Josiah Thompson

Now Professor, there's no reason to get one's knickers all twisted up. We're just trying to figure out what you are claiming. We thought you were claiming that numerous films and p[hotos were doctored because they didn't show Officer Chaney doing something. But what is that "something?" Did I miss it? Did you tell us all about it and I just missed it? Well, if that's the case, I'm sure you'll be able to bring me and others up-to-date. I thought you were claiming that because the films didn't show whatever Chaney was supposed to have done, this was why you announced your "breakthrough" discovery. Wasn't that right? Well, if it's right, surely you can be so kind as to tell us exactly what you think Chaney should have done but didn't do in the various films and photos? Surely, this is a small request. Just tell us what the films and photos should have shown if they were showing what Officer Chaney really did. Surely, this is a small thing we're asking. Why not just tell us this and then we'll take it from there. We'll look at the films and photos and let you know what we see. quote name=James H. Fetzer' date='Feb 18 2008, 06:59 AM' post='137447] A bit of straight, blunt talk: Why are you obsessed with me? I am one part of a research group that includes David W. Mantik, John P. Costella, Jack White, and others, in the past including Robert Livingston and Charles Crenshaw. When I write and identify different questions as having come from different sources, as in this instance, why don't you reply to John Costella, Jack White, and me SEPARATELY? Is something wrong with you such that you cannot distinguish between us? This appears to be a serious kind of sickness. Have you considered therapy? Frankly, it bothers me. Now John's question may have been somewhat naive in this instance because it was based upon Jack's description of what you had said, which may have been incomplete. So what? You can answer John's question without confounding John and me. Children less than one year old are able to discriminate between different persons. Why are you--a white male over the age of 70 and a Yale graduate, to boot--chronically unable to do so? And if this is a deliberate confusion, what does it tell us about your integrity and mind? John has unearthed definitive evidence that the films do not show what they would have to show if they were accurate, given a mass of testimony from Chief Curry, Forrest Sorrels, Winston Lawson, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, and Marrion Baker, even if you leave Stavis Ellis to one side. (It astounds me how casually you can dismiss the testimony of someone who was not only there but was leading the motorcade.) Why have you not responded to this post, which, of course, I introduced into the discussion some time ago: FROM JOHN COSTELLA: An excellent resource showing a clear, slowed-down version of the Nix film was something I originally saved from WAY back (when I first came into this case). It was compiled by one or another member of Tink's Gang, and was designed to show precisely that the three films (Z, Nix and Muchmore) are all synchronised frame-for-frame. I have it up at http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../ThreeFilms.mov (QuickTime format) or http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../ThreeFilms.avi (Windows format) Although it does not show the Z ghost panels, you can manually connect it up with my Clip G around Z-330 (Nix 37). Of course, you can also see the Chaney cycle wheel in the upper part of the sprocket region (one frame out of sync) essentially stop relative to the limo, right when the Nix shows him slamming on the brakes. Ironically, this clip helps establish that all three films ARE in complete agreement - and they are all fake. When you stitch together this clear slow-motion version of the Nix, with the REST of the Nix and the REST of the Zapruder, then the Bell and Daniel films (check out the Groden video), then you rule out any Chaney movement until the limo has well and truly passed the lead car. John THAT "John" IS JOHN COSTELLA. I take it you have access to these films, even if the links are not always working. So why have you not replied to John (via me, of course, if you like)? I presume it is because it shows-- conclusively, beyond any doubt--that Chaney is not shown in these films having done what he must have done to reconcile the testimony with the authenticity of the films. So why not address this REAL ISSUE and find the internal fortitude to resist attacking me, letting your obsession get the better of you. I assure you, it is not becoming and it makes you look just a bit demented. You have given no reasons for thinking we are wrong. Moreover, when John produces a quote from Forrest Sorrels--which, taken at face value, settles the matter--why do you avoid its importance with side issues of secondary importance? We are addressing the film, not what I may or may not believe