak of corners lining up? Because you spoke of points, Jack, when you first introduced your claim in MIDP : “I discovered a point within the photo that aligned 2 widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight.” Remember? You are flapping your arms and making a huge fuss about nothing. Why? Because you and Fetzer put together a PR scam and now you’ve been caught at it. You hope that by dumping irrelevancies into the debate you can deflect attention. You can’t. Here’s your illustration: You are right about that less than an inch detent at the top of the pedestal. That detent makes a small difference in where the line-of-sight is placed in the horizontal (or right/left) plane. So what? The critical point concerns the vertical (or up/down) plane. Here again is your illustration from MIDP: The circled vertical GAP is what the dispute is about. You can wave your arms all about but you can’t deny that. The difference between lining up the points (or, if you want, the lines) you specify and taking into account the vertical part of the gap is a difference of about six inches in the vertical position of Moorman’s camera. Aligning the points or lines without taking into consideration the vertical gap, puts her camera too low. Taking the vertical gap into consideration places the camera right where it is shown to be in the Zapruder film. Anyone can go to Dealey Plaza, line up the two points (or lines if you wish) and say, “Aha! See we lined up the points (or lines)!” This could be done today or tomorrow or six years ago. It is easy to do and it proves absolutely nothing. The question is: Do those points or lines line-up in the Moorman photo? The answer, as we’ve seen is, no. So the only test that makes any sense is to replicate the Moorman photo including the GAP and see where that line-of-sight crosses the curb. If you do that, it turns out that the line-of-sight crosses curb at a height of somewhat over 54 inches. The people with the transit have been claiming for years that this is what they did but we know it isn’t. Why? Because Todd Vaughan looked through that transit after it was set up and told them they had not taken into account the gap. “The fact is that after looking through the transit,” pointed out Vaughan, “I spoke with Dr. Mantik about the alignment being very close horizontally but off vertically because it did not account for the gap. After that I also talked to both you and Fetzer.” In addition, we have Mantik’s meticulous notes that show the height of their line-of-sight over the curb. It was 48.25 inches, just the height you would expect if they had ignored the gap and lined up the two points or lines. Things have come together here to expose nothing less than a scam that you and Fetzer put together. Mantik was obviously not part of the scam. Hence, your mistake was letting someone participate who was not part of it. He let Todd Vaughan look through the transit and gave me his notes. Otherwise, we could not prove what you did. You did something truly outrageous to save face. Why not finally admit it and let us move on? Is it so important never to be proven wrong? Josiah Thompson

Years ago we were able to confirm exactly what Todd said. David Mantik, always a gentleman, not only let Todd look through the eyepiece of their transit after it had been set up, he also took meticulous measurements. Being a gentleman, he sent me those measurements and they confirm exactly what Todd said. Mantik’s measurements show that the line-of-sight they measured that day with the transit crossed the south curb of Elm Street at a height of 48.25 inches. This gave us something precise to work with. We went to Dealey Plaza, found Moorman’s approximate position and set up the camera on the curb exactly 48" above the top of the curb. Here is the resulting photograph: It shows that when you do what they did you end up with a photo lining up the top left corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the window beyond. In other words, all they did was perform a stunt. As Todd pointed out, they made no allowance for the “gap” present in the Moorman photo but simply set up their transit as if there weren’t any gap. What they did is as irrelevant as if the referees at the Superbowl set out to determine if a first down had been made by carefully measuring the width of the field at the point the last play ended. They pulled a PR stunt and have been advertizing it as “science” ever since. When people refer to “assassinated science” it is this sort of nonsense they are referring to. Josiah Thompson

What is the fascination with the Zippo print? All this has been gone over years ago and now it is being repeated for a new and younger audience. What does the Zippo print have to do with anything? Here is a good copy of the Zippo. Have at it. The Zippo print is important because you substituted it for much better prints years ago and have been using it to maintain the fiction about Moorman. Because of grain break-up you can't see much detail in the Zippo photo enlargements. That fact permits you to say things you could not get away with if you were referring to higher resolution prints like the one you used in MIDP. I agree with you. The Zippo print is irrelevant. What should be used are the high resolution prints that have been in your possession for over twenty years. Why have you steadfastly avoided useing them since at least 2003? That's the question. Josiah Thompson

Here is what I have, John. I obtained a copy of the Zippo in 1967 along with a caption from Wide World photos: The best copy I have is the following one: Not how the grain break-up makes details difficult to see. Josiah Thompson

Are there any photos I can post to help you with this, John. I would be glad to oblige. Josiah Thompson

