Josiah Thompson

In MIDP, Jack, you introduce your claim by saying: “I discovered a point within the photo that aligned two widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight. At the left is a graphic image of the two 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 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 CD form a large cross (+), which is readily perceived across Elm where Moorman stood to take her picture.” The “graphic image” that you mentioned is right here: But the problem with your “graphic image,” Jack, is that your wide red lines cover up just what we would want to look at. What’s that? Well, it’s the lining up of the two points you talk about (the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the pergola window) or that the “two edges of the window openings in the rear of the paragola (sic) (A and in the photo exactly coincide with the top and south edge of the pedestal (C and D).” I have a problem. When you remove the wide red lines and look underneath you can see that what you say is just, bluntly, untrue. The two points don’t line up. Nor do the edges you describe “coincide” as you say they should. This shows what is underneath your red lines: So help me out here, Jack. It seems to me that underneath your red lines is the “gap” and that’s what this whole dispute is about. Your say, “As long as importance is attached to the ‘gap,’ I will never engage in any further discussion about it.” You say you are not going to acknowledge the “gap” or say anything about it. But isn’t that being like an ostrich and shoving your head in the sand? How about it, Jack?

What a shame that Jack White has decided to let Fetzer channel him! The biggest loss is that White is rather succinct while Fetzer... after the last 15 pages what can one say? How do you manage it, Professor? You say, “He [Thompson] writes as though Costella were on his side, when he is actually Tink’s greatest nightmare.” Sure Professor. Then why does Costella write, as recently as December 9, 2008, “Just to bring everyone up to speed: I do NOT believe that the extant Moorman Polaroid places her on the street. In other words, I am on the Thompson et al. side of this argument, not Jim’s .” [NOTE: Emphasis in original; see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/5999.] Do you have something different from John dated more recently than that? The rest of Fetzer’s fifteen pages of mush has about the same credibility as his statement above. Was our study organized to attack his “Moorman/Zapruder revisited” piece published on the restricted DellaRosa forum? Do we want to keep folks from reading his piece? On the contrary, earlier I suggested that reading his piece would be a good comparison with our own study. Why? Because our own study presents the evidence around this issue in a convincing and definitive manner while his effort is incoherent and marred by recycling all the old Jack White claims (e.g. Moorman’s shoes are the wrong color) long ago refuted. Take a look at it. The URL is http://JFKresearch.com/Moorman. Fetzer continues to recycle his wrong and jejune interpretation of a paragraph in McCormick on Evidence. The point McCormick is making is about the admissibility of evidence not its probative value. For a photo to be admitted into evidence, it has to be authenticated as a photo of a particular scene. Right now, Barry Bonds is about to get off because his friend and personal trainer will not testify about a document’s relevance to Bond. Without the trainer coming in and authenticating the document and saying it was Bond’s calendar for steroid injections, the document cannot come into evidence. Without the personal trainer’s testimony, the document is subject to the hearsay objection. The same goes for photos. That’s why Zapruder had to testify at the Shaw trial that the film in evidence was the one he took. Likewise, Mary Moorman had to testify in the Shaw trial that the Moorman photo was the one she took. That was why she was asked to place herself on a map of Dealey Plaza and why she was asked to identify herself in frames from the Zapruder film standing in the grass taking her photo. All of this has to do with the legal requirements for the admission of a photo into evidence and has nothing to do with the probative value of a photo. The probative value is largely left up to the good sense of a jury with instructions from the judge. Any lawyer could have explained this to Fetzer but he keeps on falsely claiming the opposite. Another post explains how wrong-headed is Fetzer’s attempt to explain the defection from Moorman-in-the-street of John Costella, now one of Fetzer’s most vociferous opponents on this point. Fetzer wants to channel David Mantik in this discussion but we have heard nothing from Mantik. Fetzer claims that Moorman “has been saying the same thing since her first interview only three hours after the assassination in 1963 through a subsequent interview in 1997.” Our quotation of her interviews in extenso have shown just the opposite. Moorman has uttered confusing and contradictory statements about where she took her photo from the beginning. All Fetzer had to do was to read the interviews to know he was wrong. But he never reads. He just writes and writes and writes... He writes as if Moorman’s memory was perfect. It is not, nor is anyone’s. The photo she took that day still exists. Its basic contents are the same as they were on NBC less than thirty minutes after the assassination. The lines of sight over and through many objects line up in real life in Dealey Plaza today just like they did in 1963….and they show she stood on the grass when taking that picture. Fetzer cites me as saying, “So the choice is really simple. Either believe Moorman’s statement or believe the rest of the evidence.” Given what we’ve learned about what Moorman actually said, this should be revised to say, “So the choice is really simple. Either believe some of the things Moorman said and disbelieve the other things she said or believe the rest of the evidence.” The rest of the evidence includes the fact that internal evidence to the photo shows definitively that it was taken from the grass plus the fact that all photos and films show her taking photo from the grass and no witness among the several hundred there reported seeing her jump into the street. There is really not much else to say about Fetzer’s reply. He channels David Lifton who has nothing of interest to say about the factual claim but, of course, is interested to buttress his claim of Zapruder film fakery since the Z film contradicts his notion that all shots came from the front and that the body itself was altered on the way to Bethesda. What is interesting, of course, is what Fetzer does not say. He used to claim that the drum scan copy of the film had been altered by me. You will no longer hear this nonsense after we showed that all copies of the film indicated exactly the same “gap.” Nor will you hear anything about our proof of the existence of the “gap” and the fact that it means that White simply misread the Moorman photo. All of this proof, which is at the center of the dispute is simply ignored by Fetzer just as White takes the amazing position that it is beneath him to even discuss it. All in all, it was a welcome event to have Fetzer arrive (even if channeled by Jack White). We all can take a look at what he produced in his fifteen pages of prose and wonder why he bothered. Josiah Thompson

It’s nice to see that Professor Fetzer has not lost his appetite for calling people names. He has three categories in which to place people who disagree with him: (1) They are stupid. (2) They are mentally unbalanced. (3) They are agents or “ops” of some dark intelligence agency. I have had the honor to have been called all three by Fetzer. Those who agree with Fetzer get only one name...”experts.” John Costella states that internal evidence in the photo shows that it was taken from the grass. Fetzer believes that internal evidence in the photo shows it was taken from the street. Their views are in conflict. Costella points out that this has been his position since 2002. His quotes are scattered through this thread. It is unalterably true that photos and films of the same event taken from different locations must vary only in terms of their standpoint. If any film or photo has been altered, it will stand out in its fakery. This is the principle behind the long search of Fetzer and company for evidence of alteration. The fact that they have been unable to find it justifies the notion that the film and photo evidence from Dealey Plaza constitutes a self-authenticating whole. If you are going to prove that the Z film has been altered you have to do it the old-fashioned way... one proof at a time. It does no good to point to old alleged proofs that have been shot down to prove that the Moorman-in-the-street claim is true. You have to do it on the basis of the evidence concerning the Moorman-in-the-street claim itself. I am amused that Fetzer’s only way to argue is to slime his opponents: “By the same token, the history of Yale and the OSS and CIA is consistent with his being an op.” Apparently, he is ignorant of the comic tale of how the CIA tried to hire me. I told it all to a reporter who wrote it up for the New Republic in the early seventies. It’s a great comedy. Still, it’s tiresome don’t you think? No argument with the actual factual presentation of evidence but the same old line... his “reading comprehension“ is deficient, he’s “a dunce,” he’s “mentally bewildered,” he’s “acting as a disinfo op.” But the actual argument made in our study... he stays far away from that. I can hear cranking up in the background his riff about being a distinguished academic who taught critical thinking so we should believe him. Or once again he will hit us over the head with his CV that includes the prize he won in high school. But critical writing about the evidence in Moorman-in-the-street... we’re not going to hear much about that. Josiah Thompson

"What Costella believes is not in doubt no matter how much Fetzer believes it to be. Just ask Costella." OK. GOOD IDEA. LET'S ASK COSTELLA.... Quoting John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>: "1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens." Your yourself quoted this, Jack. Now what about that "gap" that I asked you about? Josiah Thompson

Just for starters, it is true without qualification that John Costella, has bailed out on Fetzer. I quoted the following accurately in our study: "John Costella recently lectured Fetzer on Fetzer’s mistakes of interpretation pointing out on 12/17/08 that “it has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street... It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film’s location of her lens.” [NOTE: Emphasis in original; see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6147] A week earlier, Costella posted, “Just to bring everyone up to speed: I do NOT believe that the extant Moorman Polaroid places her on the street. In other words, I am on the Thompson et al. side of this argument, not Jim’s .” [NOTE: Emphasis in original; see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/5999.]" Costella was Fetzer's collaborator earlier and still is on various things. However, since 2002 Costella has pointed out that Fetzer's Moorman-in-the-street claims are wrong. I didn't mention in the study, this quote from Costella: "My position on Moorman has not changed since May 2002. The extant Polaroid could not have been taken from the street by Mary. If she really did step into the street when taking it, then the extant photo cannot be genuine. But since we have no corroborating evidence for Mary being in the street, other than her own say-so, then I don't tie myself down to either conclusion." (HTTP://GROUPS.YAHOO.COM/GROUP/JFK-RESEARCH/MESSAGE/6230) What Costella believes is not in doubt no matter how much Fetzer believes it to be. Just ask Costella. Josiah Thompson

Alas, Jack White has not accepted our invitation to show us where our argument is incorrect. But there is one question I really hope he’ll answer. I’ve wondered about this for a long, long time. In MIDP, Jack, you introduce your claim by saying: “I discovered a point within the photo that aligned two widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight. At the left is a graphic image of the two 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 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 CD form a large cross (+), which is readily perceived across Elm where Moorman stood to take her picture.” The “graphic image” that you mentioned is right here: But the problem with your “graphic image,” Jack, is that your wide red lines cover up just what we would want to look at. What’s that? Well, it’s the lining up of the two points you talk about (the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the pergola window) or that the “two edges of the window openings in the rear of the paragola (sic) (A and in the photo exactly coincide with the top and south edge of the pedestal (C and D).” I have a problem. When you remove the wide red lines and look underneath you can see that what you say is just, bluntly, untrue. The two points don’t line up. Nor do the edges you describe “coincide” as you say they should. This shows what is underneath your red lines: So help me out here, Jack. It seems to me that underneath your red lines is the “gap” and that’s what this whole dispute is about. Your say, “As long as importance is attached to the ‘gap,’ I will never engage in any further discussion about it.” You say you are not going to acknowledge the “gap” or say anything about it. But isn’t that being like an ostrich and shoving your head in the sand? How about it, Jack? Josiah Thompson