took place. You seem to be squirming in a manner that is actually quite striking. Of course, it is unsurprising that you do not want to confront the evidence when the evidence refutes you! So I ask, Are you dismissing Sorrels the same way you have dismissed Ellis? FROM FORREST SORRELS: Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine), November 28, 1963: "I noted that the President's car had axcelerated [sic] its speed and was closing fast the gap between us. A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled 'Is anybody hurt?', to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President's car pulled up alongside, and at that time Chief Curry's car had started to pick up speed, and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and Chief Curry broadcast for the hospital to be ready." [statement: 21H548] THAT IS FORREST SORRELS. Not John Costella, not Jack White, not Jim Fetzer. Now it is very clear to me that, when you feel boxed in, you resort to the tried and true tactic of introducing some inflammatory diversion having no or scant relevance to the issues under consideration. You do that all the time. In this instance, instead of conceding that Sorrel's testimony blows your position out of the water, you ask, What are your views, Jim Fetzer? My views, in general, are well-known because they are published in three books. But you have never read any of my books, so how would you know? One of the purposes of having a research group, of course, is that each of us brings a different background, training, and competence to the effort, in this case, to discover the truth about the assassination of JFK. Who doubts that Jack, John, and David know more about the film than do I? So what? If that is your point, all the more reason to distinguish us from one another. This simmering hatred for me transcends your rationality in considering these issues. You are intent upon showing that I AM WRONG no matter what, even if that entails warping the evidence, denying the obvious, making false points. That this has become your practice has been long evident. Anyone familiar with my books would be shocked to read the savage reviews you have posted on amazon.com. No rational person could possibly go to such lengths to create misleading impressions and distorted representations of three of the most important scientific studies of the death of JFK ever published--Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE (1980) being the fourth. So I really think it is time that you hung up your jock and gave it a rest. You have done your best defending the indefensible. Your ongoing efforts are only going to further tarnish a once imposing reputation. Give it a rest, Josiah. All of us deserve it. Jim THAT "Jim" IS JIM FETZER. I trust that my answers are reasonably frank.

A bit of straight, blunt talk: (1) You say that "it certainly seems from the Nix, Bell and Daniel films that we are seeing Martin trailing along, and that he eventually caught up. But on the Simkin forum, you maintain that that is actually Chaney." No, you didn't read correctly. I wrote: "the one nearest the center of the overpass is B.J. Martin; the one nearest the side curb is Chaney." (2) You criticize me for using the quote from Sorrels at 21H548. That was the quote you cherry-picked and used in your press release. I just expanded it so a sentence wouldn't be taken out of context. (3) The long irrelevant quote from Curry affects nothing since he doesn’t indicate when “the motorcycle officer pulled up behind my car.” (4) The reference to Travis Ellis is pretty funny. He says he was on a motorcycle in the first group and did a U-turn in the middle of the shooting and went back to talk Chaney. Chaney told Ellis that JFK had his head shot off. Then Ellis and Chaney both rode to the pilot car where Ellis, not Chaney, told the Chief that the President had been shot. And just what are we supposed to make of this ridiculous story? Even if we believed it, how would it show that Chaney “went ahead of the President’s car?” (5) You asked if I believed the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Altgens, Bell and McIntire films all to be authentic. Of course. Now a few blunt questions for you: (1) When you announced this “breakthrough,” were you aware of what the Altgens, Daniel and McIntire films/photos showed? (2) Are you prepared to admit that you were wrong? Or are you saying that the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Altgens, Daniel and McIntire films/photos have been faked up? How about a few straight answers. Like always, when you get in a bind you start piling on irrelevant quotes... Perhaps, to give the impression that you have something to say when you don't. If you really have something to say, then why not anwer the most obvious questions that anyone would have at this point. Since these new photos torpedo your claim, are you willing to save it by complaining that all the photos are faked up.?