I said you used the "Zippo print" with the transit because that is what you said back on the Yahoo JFK research board when we debated this. If someone has the time, perhaps they can look it up. I wasn't in Dealey Plaza. I have no idea what copy you used or what you said or where you sighted the transit. However, height measurements taken from David Mantik's notes (which he was kind enough to provide to me) show indisputably that you simply aligned the transit on the the two points, thus dispensing with what was actually present in the Moorman photo. Todd's look-see through the transit only confirms this. Whatever was done is more than irrelevant to the crucial issue... do the two points (or two sets of lines, as you would have it) line up in the photo or not? We've shown they don't. Josiah Thompson

Todd said years ago that he took a look through their transit and that it was fairly close as far as the horizontal (left and right) axis went but was off in terms of the vertical (up and down) axis. I hope Todd might give us his own account. Josiah Thompson

You reply: “I ALWAYS TALK HONESTLY ABOUT EVERYTHING.” Fine. Then I will quit trying to have anything approaching a real dialogue with you and treat you as the zealot you have chosen to be. Back in 2000, you published an illustration in MIDP that you said showed the line-up of two points: the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of a pergola window. You covered up the purported line-up of these points with needlessly wide red lines. The Moorman copy you used for the illustration was the “Gordon Smith copy,” a fairly high-resolution copy that you obtained by having Moorman’s Polaroid copied. When the red lines are removed from this copy, it is clear that the two points do not line-up. In short, your claim is shown to be false by inspection. When this was pointed out to you, you simply switched copies. Instead of the reasonably high resolution "Gordon Smith copy," you used the “Zippo copy.” This copy was made by a law enforcement officer using a box camera and shooting the Polaroid from several feet away. As it is enlarged, grain break-up makes it virtually impossible to see details. The result is that details apparent on all the high resolution copies of the Moorman photo ("Gordon Smith copy,"" FBI copy,"" Drum Scan copy") are virtually obliterated. By switching copies, you make it possible to continue making your claim when all other copies of the photo show that it is false by inspection. When you, Fetzer and Mantik took your transit, to Dealey Plaza you brought along the “Zippo copy.” This permitted you to align the transit along the line-of-sight established by the two points and assured the result you got. Todd Vaughan looked through the transit and told you it was not aligned properly in the vertical dimension. David Mantik’s notes confirm this. In 2003, you authored a chapter for Fetzer’s TGZFH. Once again, you took up the Moorman-in-the-Street argument. However, instead of using the reasonably high resolution "Gordon Smith copy" as you had in MIDP (2000), you substituted the bleary “Zippo copy.” The “Zippo copy” produced bleary illustrations, but, by doing so, you concealed from the reader the fact that your argument failed by inspection. Since then you have used exclusively the “Zippo copy.” You say that “for locating the Moorman line of sight, ANY MOORMAN PRINT can be used, since the features of the line of sight are the same.” You say that but your actions belie your words. You have stuck exclusively with the bleary “Zippo copy” because any other copy shows you are wrong. Switching evidence is generally considered rather bad form or even cheating. Hence, over the last few days, you have been claiming that you never switched anything... that in fact your illustration in MIDP used the “Zippo copy.” This claim is falsified by the obvious fact that fragments of the fingerprint (present only on higher resolution copies and not present on the “Zippo copy”) are present on the MIDP illustration. So there you are. When challenged, your approach is not to have a civil and informative discussion of the facts, but simply to deny the evidence. Such an approach will work for awhile, but, as the facts pile up against you, no one pays any attention to you anymore. I had hoped we could have a genuine discussion but you have foreclosed that. Too bad. Josiah Thompson