Jack, I really wish you would be persuaded to straighten us out. It may surprise you but I have always had a different opinion of you than I have had of Professor Fetzer. Moorman-in-the-street was your idea. You say that “my replies on the Yahoo group apparently were not read nor acknowledged.” I, for one, never saw any replies from you. Have I missed something? You say that “the claims raised by Dr. Thompson are filled with inaccuracies and he attributes to me false positions which are not mine.” I am flattered by the fact that you use my thirty-year-old academic title but I am concerned that I may not have been fair to you. Hence, I am concerned that I have attributed to you “false positions which are not mine.” I have tried to quote your very words from MIDP? Did I get them wrong? What are the “inaccuracies” I am guilty of in referring to your work? Finally, how can the “gap” be irrelevant when its size determines the difference between what we’ve called the “White LOS” and the “Moorman LOS?” I should tell you that I’ve always thought that the idea behind Moorman-in-the-street is really clever. If the LOS were really there, you would have found something truly important. We don’t think it was there and that’s what the dispute is about. The Moorman-in-the-street issue is yours. You posed it and you have been defending it on and off for eight years. We are going to post our results at various places on the internet and also seek permanent publication. If you tell us where we are wrong, we will consider what you say and discuss it like adults. If you are right, we will change our text to reflect that. If you choose not to make your points, they will never be made and our manuscript will stand as written. I don’t know how old you are but I am 74. Surely, we can discuss this issue with civility and acuteness. Give and take over historical fact is not something that has to be unpleasant. I urge you to make your points and let us respond. As always, your replies will be treated with the respect and thoughtfulness they deserve. By replying, you will help us get to the bottom of this issue. Isn’t that what you want too? Josiah Thompson

Let’s cut to the chase. Miller, Mack, Lamson, Junkkarinen and I assembled the evidence concerning Moorman-in-the-street because we tired of Fetzer’s endless evasions and excuses. We would try to nail down one fact with him, and, just when we thought we had the point resolved, he would slide off on to something else. This silly argument has been around for eight years or so. It has been a dead puppy with its legs in the air for at least seven of those eight years. The underlying and simple fact is that Jack White simply misread what was present in the Moorman photograph. Fetzer and Mantik weren’t swift enough to catch the error. John Costella did and has been Fetzer’s nemesis on this at least since 2002. White and Fetzer can complain ‘til the cows come home about various extraneous matters. The fact remains that our little group has assembled all the relevant facts concerning this issue. We have put those facts together into an article or essay of a scholarly nature. Fetzer and White can decide not to discuss any of this relevant evidence. If I were them, I would do the same. Or, alternatively, they can attempt to confront the evidence that has been assembled. It matters not to me. Our job in assembling this evidence has been completed. If they want to defend their claim against it, that is their prerogative. If they choose not to, we will all be able to easily understand what that means. So quit the preliminaries. Either defend your claim or, by your silence, admit it cannot be defended. A lot of us have wasted enough time already on this silly issue. Josiah Thompson

I see: "Josiah and his gang were bested "fair and square". You can find the results summarized at JFKresearch.com/Moorman/, where Rich DellaRosa archived my summary overview, "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited". Before expending time and effort in repetitious and pointless re-argument, let me suggest you review the bidding by reviewing my study." Let's see now. Instead of looking at the evidence concerning this issue (some of which is new and gathered only recently), you are all invited to forget what is posted and refer yourselves to Professor Fetzer's "study." Now, why would one want to do that rather than look at the evidence itself? But why not? Why not take a look at Professor Fetzer's study and see how incoherent it is before taking a look at the evidence? Josiah Thompson

It would be interesting to see what Jack White has to say about the claim he has backed for the last eight years. On the other forum, he also refused to participate under his own name but fed material to Professor Fetzer. Whether or not Jack White participates, the evidence stands independently for everyone to evaluate. Josiah Thompson