I tend to disagree with you, Ron. I think it may be a reach to see Chaney as spinning his tale to inflate his own importance. He was just a motorcycle cop who got caught in a lot of chaos. He was button-holed by a TV reporter in the midst of all that confusion at DPD headquarters on the night of the 22nd. I think he probably told his story pretty much as he remembered it. The pilot car was proceeding the limousine by a couple of hundred feet. Chaney was riding just behind the limousine. Then the shooting occurred and the President got hit in the head. Chaney and Officer Jackson dropped back. Mrs. Kennedy climbed out on the trunk and Clint Hill ran to the limousine. After all this happened and Chaney decided to speed up to tell Curry what had happened, the pilot car and limousine disappeared into the dark shadow of the overpass. By the time Chaney got to the pilot car, the limousine had passed it up. Chaney thought he had “gone ahead” of the limousine but hadn’t. Then, as the motorcade made its way to Parkland Hospital, the pilot car and the limousine traded the lead. However, no one can read Chaney’s mind 45 years after the event. You may be right. The more interesting question is how Costella and Fetzer could get this so wrong. My bet is that they simply weren’t aware of the Altgens, Daniel and McIntire photos. Since these photos demonstrate that Chaney was not where Costella and Fetzer thought he was, I can’t believe they just decided to ignore these photos. Now they face the difficult dilemma of deciding whether (a) to admit they were wrong, or ( claim that Zapruder, Muchmore, Nix, Daniel, Altgens and McIntire films/photos were all faked up. That’s what happens when you do sloppy research. You get caught in this kind of logical trap. Chaney said that he looked to the left, and then he "looked back just in time to see the President struck," that is, he is looked back toward the right, in other words straight ahead, to see the President hit. Chaney did not mean that he looked behind him when he "looked back," he meant that his head was moving around left and right. You also quote Chaney as saying in the same interview, "I went on up ahead of the – to notify the officer that was leading the escort that he had been hit and we’re going to have to move out." So we are supposed to believe that Chaney not only went ahead of the limo to talk to Curry, but then (the limo surely having passed as he was talking to Curry) went ahead of the limo again and overtook the escort to inform them too of what had happened. Frankly it sounds to me like Chaney made some untrue, self-aggrandizing statements that day, as if to say that he had immediately taken charge to get JFK to Parkland.

Nobody lied, Professor Fetzer. You have simply chosen to interpret certain witnesses’ words to suit your purposes. You quoted Bobby Hargis’ remarks as follows: “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” (Hargis stopped his cycle in Dealey Plaza. When Chaney slowed and then sped up to catch the motorcade it would have seemed to Hargis that he “immediately went forward.” This report from Hargis came from a Daily News article.) Or Chief Jesse Curry, whom you quoted but cherry picked.... here is the full quote: “I heard a sharp report. We were near the railroad yards at this time, and I didn’t know a – I didn’t know exactly where this report came from, whether it was above us or where, but this was followed by two more reports, and at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said, ‘Has somebody been shot?’ And he said, ‘I think so.’” (12H28) Or SS Agent Winston Lawson, whom you also cherry-picked.... here is a fuller quote from a report he typed out: “As the lead car was passing under this bridge I heard the first loud, sharp report and in more rapid succession two more sounds like gunfire. I could see persons to the left of the motorcade vehicles running away. I noticed Agent Hickey standing up in the follow-up car with the automatic weapon and first thought he had fired at someone. Both the President’s car and our lead car rapidly accelerated almost simultaneously. I heard a report over the two-way radio that we should proceed to the nearest hospital. A motorcycle officer pulled alongside our Lead Car and said the President had been shot.” (17H632) Or a fuller quote from SS Agent Forrest Sorrels: “Within about 3 seconds, there were two more similar reports. And I said, ‘Let’s get out’ and looked back, all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward. And in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand side and the chief yelled to him, ‘Anybody hurt?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Lead us to the hospital.” And the chief took his microphone and told them to alert the hospital, and said, ‘Surround the building.’” 7H345) None of these witnesses lied. They found themselves in the midst of a chaotic set of events and recalled the sequence and timing of things as best they could. You cherry-picked their remarks for your own purposes. But now the real question. What do you think happened, Professor? Against the film evidence of the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films, do you believe that Chaney stayed right on the tail of limousine into the underpass? Since the Altgens photo doesn’t show this, was the Altgens photo faked up? And then what happened? Both the Daniel film and the Mel McIntire still photo show the limousine overtaking the pilot car with Chaney hundreds of feet behind. Did Chaney zoom up to pass the limousine and then turn in the other direction to meet the pilot car? Or are the Daniel film and the McIntire photo faked up also? How about a couple of reasonably frank answers. After all, you started this.