I know it’s never... or very seldom... done on this forum or any other. But let’s try an experiment. Instead of circling each other as opposing gladiators, trying to score a point here or a point there... let’s try to talk honestly and earnestly about what is in front of us. I’m going to tell you exactly where I’m coming from and why I’ve been asking the questions I’ve been asking. I hope, given that kind of display of good will and honesty, that you will reply in kind. First, let me say it was generous of you to acknowledge that twenty some years ago I provided you and Gary Mack with my best copies of the Moorman photo. This has always been the way I’ve gone about things but it was good of you to acknowledge it. I first heard of your Moorman claim back when we were all dueling on the DellaRosa site... that was long before Barb and I (and possibly Craig) all got kicked off for messing with you and Fetzer. Back in those days, it was not easy to get to see a copy of the Moorman photo that included Zapruder and the pedestal. That was because the UPI version of the photo that had been the most widely distributed had that right part of the photo cropped off. However, I pulled several complete versions out of my file and looked at them with a magnifying glass. I was amazed. It was clear by inspection that the two points you were talking about didn’t line up. It was an ingenious idea that you had but it was wrong by inspection. I posted what I saw on DellaRosa’s board and Todd Vaughan complimented me on seeing something that hadn’t been noticed before. Then someone gave me Fetzer’s book and I noticed the rather hyperbolic claim... “MOORMAN POLAROID PHOTO CONTAINS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF ZAPRUDER FILM TAMPERING.” I figured that was Fetzer not you. Then I looked at the photo that accompanied the claim. “What the hell are all these red lines doing there?" I asked myself "You can’t see the crucial area where the points are supposed to line up.” I already knew what was under the lines since I’d studied my photo with a magnifying glass. But just for amusement, I pulled out one the higher resolution ones and cropped it to fit your illustration. The result was this comparison that I’m sure you’ve seen before: I think I was able to post this on the DellaRosa forum before getting kicked off. I know it was before you and Fetzer and Mantik took a transit to Dealey Plaza and performed your celebrated “experiment.” I think it was about the same time that you began substituting the “Zippo copy” for all other copies in your various “proofs, etc.” However, it was only through Craig Lamson’s great eye a few days ago that I was able to see something really important. You have been claiming over the last few days that the illustration in MIDP was put together using the “Zippo copy.” Craig saw clearly that this was not the case since there were fragments of the fingerprint on the illustration and these fragments are present only on the more high resolution copies. Okay, so here is what I think and what I would beg you to discuss in your answer. I don’t know why you made the error in the first place but mistakes happen. Were you aware of this when you and Fetzer put together your illustration? Were you aware that if you stripped off the red lines your illustration showed the opposite of what you said it showed? Moving on, is this why you switched from the higher resolution copy used in the illustration to the "Zippo copy" that even Costella says is awful? Or to put it more neutrally, why did you start using to illustrate your argument what is obviously the worst copy we have of the Moorman photo? Finally, why have you been claiming for several days that you used the Zippo copy for the illustration when it is obvious that you used a higher resolution copy to make it up? probably the Gordon Smith copy... am I right? When I first looked at the Moorman photo and noticed the two points didn’t line up, I thought this was a minor error of yours and that the argument would disappear like so many others. But it didn’t. Here we are six or so years later and we’re still talking about it. I hope you might be able to throw some light on the questions asked above and help me get some clarity concerning what really happened. I would be grateful for that. Josiah Thompson

You understand exactly what the question is and why it is being asked. Then you dance around it. Two days ago, you said you were sure you used the Zippo copy for your illustration. You wrote: "Well, I reaffirm that the Zippo copy is what I used. Here is a hi-res scan of the entire Zippo... I have records of all and KNOW what I did.” Now you say the "Zippo print was used to locate MOORMAN IN THE STREET because of HIGHER CONTRAST." Is that your answer? Are you maintaining that you used the Zippo copy from the beginning and never switched copies on us? It's a simple question. Why not just answer with equal simplicity? Josiah Thompson

This thread is largely a distraction, so let's cut to the chase. Let's cut to the question you have been studiously avoiding answering for the last day. You said two days ago on the “flushing” thread: “The illustration in MIDP used the ZIPPO copy... Well, I reaffirm that the Zippo copy is what I used. Here is a hi-res scan of the entire Zippo. Note the "black dot" which he says is virtually invisible. He needs to to visit his opthalmologist right away. I do not understand how he can "divine" which of many Moorman copies I used, when I have records of all and KNOW what I did.” Are you still claiming this? Are you still claiming you used the blurry Zippo copy from the beginning and that you have records to show this? Are you still claiming that you did not start with a reasonably high-resolution copy and then switched when you saw it showed your argument was false? Just a simple answer, Jack. Are you still claiming what you were claiming two days ago? Surely, you can answer such a simple and direct question. You ask, Why is this important? It is important, Jack, because the answer to your question tells us a lot about your integrity as a researcher and about the worth of your claim. Did you really just start your research with the “blurriest” of all the Moorman copies? Or did you do what any smart person would do... start with the best copy you had? If the latter, why did you switch? Isn’t it sort of cheating if you find a high resolution copy proves the opposite of what you want to prove, so you move to the worst copy you have? What would you say if you found one of us doing that? Wouldn't the word "cheater" come to mind? So let’s hear your answer. Our ears are wide open. Josiah Thompson

As the basis for your illustrations, are you once again using the "Zippo copy?" Are you still contending that you used the "Zippo copy" as the basis for your illustration in MIDP? Two simple questions. Please be so kind as to answer. Josiah Thompson

Below, you will find additional illustrations that the Ed Forum program would not permit to be included in the original post. The "Zippo Copy" (note absence of fingerprint): The "FBI Copy": The "Drum Scan Copy" (note presence of finger print):