PART II From Fetzer and White’s perspective, White’s mistaken LOS observation led to the conclusion that Moorman could not have taken her photo from a position in the grass beside the curb. Immediately, Fetzer and White were faced with an obvious question. She took her photo from somewhere. If a position on the grass by Elm Street was too low, from where did she take it? Of course, she took it from the street! It was 8" lower than the grass! A quick scramble to check some of her interviews added some confirmation. Thirty-four years after the event (1997), Moorman said in a Dallas radio interview that she took her photo from the street. On the afternoon of the shooting, Moorman said something that might be construed to mean that. “So that must be it,” thought Fetzer and White, “she took her photo from the street and the fabricators of the Zapruder film moved her above the curb to the grass along Elm Street.” But why? Why would Mary Moorman being in the street or in the grass become of such importance to the conspirators that they would go to the great trouble falsifying the Zapruder and other films? Well, that’s not clear... But we can’t be expected to know everything. Maybe the conspirators had something else to cover up and this just became part of it. In some fashion like this, the Moorman-in-the-street theory was born. Is it remotely plausible? Think for a moment exactly what is being proposed. The James Altgens photo taken at Zapruder frame 255 and showing the shadows of Moorman and Hill standing in the grass, show how crowded Elm Street was as the limousine passed. An earlier sweep by motorcycle officers was designed to move stray spectators out of the roadway. Two motorcycles on each side of the limousine patrolled the sides of the roadway. As the Altgens photo dramatically shows, the motorcycle outriders accompanying the limousine came within thirty inches of the south curb of Elm Street. If we are to believe that Mary Moorman jumped into the street to take her famous photo, we also have to believe that those officers, Martin and Hargis, veered their cycles suddenly to the right to miss her. Furthermore, this happened right in the middle of the assassination when spectators’ attention was riveted on the motorcade. Not a single witness later reported anything like this. Not a single witness reported seeing a spectator leap into street and almost get run down by two motorcyclists. Both Officers Martin and Hargis made reports and were later interviewed several times. Neither one said a thing about some crazy woman jumping into their path in the middle of the shooting and their having to veer around her. Is it remotely plausible that this happened and no one saw it or reported it? What do the other photos of the assassination show? The Nix, Muchmore and Bronson films all show the same thing that the Zapruder film shows. Martin and Hargis never veer their motorcycles but maintain their station off the left rear of the limousine. No one jumps into the street. Hill and Moorman can be seen standing quietly beside the curb as Moorman takes her picture. As indicated earlier, their shadows standing on the grass appear in the Altgens photo taken approximately three seconds before the Moorman photo. The Bronson still photo shows Hill and Moorman standing in the grass as the limousine approaches. The Moorman photo itself shows the motorcyclists cruising serenely by several feet from Moorman’s camera. As John Costella recently pointed out, all the photographic evidence (including the Moorman photo itself) confirms Moorman’s standing in the grass to take her photo. (NOTE: See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6152) Two other ingenious proofs have surfaced showing that the Moorman photo was taken from the grass not the street. Neither had anything to do with Fetzer and White’s failed LOS argument. Bill Miller produced a test of supreme simplicity. First, he contacted the Harley-Davidson Museum and learned everything the Museum could tell him about the particular Harley model used in the Presidential motorcade. Nest, he was able to find via Ebay an actual Harley-Davidson motorcycle that had been used in the motorcade that day. Bill asked the owner to make a measurement for him after inflating the tires to their proper pressure and putting a 200 pound rider on the cycle. The owner measured the distance from the ground to the top of the motorcycle’s windscreen. It turned out to be 58”. The Moorman photo is looking down from above on the top of Hargis’s windscreen. Hence, the Moorman camera has to be higher than 58" above the ground. Since the roadway is 8" lower than the grass, this would be the camera’s likely position if the photo were taken from the grass. Only if Mary Moorman jumped into the street and then raised the camera high above her head to take her picture could the Moorman photo have been taken from the street. Six or seven years ago, Miller and Robert Groden set up yellow staffs 58" high in the roadway at the position of the two motorcycle riders windscreens. They then photographed the yellow staffs from Moorman’s position in the grass as shown in the Zapruder film. Miller prepared this GIF that alternates between the Moorman photo and the 58" high staffs. John Costella recently described a further test of which I was unaware. According to Costella, Rick Janowitz carried out an experiment suggested by Marcel Dehaeseleer. This happened in 2003. Costella described the experiment as a simple comparison of the field of view in the Moorman photo with the field of view produced by the same camera lens when placed in the street or placed in the grass. “If Mary were in the street,” wrote Costella on December 14, 2008, “you would not see as much background as if she were in the grass, simply because she was closer to everything in the background. Janowitz and Marcel (if their research was done as well as it seemed) proved that the field of view of the extant Moorman [photo] corresponds to that of a grass position, not a street position.” [NOTE: See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6048. I have been unable to find any monograph or posting giving the results of this experiment.] Afterword The claim we have examined in such detail probably does not deserve the attention it has received. It was based upon a simple mistake of observation: What Jack White said was present in the Moorman photo just wasn’t there! The importance of the claim, however, is what we can learn from its curious defense by Fetzer and White. Remarkable about Fetzer and White’s defense of Moorman-in-the-street is that it comes a full six years after the claim was shown to be based on a careless reading of the Moorman photo. In the pages above, I have gone over many points. But these are not new. They were pointed out ad nauseum to Fetzer and White in, and since, 2002. The fact that their defense continues in 2009 signals a stubborn unwillingness on their part to engage with their critics. Over the last three months, Fetzer has proved a moving target. Once a single point was argued to a conclusion, he would introduce an extraneous point while never admitting the resolution of the first point. Again and again, he bombarded his critics and the public-at-large with alleged “proofs” that the Zapruder film has been falsified. When examined, the instances of proof end up being claims that Fetzer earlier made and were shown to be invalid. In this way, an invalid claim only gets buried to be resurrected again after people have forgotten its demise. A second characteristic of the Fetzer-White defense is the proliferation of film alteration claims. The Moorman-in-the-street claim began with White and Fetzer claiming the Moorman photo was clearly genuine. As White put it in MIDP, “Because it was an instant photo that was copied and widely published within hours of the assassination, the Moorman Polaroid is guaranteed to be an authentic image.” However, as soon as it became apparent that the Moorman photo confirms Moorman’s position in the grass, we begin to hear about the likelihood of its alteration “especially in the area of the pedestal and the pergola.” Why would anyone care about altering the photo in this area? To conceal the fact that Zapruder and Sitzman never stood on the pedestal. Then what about the Betzner and Willis photos that clearly show persons dressed like Zapruder and Sitzman standing on the pedestal? Those photos were faked up too... And so it goes. Last year on this site, Fetzer grandiloquently announced a new proof of Zapruder film fakery. Officer James Chaney gave an interview to ABC newsman Paul Good on the night of November 22nd saying he rode forward to inform the lead car about the shooting. Other reports by law enforcement officers seem to be saying the same thing. The Zapruder film shows no such thing, says Fetzer, hence the Zapruder film must have been altered. The Nix, Muchmore and Bell films show no such thing. Then they were altered to. A photograph taken by James Altgens shows no such thing. It was altered too. Then Craig Lamson and others found additional photos of which Fetzer and White apparently were ignorant. The Daniel film and a still photo by Mel McIntire both matched the other films and showed Chaney trailing far behind the limousine. The McIntire still photo is particularly telling since it shows the Presidential limousine abreast of the lead car with the SS follow-up car close behind. Officer Chaney can be seen trailing about one hundred yards behind. Fetzer and White were asked repeatedly whether these photos were altered too. They declined to answer. At the present time, it is not known whether Fetzer and White hold any of the Dealey Plaza photos to be genuine and unaltered. Their refusal ever to admit a mistake is comical. However, their ever-expanding claims of film alteration might have serious consequences. But only if they were believed. Fortunately, it is clear this will not happen. Criticism already launched against the Fetzer-White claims has marginalized their efforts as far as the research community is concerned. Belief in alteration of the Zapruder film is generally looked upon as a kind of kooky religious belief. Meanwhile, Fetzer has moved on to the latest conspiration du jour. The failure, however, of the Fetzer-White attack on the authenticity of the Zapruder film has had an unintended consequence. There is a significant question concerning what evidence in the Kennedy assassination is to be considered authentic. The problems concerning the autopsy photos and x-rays hardly require mention. I believe there are significant questions regarding the provenance of CE 399 and perhaps other items of physical evidence. Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable and (as expected) in this case is filled with contradictions. Where then might we expect to find some bedrock of evidence in the case to use to evaluate the authenticity and significance of other evidence? Were Fetzer and White’s assault on the photo evidence from Dealey Plaza deemed successful, we would lose the photo record from Dealey Plaza as a source of vital evidence. The tabloid atmosphere already apparent on the internet could become permanent. Any claim could be launched because no body of evidence existed that could limit what might or might not be the case. Research on the case would be reduced to a cacophony of competing conspiracy theories each one contending that this or that piece of evidence was misleading because it had been altered. For over a decade now, Fetzer and White have attempted to show discrepancies between the Zapruder film and other films and photos shot in Dealey Plaza. Their odd defense of Moorman-in-the-street is just part of this overall effort. Their effort is actually based upon a simple but incredibly powerful principle: Each photo and film taken in Dealey Plaza has to fit into a more general fabric. If you take photos and movies of a single event from multiple standpoints, all the films and photos have to agree. They can only vary with respect to the standpoint from which they were taken. For example, with respect to Mary Moorman, the Muchmore and Zapruder films show her from wildly different angles. Yet these films can be matched up frame-by-frame to lay out every detail of her actions as the limousine passes her. The same can be said of all the photos and films taken in Dealey Plaza. If a film or photo were altered, it would stand out. It would be discrepant with the rest of the photo record. Because of the persistent but failing efforts of Fetzer, White and others, I can say with considerable confidence that the photo record from Dealey Plaza forms a seamless tapestry of what happened on November 22nd. If you want to know what happened there, then study the photo record. It is a self-authenticating whole that can stand as bedrock in the case. It can be used to evaluate both eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. Only by the sheerest luck did Abraham Zapruder climb up on that pedestal with his camera and Mary Moorman take her Polaroid along that day. Zapruder’s film and Moorman’s Polaroid (plus many other films and photos) give us the raw material to reconstruct the event insofar as it is possible. Without them, we in the research community would have gotten nowhere. In the oddest way and against their will, the failure of Fetzer and White to defend their claims has provided a singular gift... a bedrock of evidence on which true research on the case can continue and thrive. Josiah Thompson Appendix A: What Mary Moorman said and didn’t say! Mary Moorman has been interviewed numerous times by newsmen and law enforcement officers concerning what she saw and did on November 22nd. On that afternoon, she executed an Affidavit in the Sheriff’s Office. On February 15, 1969, she testified under oath in the Clay Shaw trial. I have collected below all the various statements of Mary Moorman I could find relevant to the question of her position when she took her famous photo. There probably are others. Without comment, I list them below for the record: Affidavit Executed at the Sheriff’s Department on the afternoon of November 22nd Moorman stated that “Mrs. Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass by the park on Elm Street... I had a Polaroid camera with me and was intending to take pictures of the President Kennedy and the motorcade.” She described taking two earlier photos. Then she stated: As President Kennedy was opposite me, I took a picture of him. As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over. Then I heard another shot ring out and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up in the car and said, “My God, he has been shot.” When I heard these shots ring out, I fell to the ground to keep from being hit myself.” (19H487) FBI Interview of Moorman at Sheriff’s Department on the afternoon of November 22nd Moorman was interviewed by Special Agents Perryman and Gemberling on the afternoon of November 22nd. She described taking an earlier photograph of a police officer leading the motorcade. Then she described taking her famous photograph: She took a second photograph of the President as his automobile passed her, and just as she snapped the picture, she heard what she at first thought was a firecracker and very shortly thereafter heard another similar sound which she later determined to have been gunfire. She knows that she heard two shots and possibly a third shot. She recalls seeing the President “sort of jump” and start to slump sideways in the seat, and seems to recall President KENNEDY’S wife scream, “My God, he’s been shot.” Mrs. MOORMAN states that she and her companion fell to the ground, but does not recall what prompted her to fall unless it was the reports and commotion in the President’s car. She says she must have instinctively realized that there was shooting, but does not recall actually thinking about it. She states that she could not determine where the shots came from, and her next recollection is of people running more or less aimlessly, it seemed to her. She recalls that the President’s automobile was moving at the time she took the second picture, and, when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a hurry. (22H839) NBC/WBAP interview of Hill and Moorman broadcast at 3:18 PM Dallas time* * (Although broadcast at 3:18 PM Dallas time, this interview was filmed around 1:00 PM.) Hill: Just as Mary started to take the picture and the President came right even with us, two shots – we looked at him and he was looking at a dog in the middle of the seat – two shots rang out and he grabbed his chest and a look of pain on his face and fell across Jackie and she, uh, fell over on him and said, “My God, he’s shot!” And there was an interval and then three or more shots rang out. By that time the motorcade sped away. Interviewer: What prompted you to take the picture at that particular instant, Ma’am? Moorman: Well, that’s the only chance I had. Mine is a Polaroid and I can take only one every ten seconds, and that was at that time when I took it. Interviewer: Did you know he was shot? Moorman: No, I didn’t. I must have snapped it immediately when he slumped, ‘cause in the picture that’s the way she’s there and he’s slumped over. Interviewer: Did you see the person who fired the –? Hill: No, I didn’t see any person fire the weapon. I only heard it. I looked up and saw a man running up the hill. No, I had no idea, nothing to go by, I mean I don’t think it dawned on me for an instant that the President had been shot. I mean, I knew and yet it didn’t register. Interviewer: Did you get a look at the suspect, the assassin? Moorman: No, I had taken a picture and then the shots and I decided it was time to fall on the ground. (Trask, Pictures of the Pain, pp. 238-239) KRLD Radio Interview of Mary Moorman, broadcast around 3:45 PM (local time) 11/22/63 [The text of this interview was supplied by David Lifton to John Costella. Gary Mack listened to a Sixth Floor Museum copy of the original tape and supplied a critical part. The Lifton/Costella transcript stated: “Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there? Moorman: (unclear) stepped out. We were right at the car.” By listening to the Museum’s tape, Mack was able to correct Moorman’s answer to read: “Yes, that’s where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were right at the car.”] Jay Hogan: Hello, Mrs. Moorman? Moorman: Yes. Hogan: You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before? Moorman: Evidently, just immediately, as the. . . Cause he was, he was looking, you know, when (ever?) I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over. Hogan: What type of picture was this. Moorman: A Polaroid picture. Hogan: About how close were you? Moorman: (background talk, as she discusses it; can't make out) Hogan: Fairly close. Moorman: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more (unintell). . . Because I fall behind my camera. Hogan: This was right at the underpass? Moorman: Yes, just a few feet from the underpass (continues, but she is cut off) Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there? Moorman: Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were right at the car. Hogan: Uh Huh. Moorman: (he has cut her off, and she is continuing). . . She (?). . . Hollered. Hogan: Did you see any suspicious person, in conn. . . ? Moorman: Yeah, of course, I have, I was just uh you know (unclear word) my camera, and when I took that the shots had rang out, and I wasn't looking around. Hogan: How many shots did you hear? You say "shots rang out". Moorman: Oh, oh, I don't know. I think three or four is what I, I uh, that I heard. Hogan: Uh huh. Moorman: (continuing) that I'm sure of. Now, I don't know, there might have been more. It just took seconds for it (for you to?) realize what was happening. Hogan: Yeah, uh, what as your first thought? Moorman: That those ARE shots. I mean, he had been HIT. Hogan: Uh huh. Moorman: And that they're liable to hit me, cause I'm right at the car, so I decided (unintelligible words) [safest place to be?? OR possibly: the place for me is to get on the ground??] (laughs) Hogan: So huh, how did the president respond to this shot. I mean, did he just slump suddenly? Moorman: He grabbed his chest, and of course, Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately, and fell over him; and she said: "My God, he's been shot.” ABC/WFAA interview of Mary Moorman filmed late in the afternoon of 11/22/63 Bill Lord: Did you realize what had happened when you heard the shots? Mary Moorman: No, I didn’t. There was, oh, three or four real close together and it was, uh, it must have been the first one that shot him because that’s when I, that was the time I took the picture, and during that time, after I took the picture, and the shots were still being fired, I decided I’d better get on the ground. Lord: Did people lie down on the ground? Moorman: Uh, I just know about myself and the ones right close to me, and really, I just know about myself. Lord: You did lie down? Moorman: I did. We were, I was no more than 15 foot from the car and in the line of fire evidently. (Note: Trask cites a portion of this interview at page 239 of Pictures of the Pain. Gary Mack was kind enough to make a transcript of the original filmed interview and provide additional dialogue.) The Warren Report (9-27-64) (CBS-TV News Special) (Part 10) Walter Cronkite narrator, 3:33 - 3:53 seconds into Segment 10. Moorman is filmed standing in the grass by the south curb of Elm Street. Whatever question prompted her response is cut edited. We have only the following words from her: Moorman: I stepped out into the street so I took the camera and aimed it, uh, focused it and stood there and looked through it for quite a few seconds because I wanted to be sure they were looking at me. And, uh, I followed it for, uh, so many seconds and then I did take the picture.(3:32 - 3:53) (NOTE: See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXNXotif5J8.) February 15, 1969, Moorman’s Sworn Testimony at the Shaw Trial Moorman was asked to identify her famous photograph and did so. She was asked to “pin this flag on the location, your location, in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963." After doing so, she was shown a large mock-up of Dealey Plaza and once again asked to place herself in the mock-up. She did so. (NOTE: The Court transcript, of course, does not indicate where she pinned the flag on the exhibit or placed herself in the mock-up. Since, a few minutes later, she identified herself in the Zapruder film in the grass by the curb, there is no reason to believe that she placed herself anywhere else on the exhibit or in the mock-up.) Next, she was asked what she saw and heard on November 22nd and replied: I observed the motorcade as it approached. There were several cars preceding the Presidential limousine, and, as the Presidential limousine approached me, I stepped forward to observe closer in order to take a picture, that is what I planned to do and just what I did. (36) Finally, the Zapruder film was shown and she was asked to “locate yourself in the picture... please walk to the film and point to yourself.”(45) She pointed herself out as she appears standing in the grass taking her photo in Zapruder frames 291-313. KRLD interview of Moorman in 1997 Moorman: Uh, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my friend who was with me, we were right ready to take the picture. And she’s not timid. She, as the car approached us, she did holler for the president, “Mr. President, look this way!” And I’d stepped out off the curb into the street to take the picture. And snapped it immediately. And that evidently was the first shot. You know, I could hear the sound. And... Charley Jones: Now when you heard the sound, did you immediately think “rifle shot?” Moorman: Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up onto the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know. Knowing something was wrong. I certainly didn’t know what was wrong. (MIDP, 346) ****************************** One can speculate endlessly about what a witness says in an interview. With regard to Moorman, it is clear that in her KRLD interview from 1997 she says she took her famous photo from the street. A twenty-second sound bite from CBS’s 1964 Warren Report broadcast has her saying the same thing. However, it is equally clear that this has not always been her story. In her Sheriff’s Department Affidavit from the afternoon of November 22nd, she tells of taking her picture, and, “when I heard these shots ring out, I fell to the ground to keep from being hit myself.” To FBI agents Perryman and Gemberling, she said the same thing that afternoon: She took a second photograph of the President as his automobile passed her, and just as she snapped the picture, she heard what she at first thought was a firecracker... Mrs. MOORMAN states that she and her companion fell to the ground but does not recall what prompted her to fall unless it was the reports and commotion in the President’s car... She states that she could not determine where the shots came from and her next recollection is of people running more or less aimlessly In her NBC/WBAP-TV interview filmed around 1:00 PM (CST), she says, “I had taken a picture and then the shots and I decided it was time to fall on the ground.” In her ABC/WFAA-TV interview from that afternoon, she says, “... I took the picture, and, during that time, after I took the picture and the shots were still being fired, I decided to get on the ground.” The interviewer, Bill Lord, asks her if she lay down and she replies: “I did. We were, I was no more than 15 foot from the car and in the line of fire.” In her 1969 sworn testimony at the Shaw trial, Moorman identified herself in the Zapruder film standing in the grass taking her photo and indicated her “location in Dealey Plaza” on both a map and a mock-up of the Plaza. All of these remarks and sworn testimony are confirmed by later pictures showing Hill and Moorman seated on the grass at the spot where earlier film and photos show them standing as Moorman snaps her photo. Fetzer and White have made much of a remark made by Moorman during a radio interview carried out on the afternoon of November 22nd. The crucial segment of that interview runs like this: Moorman: ... I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over. Hogan: What type of picture was this. Moorman: A Polaroid picture. Hogan: About how close were you? Moorman: (background talk, as she discusses it; can't make out) Hogan: Fairly close. Moorman: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more (unintell). . . Because I fall behind my camera. Hogan: This was right at the underpass? Moorman: Yes, just a few feet from the underpass (continues, but she is cut off) Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there? Moorman: Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were right at the car. Hogan: Uh Huh. In this transcript, Moorman does not say she took her famous photo from the street. On the contrary, she says “I fall behind my camera” [onto the grass.] When asked where she was standing, she says she was “on that grassy bank there” and goes on to say, “That’s where we were and I stepped out in the street.” Moorman does not say that she “stepped out in the street” to take her photo but only that she “stepped out into the street” at some point. That point could have been significantly before the limousine arrived opposite her or in the seconds after it passed. In essence, what we have here is a dilemma that commonly surfaces in dealing with eye-witness accounts of an event. The contents of a photo or tape recording does not change over time. A person’s verbal account of what they saw or did, however, often does. In cases like this, one is faced with deciding between two conflicting statements: Was she in the street or in the grass when she took her famous photo? In like circumstances, we would normally ask what other people observed. One could easily imagine a dialogue occurring like this: A: Did anyone else see her jump into the street to take her photo? B: No, none of the several hundred witnesses in the Plaza reported that they saw her jump into the street to take her photo. The two police motorcyclists would have had to dodge around her and they said nothing like that. A: What about other films and photo? Do they show her jumping into the street? B: No, they show just the opposite. The Zapruder, Muchmore, Nix and Bronson films all show her standing in the grass calmly snapping her photo as the limousine and motorcyclists cruise by serenely. The Bronson still photo was taken a few seconds before her photo and shows her standing in the grass. The Altgens still photo (taken three seconds before her photo) shows the shadows of Moorman and Hill standing in the grass. A: Well, how about the photo she took? There ought to be internal evidence in it as to where it was taken from... the grass or the street? Is there? B: There is abundant evidence in the photo itself that shows unequivocally it was taken from the grass. A: Well, there doesn’t seem to be any doubt does there? It was taken from the grass. As a matter of fact, this instance provides a fine example as to how the photo record from Dealey Plaza can be used effectively to resolve conflicts in eyewitness reports. Why would Mary Moorman end up making confusing and conflicting statements as to where she was when she took her famous photo? I have a suggestion. It concerns the position she occupied in taking one – and perhaps two – of her earlier photos that afternoon. Before the limousine arrived, Moorman snapped two photos of motorcyclists preceding the limousine. The first was of Officer G. C. McBride, a good friend of Moorman’s from high school days, who was riding in the advance guard that day. Her photo of him shows the officer looking straight into the camera with the Depository looming in the background. Internal evidence in the photo shows it was taken from a position in the street, looking up at the 58" high top of McBride’s windscreen. A second photo was taken by Moorman of another school friend, Officer W. George Lumpkin, who lost the photo after Moorman gave it to him. Richard Trask interviewed Lumpkin in 1978. Lumpkin recalled Moorman taking the photo about two minutes before the assassination. “He thinks he stopped on Elm Street,” wrote Trask, “and briefly spoke with Moorman and Hill.” [NOTE: Trask, op. cit. , p. 234] The fact that Lumpkin recalls stopping on Elm Street and talking with Moorman suggests that this photo too was taken from the street. If so, two out of the three photos she took that day were taken after she “stepped out in the street.” She may well have confused these two excursions into the street well ahead of the limousine with the taking of her famous photo. What remains in Moorman’s memory must be subject to speculation. What is not subject to speculation, however, is the indisputable fact that internal evidence in the photo itself, as well as abundant other photo and eyewitness evidence, demonstrates that it was taken from the grass not the street.