Real quick and simple: If Chaney had done what you and Costella think he did, he would not be where he appears in the Mel McIntire photo and in the Daniels film. He would be in the middle of that tangle of limousine, pilot car and SS car. He's not there. He's hundreds of feet behind. So either you are wrong and Chaney did exactly what he is shown to have done in the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and Daniel films and the Altgens and McIntire photos, or else the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and Daniel films as well as the Altgens and McIntire photos have all been faked up. Please tell me why you don't face the dilemma describe above. As for any eyewitness getting details of sequence or timing wrong... it happens all the time. It is the rule rather than the exception. Chaney simply cycled up to the pilot car and told Curry what he had seen. Earlier, he knew the pilot car was ahead of the limousine so he thought he'd "gone ahead of the President's car" to get there. If I had a dollar for every time something like this happened to a witness in a criminal case, I'd be a rich man!

Dear Mr. Burton, You have funny rules. In Post #26 under “New Proof of JFK Film Fakery” James Fetzer, Ph.D. made a few hostile comments of his own and then included in his post some email communication from John Costella. Since this was all done without anyone’s objection I wondered why you would find objectionable anything I said. Here’s a sample of Fetzer and Costella: Fetzer: I am not a fan of Bill Miller, who, in my experience, plays fast and loose with the truth..... Costella: Tink, you're a buffoon.... Costella: You're losing it, mate.... Fetzer: This guy has trouble getting facts straight..... Costella: Tink, you've lost it, mate. At the time I was born you were perhaps the world's foremost expert on the Zapruder film. Now you don't even have an inkling of what it shows. Time to start taking notice of those "senior moments" you've been having and start wearing the diapers. I need to often repeat things for my mother, who has a similar problem and is about your age, so let me do it for you.. I will certainly make every effort to abide by the rule you cited: "Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers." Certainly, civility cannot but help but improve things. I did not and will not make any comment on Professor Fetzer’s research abilities. It would be a waste of time since everyone on this Forum has had a chance to observe his abilities or lack of them. However, I insist that his latest press dispatch with its grandiloquent claims is an instance of just what I said it was.... a “piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work” claiming to be a breakthrough. Surely, even a great researcher can have a bad day. Or a shoddy researcher will have many bad days. But simply pointing out the defects in a piece of research cannot be disallowed for that is the very substance of give and take. Why do I think Fetzer’s piece is “incomplete and shoddy?” Because apparently he and Costella never looked at the Daniel film or the Mel McIntire photo or the Altgens photo before making their announcement. Specifically, the Daniel film and the McIntire photo shows Officer Chaney in a position he could not be if Costella and Fetzer are right. They must either admit they were wrong or claim that in addition to the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films the Daniel film, the Altgens photo and the McIntire photo were all faked up. That’s precisely the place you end up in when you do “incomplete and shoddy” research. Please don’t hesitate to let me know if I should inadvertently overstep one of your rules. I’m all in favor of them.

Sure. In my opinion, the pivotal area is the acoustics. We've gone back and forth on this issue for some twenty-five years. If the acousitcs evidence is established as indicating a series of four or five sound impulses from gunshots in a short period of time, that fact will then become the timetable of events. On the one hand, it will make uncredible any claim that only three shots were fired. On the other hand, it will make equally unbelievable the more febrile imaginations of those who talk of more than that number of shots. When established, it will become like the Zapruder film, a foundational piece of evidence around which everything else has to find its place. I'm a great admirer of Don Thomas and his work and I look forward to even more significant results in the not too distant future.