This is embarrassing. The windows are not visible because the bodies of Zapruder and Sitzman are blocking them out! Josiah Thompson

So now we know. The White/Fetzer claim that the Moorman photo demonstrates Zapruder film fakery has used up hundreds (if not thousands) of research hours over the last decade. The oddity is that the claim is false on its face. If you take the illustration Fetzer and White used to explain the claim and if you remove the red lines from the illustration, it’s clear by inspection that it’s false. White and Fetzer claim that the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal lines up with the bottom right corner of the pergola window behind it. In explaining the illustration above, White writes: “I discovered a point within the photo that aligned 2 widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight. At the left is a graphic image of the points of reference I aligned, which are easily located in the plaza. Two edges of the window openings in the rear of the paragola (sic) (A and B in the photo exactly coincide with the top and south edge of the pedestal (C and D).” The red lines put there by Fetzer and White cover up the area in question. When they are removed, however, it is clear that what White says is just false. The two points don’t line up. The two edges of the window openings don’t line up with the top and south edge of the pedestal. The claim is wrong by inspection. Why then has it endured so long and used up so many research hours in its refutation? Last night, in debate with Jack White on a thread called “Flushing the full-flush-left argument,” I learned the answer. Jack White switched the evidence without telling anyone! To explain this properly you need to know a little bit about what copies of the Moorman photo came into existence, when they came into existence, and how they were made. AP/“ZIPPO” COPY A full-frame photo shows the Moorman Polaroid propped-up against a wall with a Zippo lighter along the right frame border.... hence the name “Zippo copy.” This photo was taken by an unknown law enforcement officer without Moorman’s knowledge on the afternoon of November 22nd while she was being questioned. It was taken with an inexpensive “box camera” that used standard, grainy film. Therefore, enlargements from this negative are plagued by grain breakup and are of low resolution. As John Costella has pointed out, this is the “blurriest” of all Moorman copies. Since it was copied so soon after exposure, the fingerprint that mars later copies has not developed. A copy from this version eventually found its way to the Associated Press and was distributed on the AP wire within a few days. FBI COPY Either on November 22nd (or very soon thereafter), the FBI obtained Moorman’s photo and copied it. That copy languished in the files of the FBI Dallas field office for two decades. In the early 1980s, Gary Mack was working with Jack White on their “Badge Man” theory. One of Gary’s colleagues at a TV station, Ed Martelle, wondered if the FBI had a Moorman copy and contacted the Dallas FBI office. A copy was made of the Moorman photo and delivered to the reporter who gave it to Mack. He loaned it to Jack White who then made copies that he retained. The FBI print shows the entire Moorman photograph. Since the Polaroid was copied at least during that weekend, it shows that the fingerprint has not yet emerged with clarity. DRUM SCAN COPY The Moorman photo became important to me during the production of Six Seconds in Dallas because it showed an anomalous shape along the stockade fence approximately fifteen feet west of the corner. Consequently, I searched various photo agencies for the best copies of the photograph. In addition, I contacted Mary Moorman and paid her to permit a Dallas professional photographer to copy her Polaroid. It was copied in February 1967 using a camera that produced 4" by 5" negatives even larger than the original Polaroid print. The photographer used those negatives to make several 8" by 10" prints. In January 2002, when Moorman-in-the-street came into controversy, I had the photographer’s original copy negative (not a print) scanned at 2400 dpi by Octagon Digital Media in San Francisco. Using a drum scanner on the original negative avoided any defects or artifacts introduced during the printing process. CDs with the results of that scan were then distributed to anyone who wanted one including Jack White and James Fetzer. Given the deterioration of the original Polaroid print both before and after February 1967 and the cropped nature of the UPI print, the drum scan copy of the Moorman photo may be one of the highest resolution copies in existence. Unfortunately, even by 1967 the badly deteriorated Polaroid had lost a lot of detail as indicated by the fingerprint that mars its surface. GORDON SMITH COPY This copy originates with Jack White. In the mid-1980s, White asked a photographer friend of his, Gordon Smith, to copy the Moorman Polaroid. Gary Mack arranged with Moorman to borrow the Polaroid and the Moorman camera. Smith, whose photography studio also provided “restoration” of faded pictures, did so and turned the results over to White. Since then, White has posted this copy several times on the internet. It is clear that between 1967 and 1985 (when this copy was made) the Polaroid original had decayed further. The fingerprint clearly mars its surface. ***************** In terms of resolution, the Drum Scan copy is probably the best. It was made by a professional photographer who produced a negative the size of the original Polaroid and did all this in 1967. Next in quality is either the FBI photo copied from the original Polaroid in 1963 or the Gordon Smith copy that Jack White had made in the mid-1980s. Last by a longshot is the Zippo copy. It was shot with an inexpensive box camera at a distance from the Polaroid. The difference between the blurry Zippo Copy and the rest is obvious. This is why John Costella pointed out that it was the “blurriest” of all. Over the last few years, Jack White has been defending his Moorman claim by publishing versions of the Zippo Copy with lines drawn on it. Because of grain break-up in the enlargements it is difficult to see where exactly things are in this version. He is doing this, obviously, because if he tried to draw the lines on any of the higher resolution copies it would be clear that they were misdrawn, that the points he has in mind don’t line up. If White and Fetzer had used the Zippo Copy from the beginning to make their arguments, it would seem bizarre but would not be cheating. But how about if they actually did something else? What if they started out using one of the higher resolution copies, covered up the relevant area with red lines, and then claimed the higher resolution copy showed what in fact it didn’t show? Wouldn’t that strike any of us as cheating? To avoid that conclusion, last night Jack White made the quite amazing claim that he had used the Zippo Copy to make the original illustration. In separate posts, he wrote: “The illustration in MIDP used the ZIPPO copy... Well, I reaffirm that the Zippo copy is what I used. Here is a hi-res scan of the entire Zippo. Note the "black dot" which he says is virtually invisible. He needs to to visit his opthalmologist right away. I do not understand how he can "divine" which of many Moorman copies I used, when I have records of all and KNOW what I did.” “Divining” what Moorman copy White and Fetzer used to make up their illustration is not that difficult. We start with the illustration itself: Now we ask: Was the Zippo copy the basis for this illustration? Obviously, not. The Zippo Copy showed gross grain break-when you reached this level of enlargement. The clincher however was provided by Craig Lamson. He noticed that in the illustration itself there is an indication that the fingerprint is present on the photo being used. Since no fingerprint was apparent on the Zippo Copy this proves it was made using one of the high resolution copies, probably the Gordon Smith Copy. Since Jack White has never produced a high resolution scan of the Gordon Smith copy, this is the best I can produce: Next is an enlargement from the Gordon Smith copy of the approximate size of MIDP illustration. Note fragments of fingerprint present in red circled area: Jack White has not yet admitted to the old switch-er-oo he pulled in abandoning the high resolution copy present in his illustration and starting to use the blurriest copy of the Moorman photo available. Why did he abandon the higher resolution copy? Of course, because it showed he was wrong. The result has been the waste of countless hours of research time in pursuing a claim that is false by inspection. Of course, if you’re never wrong you must never be seen to be wrong. [i would like to point out that I had other photos set up to illustrate the argument but the Ed Forum would not let me use them. Sorry.] Josiah Thompson