****************** All these copies have been generally available for decades. All have been in the possession of White and Fetzer since the beginning of the controversy. Yet all copies show the same thing when compared with what White claims to be the case. GIFs prepared by Bill Miller make this point abundantly clear. In terms of the correct LOS, White and Fetzer failed to locate Moorman’s camera position accurately in all three dimensions. Laterally, they placed the camera too far to the right (east). Vertically they placed it too low. Finally, they judged the lens of the camera to be two feet back from the curb when, in fact, it was only inches. This latter mistake compounded the vertical error since the LOS maintains a downward slope while the grass verge slopes upward from the street. GO ON TO FIFTH SECTION: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14095

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. 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 The FBI report of a 11/22/63 interview with Moorman ends with the remark “she furnished this photograph to bureau agents.” This may mean that she permitted the agents to view the photo or it may mean that she let them borrow it at this time. 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. He was employed at KXAS-TV, the successor to WBAP-TV, the NBC station in Dallas-Ft. Worth. One of their reporters was curious, so Mack told him they were searching for better source material. The reporter, Ed Martelle, wondered if the FBI had one 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. 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 1985, long before the Moorman-in-the-street controversy arose, I sent to Gary Mack and Jack White seven (7) copies of the Moorman photo from various sources. Included in this group of photos was an 8" by 10" print made by the professional photographer from his copy negative of the Moorman Polaroid. Jack White copied that 8” by 10" print and has retained a copy. 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. The work wasn’t cheap. CDs with the results of that scan were then distributed to anyone who wanted one including Jack White and James Fetzer. This scan was used by Joe Durnavich in his pixel-counting calculation using a method developed by John Costella. That calculation showed that the “Moorman LOS” was approximately seven inches higher at Moorman’s location than the “White LOS.” [NOTE: Durnavich’s study can be found at http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/index.html. In making his calculation, he was able to identify more than 50 data points along the top of the pedestal... a fair indication of the precision of his calculation.] 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 and Gary Mack. In the mid-1980s, White asked a photographer friend of his, Gordon Smith, to copy the Moorman Polaroid. 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. GO ON TO FOURTH SECTION: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14094O

5. Copies of the Moorman Polaroid Given the fact that all extant copies of the Moorman Polaroid show the same thing and that “same thing” falsifies the Fetzer/White LOS theory, it is no wonder that Fetzer and White next attempted to cast doubt on the authenticity of the copies. At first, they only accused the so-called “drum scan” copy of being altered by me. Later, however, when it turned out that this copy matched all the others, they expanded their claim to embrace all copies of the Moorman photo. They further alleged that the copies had been altered in one particular area... that of the Zapruder pedestal and the window beyond. Why? Was this done just to give critics forty years later grounds for doubting their claim, a claim that depended both on the authenticity of the Moorman photo and on a particular relationship between the pedestal and the window? No, that would be a stretch. In their theory, the Moorman photo was altered to conceal the fact that neither Sitzman nor Zapruder stood on the pedestal that day. And what about the Willis, Bronson and Betzner photos that show two similarly-dressed people on the pedestal? They were altered too. In any case, their attempt to impeach the authenticity of the Moorman copies led to fascinating research as to how and when the copies were made. This research will be the focus of this section. UPI COPY After taking her famous photo, Mary Moorman moved back from the curb and dropped to the grass along with her friend, Jean Hill. Several photos and a WFAA news film show them sitting there. Later that afternoon, Moorman executed a Sheriff’s Department affidavit where she says, “When I heard these shots ring out, I fell to the ground to keep from being hit myself.” (19H487) Seconds later, photos show Jean Hill’s red coat flaring as she runs up the steps of the grassy knoll. Moorman stayed on the grass. Moments later, Hill returned to find Moorman, standing at her original position and talking with James Featherston, court reporter for the Dallas Times-Herald. In 1993, Featherston told a reporters’ gathering what had been in his mind, “I wanted that picture, period. At the time, I thought that was the only picture in existence. Mary agreed to give me the film. I asked both of them to come back to the press room with me – which they did.” [NOTE: See ”Remarks by James Featherston at Reporter Remember Conference, Dallas, 11/20/93,” cited in Pictures of the Pain by Richard B. Trask (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 1994), page 237.] Featherston spoke with the two women as they walked to Moorman’s car where she coated the Polaroids. Then he shepherded them to the “press room” in the Criminal Courts Building at the northeast corner of Main and Houston Streets. As he did all this, Featherston got their story. He also got from Moorman permission to copy her photo. Once in the press room, Featherston called his editor, Tom LePere, and gave him a run-down on what the two women had told him. The editor sent a runner over to pick up Moorman’s photo for copying and asked another reporter, Connie Watson, to take down Moorman’s and Hill’s stories over the phone. Barb Junkkarinen is acquainted with Watson (now Kritzberg) and talked to her last week. Kritzberg recalled that Moorman clearly was upset that afternoon. “Stunned silence” were the words Kritzberg used in describing Moorman at the beginning of their talk. Kritzberg could not recall if Moorman said anything about where she was when she took her photo. Moorman didn’t remember how she got onto the ground and commented that she hadn’t seen anything since her eye was pressed to the viewfinder. In her book, Kritzberg commented that Moorman told her she “sank to the ground, or perhaps was pulled down.” (NOTE: Connie Kritzberg, Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window, (Undercover Press, 1994), page 15.) The Dallas Times-Herald shared a photo lab with UPI. A copy negative of the Moorman photo was made by an unknown employee and quickly returned to Moorman via Featherston. The Times-Herald published the picture on Sunday, November 24, whereas UPI distributed the picture to newsrooms later on the 22nd. UPI purchased distribution rights to the photo from Moorman several days later. Through this distribution, the Moorman photo became an iconic representation of the assassination. The UPI copy, however, was usually cropped for distribution. Missing was the right side of the Polaroid print that shows Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. In 1967, I searched in the files of UPI for the original copy negative and any full-frame prints. I found none. To my knowledge, neither the negative nor any prints of the uncropped Polaroid are extant in the UPI (now Corbis) files. The following photo came from the files of UPI and was used in producing the book, Four Days in November. The following photo shows that a full-frame Moorman photo was distributed over the UPI wire on November 23, 1963. NBC –TV Copy The Moorman Polaroid was only absent from the Press Room for a short time while being copied at the Dallas Times-Herald/UPI photo lab. It was returned promptly to Moorman and was in her possession for an interview with NBC that occurred around 1:00 PM. A shot of her Polaroid was part of that interview and became one of the first photos of the assassination to be seen nationally when it was broadcast at 3:19 PM (CST) on the NBC network. Gary Mack interviewed the freelance TV reporter who did the interview, Henry Kokojan. Kokojan had filmed the motorcade from the Adolphus Hotel when it passed on Main Street and went to Dealey Plaza immediately after learning what happened. He was working for NBC News that day and their local affiliate was WBAP-TV (now KXAS-TV). Unlike most of the news photographers, Kokojan had one of the few sound-equipped cameras. He was shooting black & white, 16 mm film, the standard for TV news in those days. After doing his interview with Moorman and Hill, he made his way to Parkland Hospital where he ran into NBC News photographer Dave Wiegman and WBAP photographer Bob Welch. All three had film and they wanted to get it processed and on the air. Either using a phone or Welch’s two-way car radio, they called WBAP and requested a runner to take their film to the station about 25 miles away in East Ft. Worth. This was done as quickly as possible and the film developed in the WBAP photo lab. It was put on the air at 3:18 PM fresh from the TV station’s processor. GO ON TO THIRD PART: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14093