As others pointed out, your argument runs in circles. Take for example the dust-up over Officer Chaney. Chaney and a couple of other witnesses say Chaney rode ahead to tell Chief Curry what happened. The Zapruder film does not show this. You say the Zapruder film has been altered. People point out that the Nix, Muchmore and Bell film all agree with the Zapruder film. You say the Nix, Muchmore and Bell films have all been altered. We point out that the Daniels film and McIntire photo show the same thing as the other films and that the McIntire film was never in government hands. You say nothing. You end up claiming that whoever altered the Zapruder film made sure that all other films "conformed" to this alteration. This is the last stop on the choo-choo train to the looney bin. Now the reality of what happened in Dealey Plaza is simply up to you. It is what you say it is unbothered by any confirmation or disconfirmation by any film or photo evidence. If any film or photo clashes with what you say, you say it has been altered and should be ignored. This is just plain nuts!! The reality is quite different. After fifteen years of trying, you and Fetzer have shown not a single discrepancy between any film or photo shot in Dealey Plaza and any other. You have produced butkus. Meanwhile, on another thread on this forum, David Lifton's claim that the Zapruder film shows a unique kind of full frame left image penetration has just crashed and burned given the clear evidence of the Janowitz film. Those who turn to the photo record of Dealey Plaza as a self-authenticating whole in order to learn what happened are correct. That's what people have been doing from the beginning and your mny failures over the year only underline how correct they have been. Josiah Thompson

DELETE POST!

If Saturday Night Live was going to do a sketch making fun of Kennedy assassination researchers, this would be it... long involved discussions as to whether Greer, while driving the limousine, could have turned around in his seat, whipped out a chrome-colored revolver, and blasted JFK in the head. I can just see it. There is only one word for this kind of nonsense.... silly! Josiah Thompson