[This essay is a joint effort. I wrote it and bear the responsibility for any errors. But the concept came from the group and it was executed by the group. Thanks to Gary Mack for invaluable information and critical editing. Thanks to Bill Miller for creating some stunning visuals. Thanks to Barbara Junkkarinen for criticism and editing when her eyes still hurt from surgery. Thanks to Craig Lamson for his insights. We offer apologies in advance for the length of the piece. It has been split into parts to accommodate the posting of the many photo illustrations. We mean it to be the definitive and last treatment of this issue. JT] MOORMAN-IN-THE-STREET? Preface Try a simple experiment. Crank up Google and make a quick trip to the internet offerings on the Kennedy assassination. It’s like a visit to a carnival midway. Pitchman after pitchman is offering his or her wares. Over here you have somebody using a bad copy of the Zapruder film to show that Agent Greer turned around and shot JFK with a flashy chrome revolver. Over there is someone claiming George Bush was in Dealey Plaza or that Richard Nixon arranged the whole thing. Many film clips attempt to show that this or that photo from Dealey Plaza has been falsified by unknown conspirators. After a few minutes of this, you’ll come away convinced that the only way to keep up-to-date on developments in the case is by subscribing to one of the supermarket tabloids. It wasn’t always like this. How did this change come about and what will be its likely outcome? I’ll try to answer the first question right off while leaving the second for the end of this essay. In the years immediately after the assassination, things were different. There was no internet and there was an almost unanimous feeling in the country at large that the Warren Commission got it right. Those of us who questioned the official story were mindful of the larger picture and particularly careful to avoid mistakes. The early books on the assassination were carefully fact-checked and edited.. Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment was worked over by numerous helpers in London, England. Edward Epstein’s book, Inquest, started out as a master’s thesis at Cornell and hence was subject to scholarly discipline. For the rest of us... private individuals working on the assassination for a variety of reasons.. modesty of claim was the order of the day. We were willing... even eager... to have our claims vetted by other researchers. Those of us who challenged official opinion were meticulous about avoiding mistakes. Any mistake of fact or misinterpretation of evidence would be held against all of us. For this reason, articles or essays were fact-checked and discussed exhaustively before publication. Sylvia Meagher checked chapters of my Six Seconds in Dallas and I checked chapters of her Accessories After the Fact, both before publication. Sylvia ended up doing the index for Six Seconds. Things are quite different now. The popularity of the internet and print-on-demand publishing have brought about a drop-off in research standards. There are exceptions. Books published by Lancer, for example, are still fact-checked and copy-edited. But things took a decided turn for the worse with the publication of Professor Fetzer’s first book, Assassination Science in 1998. No longer was there a small community wherein opinions and theories could be vetted before publication. With a penchant for the tabloid style, Fetzer gave voice over the years to a number of researchers who competed with each other to produce dramatic (often outlandish) claims. As book followed book, Zapruder film alteration became the central focus of Fetzer’s promotion. Rather than doing research himself, Fetzer became the pitchman for this view. His tabloid style meant that nothing was checked in advance of publication. The basic idea was to publish first and ask questions later. This led to the collapse of many claims as soon as critical attention was paid to them. Such was the fate of the claim that is the subject of this essay. For some thirty-seven years, we all thought of Mary Moorman as the young woman seen in the Zapruder film snapping her Polaroid photo of JFK with the knoll in the background. Fetzer’s second book, Murder in Dealey Plaza, made the astounding claim that she had actually taken her photo from the street. In tabloid style, Fetzer’s book proclaimed in headlines: “MOORMAN POLAROID CONTAINS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF ZAPRUDER FILM TAMPERING.... MARY AND JEAN WERE NOT ON THE GRASS; THEREFORE, THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS FAKED” Unchecked by anyone before publication, the claim was immediately challenged and shown to be simply another example of Jack White’s careless analyses. Unique to the Moorman-in-the-street claim, however, is the commitment that White and Fetzer continue to make to it. Other mistakes of photo interpretation by White, if not admitted to be mistakes, are at least left to molder in the dust heap of unremarked and forgotten theories. With respect to Moorman-in-the-street, earlier believers in the claim, David Mantik and John Costella, threw in the towel long ago. John Costella recently lectured Fetzer on Fetzer’s mistakes of interpretation pointing out on 12/17/08 that “it has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street... It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film’s location of her lens.” [NOTE: Emphasis in original; see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6147] A week earlier, Costella posted, “Just to bring everyone up to speed: I do NOT believe that the extant Moorman Polaroid places her on the street. In other words, I am on the Thompson et al. side of this argument, not Jim’s .” [NOTE: Emphasis in original; see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/5999.] Yet over the last three months, Fetzer and White have continued to defend it with a steady stream of invective and irrelevant claims. The usual end of these debates is that one side or the other just gets tired of the invective and the issue dies unresolved. For me, however, dissatisfaction with the debate forced a series of questions: What if I ignored Fetzer’s invective and insults and pursued the whole question in a more scholarly manner? What if I treated it simply as a historical claim subject to reasoned argument and demonstrated fact? What if I offered in terms of thoroughness and logical rigor a demonstration of what real research looked like? Might not such a demonstration stand as a judgment over the shrill tone and tabloid style familiar to us? Even better, might not such a thorough job of research lead us into hitherto unexplored territory concerning that Friday so long ago? With the help of others, I answered these questions affirmatively and set to work. Part I deals only with the Fetzer/White claim that a line-of-sight (LOS) in the Moorman photo proves it was not taken from the position Moorman occupied in the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and Bronson films. Part II will take up the Fetzer/White claim that Moorman took her photo from the street. Appendix A will lay out the various comments Moorman has made since 12:30 PM on November 22nd about her position in taking her photo. It will also evaluate the Fetzer/White claim that Moorman stated unequivocally from first to last that she took her photo from the street. PART I 1. Optics: what principle is involved? The whole Fetzer/White claim hangs upon a simple principle of optics: If two objects in your visual field line up exactly, the eye that lines them up is on the same line-of-sight (LOS) as the two objects. A simple experiment shows this. Look out your back window. See the top of that swing-set about 100 feet distant? Close your left eye and line up the right top of the swing set with the crotch of the tree some 35 feet beyond it? Your right eye, the right top of the swing set and the crotch of the tree beyond form a straight line... that is, a line-of-sight (LOS). That’s why it’s called “a line-of-sight.” Now substitute a camera lens or surveyor’s transit for your right eye. If you take a photo with the camera, the right top of the swing set and the crotch in the tree will exactly line up. The LOS formed by lining up these two objects will have a different height above the ground as the ground curves up and down between your position and the top of the swing set. By dropping a tape to the ground along that line, you can determine the height of the LOS above the ground at any point. Hence, at any point along that line, you can take a photo showing that the two objects remain aligned and then measure with a tape the height of the center of the camera lens above the ground. Note too that by moving around you can line up any number of objects thus identifying with your eye any number of “lines-of-sight” (LOS). There is nothing in the Fetzer/White claim more complicated than this simple principle. 2. What is the Fetzer/White claim? The first appearance of the Fetzer/White claim known to me occurs in Fetzer’s book, Murder in Dealey Plaza. In a special photo section put together by White, Fetzer announces the claim in his usual style, “MOORMAN POLAROID PHOTO CONTAINS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF ZAPRUDER FILM TAMPERING.” White points out that since the Moorman photo was clearly “genuine” he might be able to use it to prove the inauthenticity of the Zapruder film. “I discovered a point within the photo,” writes White, “that aligned two widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight. At the left is a graphic image of the two 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 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 CD form a large cross (+), which is readily perceived across Elm where Moorman stood to take her picture.” If we look at the enlargement from the Moorman photo that Fetzer and White used to illustrate their claim, White’s verbal description may become clearer. White speaks of “two widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight.” What are those “two widely disparate points?” Since White also describes the points as being made up of the coincidence of four lines and two angles, we can use this description to identify the points he refers to. Line C is the top of the Zapruder pedestal; line D is the southwest (or left) edge of the Zapruder pedestal; line B is the bottom of the pergola window; line A is the northeast (or right) edge of the pergola window. Since White says that the coincidence of the two angles forms the cross (A, B, C, D) indicated, we can say with confidence that the two points he referred to are the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal and the right bottom corner of the pergola window beyond. Alternatively, but more awkwardly, one could say that the LOS is formed by the lining up of lines B and C, of lines A and D, and the cross formed by their intersection. Jack White took David Mantik to Dealey Plaza and showed him what he had found. Mantik later related in Fetzer’s book how “astonished” he had been by White’s discovery: It was possible to locate Moorman (actually Moorman’s eye) [(sic) It’s not her“eye.” It’s the lens of her camera which is 2.25" below the viewfinder.] very precisely at the moment she took her picture. Although her distance from the arcade remained uncertain, her lateral and vertical position could be determined quite exactly. When I attempted to reproduce this, I was astonished. As I lined up one corner of the pedestal with a chosen point on the background arcade [the bottom right corner of the window], I could immediately see that this technique was exquisitely sensitive to even slight head movements. The smallest movement of my head put it out of alignment. (MIDP, 344) White returned to the claim in Fetzer’s next book, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, but added no significant new information to buttress it. In introducing White’s brief section, Fetzer had this to say about it: Few incidents in the history of the study of the death of JFK have provoked such strenuous disputation as that over Jack White’s observation that certain structural features of the Dealey Plaza pergola provided a line-of-sight present in the Moorman that should permit a determination of Mary’s location at the time she took her famous photo. These features are the left-hand side and the top of the pedestal from which Abraham Zapruder was allegedly taking his film and the bottom and right-hand side of the window behind them. These features create two points in space that are located approximately 35 feet apart, generating an imaginary line to the lens of her camera about 100 feet away.* [*NOTE: Fetzer then adds to his introductory remarks the following caveat: “A minor structural indentation at the top of the pedestal has misled some to think that the intersection of these lines is indeterminate, but that is a mistake.” Fetzer is correct that the left edge of the pedestal has a setback of approximately one inch around its top. Since this setback only affects Moorman’s lateral position by a few inches and not the height of her lens above the ground, no one has been “misled” by its presence. John Costella has called this caveat by Fetzer “irrelevant.”] As Fetzer points out, the importance of White’s observation is that the “two points in space.. located 35 feet apart generate an imaginary line to the lens of her camera about 100 feet away.” In MIDP, White states that this “imaginary line” places her camera 44.5" above the ground. This height above the ground for her camera is much lower than it appears in the Zapruder film. White and Fetzer conclude that they have discovered indisputable proof that “the Zapruder film is faked.” 3. The “White LOS” vs. the “Moorman LOS” Based as it is on a simple principle of optics, if Fetzer and White are correct about the LOS present in the Moorman photo, their conclusion follows necessarily. Their proof, however, depends upon the claim that (what we might call) the “White LOS” really is found in the Moorman photo. The fact that anyone can go to Dealey Plaza and line up any two objects with one’s eye is true but unenlightening. If the lining up of two objects is to establish the position of Moorman’s camera, the same alignment of the two objects has to appear in the Moorman photo. Fetzer and White have claimed unequivocally that the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal lines up with the bottom right corner of pergola window. If they are correct in this observation, there is a huge discrepancy between the Zapruder film and the Moorman photo. Are they correct? Recall that the Moorman photo enlargement placed in MIDP by White and Fetzer had a wide, red cross superimposed on the enlargement. Their point was to illustrate the alignment of what White called “the two widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight.” The cross, however, covered up precisely what it was meant to illustrate... the alignment of the two points. The copy of the Moorman photo used by Fetzer and White in this illustration is easily recognizable; hence, the “cross” can be removed and we can see what is underneath it. Do the two points align exactly or not? No, they don’t. The top of the pedestal is significantly below the bottom of the pergola window and to the right of the bottom of the pergola window. The left side of the pedestal is to the right (or east) of the side of the pergola window. Or to put it another way, White’s “angle” formed by the lines A-B is above and to the left of his angle formed by the lines C-D. Indisputably, the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal does not line up with the bottom right corner of the pergola window beyond. There is a significant “gap” between the two. What Fetzer and White have claimed is simply untrue. So what does this mean? It means that there are actually two relevant lines-of-sight. There is the “White LOS” formed by the alignment of the two points (or two angles or four lines, depending on how you want to describe it). This LOS is not to be found in the Moorman photo. The actual “Moorman LOS” is quite different. If one goes to Dealey Plaza with a copy of the Moorman photo one can readily find both the “White LOS” and the “Moorman LOS.” Here’s how to do it: In Dealey Plaza, line up the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the pergola window beyond. You have now identified the “White LOS.” Next move your head a few inches to the left (or west) and then lift your head seven or eight inches higher. You will now have identified the real “Moorman LOS”... that is, the actual LOS present in the Moorman photo. Make no mistake, that “seven or eight inches higher” is crucial for it brings the height of Moorman’s camera into coincidence with its position as shown in the Zapruder film. It also brings Moorman’s camera and her own position into coincidence with what we see in the Nix, Muchmore and Bronson films. 4. The Fetzer/White Defense Fetzer began his most recent defense of this claim on the JFK-research site, a Yahoo group, (NOTE: See<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/5869>.) He quickly made clear what he has announced in other venues over the years. Despite the overwhelming obviousness of their mistake, Fetzer and White have refused to admit any error. They have insisted now for over a decade that the “White LOS” is in fact the “Moorman LOS” and that this proves the alteration of the Zapruder film. They have claimed that the “drum scan” copy of the Moorman photo has been faked up by Josiah Thompson. They have claimed that all copies of the Moorman photos have been faked up by persons unknown to put Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal when they weren’t really there. Repeatedly and characteristically they have claimed that their critics are part of some grand plot to keep the truth about the Kennedy assassination from the American people. Instead of treating their particular defenses in serial order, it will be more economical of time and effort to treat their defense effort as a whole. First, it is important to lay out a few non-controversial facts. Examination of the Zapruder film shows that Moorman was standing with the heels of her shoes approximately 24" from the south curb of Elm Street. She is holding the camera up to her face with the viewfinder to her right eye. Her eyes are approximately 5" below the top of her head. The viewfinder is 2.25" above the lens of the camera. Her legs are somewhat spread and her shoulders hunched forward as she takes her photo. In 1963, Moorman was between 5' 0" and 5' 1." Not only did Fetzer and White fail to accurately identify Moorman’s position with respect to the Moorman LOS, they have also failed to get her position correct as it is shown in the Zapruder film. They have repeatedly said that she was standing two feet from the curb. This is the position of the back of her heels. The camera lens, however, is 5" forward of the viewfinder through which she is looking and her shoulders are hunched somewhat forward. Hence, the true position of the lens is within a few inches of the curb, not two feet. The turf slopes slightly upward from the edge of the curb and is sometimes soft and squishy. In addition, the Sixth Floor Museum has a photo showing that the spot where Moorman stood was torn up and replaced with new turf late in 1966. Therefore, measurements made above the turf at Moorman’s position in 2000 or 2002 can NOT be assumed to be precise. Alternatively, measurements taken over the curb can be considered probative. In 1963, 2000 and 2002, the turf sloped upward from the curb. As stated above, Jack White measured the “White LOS” as being 44.5" above the turf at Moorman’s position. Later, White, Fetzer and Mantik returned to Dealey Plaza with a transit and measured the height of the “White LOS” as 41.5" above the turf. Since, in neither case, did White or Fetzer take photos recording what exact LOS they were measuring, I have no idea whether these figures are correct. Nor do I understand why they should vary by 3". Had White made measurements over the curb and written down the results, we would know more. David Mantik took notes of their “transit” visit to Dealey Plaza and noted that their LOS crossed the curb at a height of 48.25" Since Gary Mack and I recorded the “White LOS” as crossing the curb at a height of 48," Mantik’s and our figures match for the height of the “White LOS” over the curb. Unlike Fetzer and White, Gary Mack and I took photos at the heights we measured over the curb. Although the “White LOS” crossed the curb at a height of 48" the actual “Moorman LOS” crossed the curb at a height of 55.75". Gary Mack and I also replicated the Moorman photo from a position in the turf a foot back from the curb. The center of the camera lens in that location was 53.75" above the turf. Fetzer and White continue to claim that the “White LOS” is the same as the “Moorman LOS.” In other words, they continue to claim that the two points (or two angles or four lines) line up perfectly. When a single Moorman copy is presented to them, they claim that it has been altered to disprove their claim. The fact that all the extant copies of the Moorman photo show exactly the same thing means that none have been altered. The “White LOS” is not in the Moorman photo. This can be seen in a comparison of various Moorman copies with a White photo that shows the “White LOS.” GO ON TO SECOND PART: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14092

I am so sorry, John, to learn of your wife's illsness. My wife, Nancy, and my daughter, Lis, are both survivors of breast cancer so I have some very small idea what you may be feeling. I think this stinks to high heaven! Tink

Bravo, Dave Greer. This is just what ought to be said. If the "truther" movement continues to propogate dead arguments, anything they say of merit will be submerged by the junk. Hence, the great importance in discussion of being willing to admit when an argument is truly dead. Nice post! Jack 911 is a turning point in Human history, with repercussions that will affect us all for who knows how many decades. If the truth movement is right, and the US Government or its agencies are guilty of some kind of complicity in 911, then that needs to be brought to the attention of the world in the form of unimpeachable evidence. Along the road to finding that crucial evidence, many claims will be made that are shown to be false by analysis of the evidence itself. Once that's been done (as has been done with your claims about WTC6), flawed arguments should be consigned to a dusty shelf until such a time as new evidence emerges to support the original claim, and energies should be focussed on other aspects of evidence. If you insist on including the bogus WTC6 claim as part of the canon of evidence, then questions are raised about the validity of the entire canon. In your determination to include your WTC6 claim as part of the canon, you're actually hurting the 911 truth movement, in the same way that Judy Wood's continued espousal of her "death ray" hurts the truth movement, and those insisting on the use of holograms are hurting the truth movement. Dave Vonkleist has the right appoach. He made the same claim you did about WTC6 in his video "911 In Plane Sight", until such a time when the claim was proven to be false, using the same evidence as has been presented on this thread. Now he can direct his energies in a more fruitful direction, rather than wasting his own time and energy chasing a red herring with wild geese. You could do worse than take a leaf out of his book. As for anyone's claims to being an expert, I tend to take such things under advisement and let people's words and actions speak for themselves. Your Apollo and 911 studies have more than adequately confirmed the validity or otherwise of your "expert" status.

There is also a difference in time and in framing between the two photos. The debris cloud from the collapse of the South Tower changes second by second. It would be useful if someone could track down the original broadcasts of these frames as part of an effort to nail down the time difference. At a certain point one becomes weary of attempts to put a dead horse back on its feet. There's a change in angle between the 2 photos as evidenced by the relation of WTC7 to WTC1. Here are the 2 images from your study. Here's a plan of the WTC complex, showing the approx location of the smoke cloud, and the approx direction the cameras were pointing in when the 2 photos were taken. Different sides of the smoke cloud are visible depending on the viewpoint of the camera (the cloud is in exactly the same position in both images). Aha...the very response I anticipated. See attached. Jack Jack What do you mean when you say both cameras are pointing South? Do you mean "Due South", or do you mean "in a vaguely southerly direction". The way you've constructed your argument seems to indicate you mean "due South", since otherwise there's plenty of wiggle room for the change in angle between the two photos as I've indicated ("in a vaguley southerly direction" covers a field of at LEAST 90 degrees, or 180 if you're being very generous). Clearly both images cannot be pointing either due South, or indeed in the same direction (other than a very generalised "in a southerly manner"), as shown below. I'd grant that somewhere around 40 degrees might be about the difference in angle of the two cameras toward the towers, but to me the smoke plume at the top [from the fires] are off more than 40 degrees IMO - way off...indicating somewhat different times and different wind direction, most likely. Overhead photos of all this from planes or satellites [i'm sure they exist] would solve all this in a minute...but someone in power doesn't seem to want to solve it...why [one might ask]?!

You say that I became "distressed" (odd word) when "the validity of the Zapruder film was questioned though the many proofs of alteration are clear." What I became "distressed" about were the silliness of the socalled "proofs of alteration" that you believe are clear. Do I have to mention "Moorman in the street" or "the seven-foot woman" or the other examples of misinterpretation of photos which you advanced and then were shot down? The fact is that only you, Fetzer and a small coterie of hangers-on believe the Zapruder film was altered. The assassination research community has spoken, and, sorry, you lost. The same thing happened there as happened on this thread with your mistaken claim that WTC6 "exploded" at 9:04 AM. The "evidence" you put forward blew up in your face. And, as before, with the Zapruder film you steadfastly refuse to admit it. The "controlled demolition" of WTC7 has been explained earlier on this thread. You are just wrong when you say "that experts say CD is obvious." Experts in the field have developed a painstaking account of how the building collapsed and say precisely the opposite. I find it revealing that you have chosen to offer no comeback whatsoever to the devastating criticism of your "9:04 tape." Is that because there really is no comeback?

If one is going "to get to the truth through evidence" one has to stick with the evidence. So let's do that. I'd be very interested in your view of the latest disagreement over evidence. Jack claims that WTC6 "exploded" at 9:04 AM. We now have both still photos and videotape showing the roof of the building undamaged shortly after 9:59 AM. The CNN footage showing a cloud of smoke that Jack claimed was smoke from the explosion was marked "9:04 AM" by someone. It is part of the CNN footage which was shown during an interview with Clancy at 11:53 AM. The footage is a rerun of the collapse of the South Tower at 9:59 AM. CNN footage around 9:04 AM is quite different. The "evidence" Jack put forward for an explosion at 9:04 AM is really footage taken later during the collapse of the South Tower and has nothing to do with WTC6. If Sylvia Meagher were around these days, I think she would point this out and then ask, "Is there any evidence for the explosion of WTC6 at 9:04 AM?" You don't do this. You content yourself with making a number of general remarks and ignore the back and forth of the last few days. If we are "to get to the truth through evidence", why do this? Josiah, All, I hope we are all trying to get to the truth via the evidence - as any other 'means' would just be cherry-picking evidence to fit a preconceived and prefered predjudice. That said, we each have a general viewpoint as to what happened and what didn't - who told the truth and who didn't, etc. As in all complex cases there is evidence that seems to contradict some things, at first. Some points about Dallas are still actively debated with the original 'evidence'. Interesteing you bring up SM who I had and have very positive feelings for. However, she (for whatever reasons) took a great dislike to Garrison and his investigation, and I think history has proven her misguided on that aspect - though the main body of her work still stands. While Garrison might not have been trying to bring the 'big boys' into his Courtroom, he certainly was targeting some of those who were connected to them and he was correct [iMO] on who, generally, some of those 'big boys' were [and some of them worked to defeat his prosecution]. Back to 9/11 - the 'gestalt of it'. Again, IMO, the Government lied about foreknowledge; about not being able to stop the planes; about when some things happened and why; about many details - no, not all. Why? Then they didn't want an investigation and when they did W and Chaney went in holding hands, no oaths, no recordings, etc. Suspicious? The 'investigations' were all controlled [like Dallas] to limit what could be discussed and conclusions made. A huge shift in American freedom [or loss of it] came as a result and two wars fought - huge new profits for a few and misery for most of the rest. Shades of Dallas, IMO. Obviously, whole books have been written on this and I'm just putting in a few sentences. Now, to some of the details and debating them. There are many - more than in Dallas I'd say and, sadly, much is being hidden or is just lost in the huge 'mix' - new bits keep emerging and, sadly, a few of them are found to be constructed as disinfo - part of the game. Others are without malice mislabeled or mis-interpreted. We all know the drill. Sides form and some put on blinders to only see what fits their side. Others keep an open mind and all shades in between. I'm not pointing fingers here at you or anyone - just speaking generally. We have the range on this Forum and out there in cyberspace and the society at large. You can say that Jack's point here has been debunked - or was years ago - but 'ya haven't yet convinced me, or Jack, or many others. This is not going to be easy - for either side to convince the other. Some will never be convinced by 'evidence' - it is all a matter of 'religion or patriotism' to them. Others will use the evidence to decide what was and what was not happening. I'd like to think you and I both are among that group. I think Jack is. You certainly know from Dallas that people sometimes slowly changed their viewpoint on one aspect; and amazingly a few switched sides completely. The back and forth of honest investigators works toward the truth coming out - it also sometimes generates a lot of heat, which like in physics is waste energy. Speaking of physics - where did all the extra energy come from to pulvarize the concrete and buildings? There was not enough in the PE of the gravitational fall! This debate is not going to be quick, sadly, NOT AS QUICK AS NEEDED, as I think America is very near its graveside, if this and related matters are not soon elucidated, exposed, and acted upon. Carry on. Next round. Bong....

Thank you for the lead to Bob and Bri's home video. That's new to me and quite detailed in what it shows. So now, in addition to the still photo showing the roof of WTC6 undamaged after the collapse of the South Tower at 9:59 AM we have video showing the same thing.

You wrote: "On target, Peter. SSID to me ranked second behind Sylvia's "Accessories After The Fact" in early JFK books. Meagher, Thompson, Lane, Ferrell, and Jones were my early guideposts to the JFK affair. Alas, he seems to have lost his way now, and switched to the side of the conspirators, abandoning those of us who still search for truth. He is now an investigator working to support the NON-TRUTHER side of 9-11." It's interesting that you bring up the first generation of researchers on the Kennedy assassination. Specifically, you were kind enough to mention Sylvia Meagher and me. Sylvia and I were good friends up to the time of her death. We had wonderful discussions. Any disagreements we had were always worked out in terms of "where's the best evidence." The whole point of the critique of the Warren Report was that its conclusions were not based on the evidence in the case. Once you took a look at that evidence, it was clear that the proper conclusions lead in a different direction from what the Warren Commission said. They still do. But the critical point was evidence. In the present case, various pieces of evidence are put forward and then it turns out they self-destruct... they turn out not to be evidence for what you say they are. I haven't "lost my way" or "switched to the side of the conspiritors" or working to support "the NON-TRUTHER side of 9-11." What drivel!! Actually, I'm working for ConEd and its insurance companies whose substation was destroyed when WTC7 came down. If Larry Silverstein or the Port Authority or some shadowy cabal of unknown persons brought down WTC7 with controlled demolitions, it would make my job easier. All I'd have to do is find someone who for money would roll on the rest of the conspiracy. The problem is that that didn't happen. Hence, one has to build a case brick by brick, interview by interview, photograph by photograph. However, in a way this was just what Sylvia and I did forty years ago. We built up a critique of the Warren Commission piece by piece, witness by witness, physical evidence by physical evidence, photograph by photograph. In short, we concentrated on evidence and used evidence to show the falsity of the government version of events. If your evidence was any good, Jack, I'd buy it. The problem is that your evidence comes apart as soon as it's subject to examination. Give me some real evidence and I'll pay attention to it. If Sylvia Meagher were alive now, she'd tell you the same thing. Good question - why do you persist with that "Zapruder film is genuine" nonsense? Have a stern word with yourself. An English well-wisher. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=149702 ...and I'll let Jack speak for himself...... I don't know if you really ever captured the real essence of philosophy - or only the debating style it all too often embodies its devotees. Your self-proclaimed TKO seems to me to be only a light blow to the mat - not even the opponents......and some of your 'corner men' from this Forum are highly suspect IMO - beware the company you are keeping. While your book SSID was my entree to the theatre and lies of Dallas, I think now you begin to loose your way, sadly.....[my humble and biased opinion only]. 911 was, like Dallas, a magic show....don't be fooled by the magician's 'active' hand - it is the other one that is doing the 'deeds'......misdirection is the tradecraft of magician and intelligence operative, both. On target, Peter. SSID to me ranked second behind Sylvia's "Accessories After The Fact" in early JFK books. Meagher, Thompson, Lane, Ferrell, and Jones were my early guideposts to the JFK affair. Alas, he seems to have lost his way now, and switched to the side of the conspirators, abandoning those of us who still search for truth. He is now an investigator working to support the NON-TRUTHER side of 9-11. Contrary to his constant repetition, so far NONE of my 9-11 work has been "debunked" by any credible counter-research. Much of what is posted here is plainly untrue. The motives of some who post such tripe are not clear...largely persons who do not live in the US or who work for government entities. They keep throwing punches, but haven't landed a punch yet. Their constant claims of "debunking" simply are not true. The believe that constant repetition of something will finally make it acceptable, a tactic once employed by Herr Goebbels. In that case, the TRUTHERS won out over the BIG LIE. Thanks to you dedication to TRUTH, Peter. Jack

I left the professional world of philosophy about thirty years ago but I thought I had a pretty good idea of what it was. Maybe you have a better one. However, I can see where this particular attitude/behavior leads. This attitude/behavior destroys the possibility of any genuine discussion. Also, the paranoid view supporting this attitude/behavior makes it impossible to ever know anything about anything since both the evidence and the deliverer of the evidence are tainted. Finally, of course, the paranoid ends up on top in any discussion since he is the only one to know "how things really are" and all the rest of us are chumps. It's simply a complicated language game which we see enacted here in living color. It leads to nothing except the end of discussion. But discussion, I thought, was what this site was for. That's the bad part. The good part is that everyone gets to judge who has something to say and who doesn't. Since the bankruptcy of an argument is something anyone can see who bothers to follow the back and forth of argument and counterargument, no one really has to admit they're wrong. Bankruptcy shows. And so finally the game of paranoia, suspect all evidence and all deliverers of evidence, ends up exposed for what it is.... itself logically bankrupt. You may say that the above remarks aren't good philosopy. I think they are. Good question - why do you persist with that "Zapruder film is genuine" nonsense? Have a stern word with yourself. An English well-wisher. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=149702 ...and I'll let Jack speak for himself...... I don't know if you really ever captured the real essence of philosophy - or only the debating style it all too often embodies its devotees. Your self-proclaimed TKO seems to me to be only a light blow to the mat - not even the opponents......and some of your 'corner men' from this Forum are highly suspect IMO - beware the company you are keeping. While your book SSID was my entree to the theatre and lies of Dallas, I think now you begin to loose your way, sadly.....[my humble and biased opinion only]. 911 was, like Dallas, a magic show....don't be fooled by the magician's 'active' hand - it is the other one that is doing the 'deeds'......misdirection is the tradecraft of magician and intelligence operative, both.

Okay, a quick review of the bidding. This thread started by calling attention to a photo in Fetzer’s latest book which claims to show WTC7 “during the attack on the twin towers... undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” The photo was actually taken years before 9/11 and the “modest fire at street level” is a colorful sculpture on the mezzanine level. Next, the Larry Sileverstein interview was discussed. Silverstein claimed he talked to “the fire commander” on the afternoon of 9/11 and told him “to pull it” because of the massive loss of life earlier in the day. The “fire commander” was Chief of Department Daniel Nigro. Nigro made a public announcement that he never talked to Silverstein that day. In addition, he says he would have given no heed to any request an owner made anyway. For reasons that still remain unclear to me, the discussion shifted away from WTC7 to Jack White’s claim that WTC6 blew up at 9:04 PM. White produced a photo down Vesey Street which, he said, showed a hole in the side of WTC6 caused by the 9:04 AM explosion. He said the photo was made while the North Tower was still standing. The South Tower dropped at 9:59 AM; the North Tower dropped at 10:28 AM. The photo itself shows the west face of the Verizon Building in direct sunlight. As Len Colby made clear, this means that the photo was taken in the afternoon of 9/11 probably about the time the collapse zone around WTC7 was established by Chief Nigro’s “pull-back” order. The damage to WTC6 shown in the photo was caused by the impact of the North Tower dropping on it at 10:28 AM which collapsed the roof and part of the north wall. Aerial photos show the roof of WTC6 intact and undamaged at about the time the South Tower dropped at 9:59 AM. White posted another photo showing the debris cloud from the South Tower collapse at 9:59 AM about to engulf the west end of WTC6. He said this photo shows that WTC6 was already damaged by an earlier internal explosion at 9:04 AM. Why? Because the photo shows windows broken, drapes blowing out of the broken windows, a glow that may be interior fire and soot between the windows. Another photo taken by the same photographer a second or two later discloses that the windows are unbroken, there are no drapes flapping in the breeze, the “glow” is a reflection of the debris cloud off the unbroken windows and the “soot” may well be just what the building looked like. White then posted several frames from the CNN broadcast on 9/11. The frames were marked by either White or someone else with the label “9:04.” White claimed that these frames were broadcast at 9:04 AM and show a white cloud arising from the location of WTC6 evidencing the explosion he’s been arguing for. The frames posted by White contain the legend “Earlier” and “Voice of Tom Clancy Author.” Matt Lewis tracked down and posted the CNN coverage for the period around 9:04 AM. It did not contain the frames posted by White. Much later, at about 11:53 AM, he found the frames posted by White with the legend “Earlier” and “Voice of Tom Clancy Author.” Indeed, the white cloud was present because the frames were of the collapse of the South Tower which CNN had been running over and over again that morning. The cloud was produced by the collapse of the South Tower at 9:49 AM and had nothing to do with any explosion in WTC6. Since I’m only an occasional visitor to this site, I was appalled to learn that the frames Jack White posted had been debunked by Matt Lewis’ work some ten months earlier in September 2007. Back then, the critical photo showing the undamaged roof of WTC6 at 9:59 AM was also posted. All of this leads me to ask the following question: Why post an argument that was thoroughly debunked ten months earlier? If new facts had come to light which saved the earlier argument I can see why one would post it again. But no new facts were offered. It was a case of “same old... same old.” Why do this? Isn’t the premise of intelligent discussion namely that arguments are offered, counter-arguments made, and, if one or the other is proven correct, the proponent of one or the other admits the point and the discussion moves on. These arguments aren’t about obscure theological points as to whether God is singular or a trinity but about a historical event, about whether something happened. Inquiry proceeds by disposing of bad arguments and moving forward on the shoulders of good arguments. It seems difficult to imagine what further documentation could be offered to show the falsity of Jack White’s claim concerning an explosion at 9:04 AM in WTC6. Why then not abandon it and move on? You tell me.

Matt Lewis cited the CNN broadcast which covered the 9:04 AM time cited as the time of the video broadcast by Jack White. The actual video contained the label that Clancy was being interviewed. Clancy was interviewed around noon and the very video cited by White was run then. That video in addition to showing the cloud White cited as the 9:04 AM "explosion" in WTC6 also shows the collapse of the South Tower which occurred at 9:59 AM. As many networks did that day, CNN was simply running a tape of the collapse which they had. All of this is apparent to anyone who wants to take the time to look at it. Nothing about how "CNN time stamps their TV feeds" or "what free running time code means" has anything to do with this. If you can show that it does, then you may have a point. But you haven't shown that. You simply ignored the point put out there and asked about things that no one outside the broadcast industry would know. Then you ask if he is on active duty which was simply a way of trying to smear the messenger, a technique pioneered by your pal, Fetzer. Is it really a sign of a big ego to enjoy puncturing pomposity? Up to this point you haven't said a thing about the facts Matt Lewis brought out and documented. Do you have anything to say about those or are they untouchable? If they are as bullet-proof as I think they are, why don't you say so instead of trying to smear the guy who brilliantly brought them out? I've never met Matt Lewis or seen his posts before but I can recognize when someone devastates an argument and he did. If you have any criticism of his arguments, let's hear 'em! not to be picky but, mislabled (sic)? Can you provide verification/cite CNN mislabeled any graphics or lower third supers? Are you aware as to how international news organizations time-stamp their tv feeds and what free running time-code means? Are you on active duty, Mr. Lewis? Just curious. Actually Dr. Thompson what stinks is the overabundance of spoon fed media BS and pap that resonates from WCR apologists and their organizations which, by-the-way continues to this day. Too many years and too many lies.... you just can't use more lies to cover up past lies eventually the house of cards collapses... Old LHO could come back from the dead tomorrow and admit being part of a plot to assassinate the President of the United States and no one would believe him... Why? Because we've multiple LHO's these days... We've come a long way baby, eh? Lies and more lies..... I notice Matt Lewis can't answer a few simple CNN "time" related [non-military] questions, I now wonder why you felt a need to rise in his behalf... Your beef with Dr.Jim Fetzer is your gig, frankly I see it as two Philosophy professors each with a titanic ego clashing. Each with a bit envy of the other..... As to the point at hand, I'm ALWAYS interested in what active-duty personnel think of conflict. Being patriotic doesn't always mean dressing up in a flag, ANY flag. If Matt Lewis can't or won't respond to the question, that's his choosing. No need to bring up Dr. Jim Fetzer every chance you get...