John Simkin was kind enough to send me my user name and password. I had lost them. This post has gotten all fouled up so I will post it again as a new thread with the critical photos. I hope by posting this as a new thread I am not violating any rule of Internet posting. The photos themselves carry the argument. FETZER’S “BREAKTHROUGH” Fetzer once again is trying to bootstrap a piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work into “a major breakthrough” in Kennedy assassination research. As usual, Fetzer did none of the work but wrote the “press release”: Madison, WI (OpEdNews) February 5, 2008 – The editor of Assassination Research, James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. has announced the discovery of new proof that the home movies of the assassination of JFK known as the Zapruder film and a second known as the Nix film are fakes... Both were subject to extensive alteration to fabricate evidence of the crime and keep the truth about the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza from the American people. Fetzer, McNight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, observed that the films are authentic only if the visible events they record correspond to the actual sequence of events at the time. “The proof is based upon the convergent testimony of motorcycle patrolmen, members of the Secret Service, and the Dallas Chief of Police. That it contradicts the official account of the assassination recorded in the films qualifies as a major breakthrough.” Fetzer’s substantive claim is that the Nix and Zapruder films do not show DPD Officer James Chaney doing what Chaney told a newsman he did that day. Fetzer quoted Chaney as follows: I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by. Fetzer claims that the Nix and Zapruder films do not show Chaney going “ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit” and for that reason, the two films are forgeries. What do the two films show? Along with another DPD motorcycle officer, Chaney was riding his cycle to the right rear of the Presidential limousine. The Nix film shows dramatically that after JFK is hit in the head the cyclists to the right rear of the limousine drop back as the limousine speeds forward towards the underpass. No motorcycle chases the limousine or overtakes it. The Zapruder film shows Chaney only in its earlier footage. He is last seen in frame 205, after which the limousine disappears behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. The content of the frame narrows as the limousine nears Zapruder and than expands as the car moves away from him. About the time Clint Hill climbs on the back of the limousine, it becomes possible to see the space behind the right rear bumper earlier occupied by Chaney. No motorcycle is visible. However, in the series of “ghost images” or double-exposures, it is possible to see a motorcycle wheel that may belong to Chaney’s cycle up to frame 331. Then it too drops back and out of sight. In short, the two films match by showing Chaney dropping back at about the time JFK is hit in the head and not following right behind the limousine to the underpass. Additional films show the same thing. The Muchmore film (which ends shortly after the head shot) matches what we see in both the Nix and Zapruder film. Much more importantly, James Altgens took a clear still photo as the limousine and pilot car zoomed away. Chaney is nowhere to be seen in this photo. (See attached Altgens photo.) Zapruder frame 444 shows how close the limousine has come to the pilot car by the time the pilot car has reached the dark shadow of the underpass. (See attached Z frame 444.) Finally, a photo taken from the far side of the underpass looking towards Dealey Plaza shows Chaney fast approaching Chief Curry’s pilot car. It was taken by Mel McIntire. When Fetzer’s claim first arose several months ago Craig Lamson published it on the Education Forum but its significance was never recognized. (See attached Mel McIntire photo.) The motorcyclists in the foreground led the motorcade well in advance of Chief Curry’s pilot car. Several hundred feet behind them we see the limousine passing Chief Curry’s pilot car as the Secret Service follow-up car follows the limousine. We can see Secret Service agents standing in the follow-up car and then, behind, in the shadow of the overpass, two police motorcycles. The one nearest the center of the overpass is B.J. Martin; the one nearest the side curb is Chaney. They are more easily seen in an enlargement. (See attached enlargement of Mel McIntire photo.) Note that the limousine has passed Chief Curry’s pilot car. As Curry points out, they had heard gunshots and knew something had happened but it wasn’t until Chaney pulled alongside and told them the President had been hit did they set off for Parkland Hospital. Chaney did exactly what he said he did but he did it the far side of the overpass on the curve leading up to the Stemmons Freeway. What did Chaney actually say and to whom? Fetzer gives only a fragment of the quote. On Friday night, November 22nd, Bill Murray took Chaney’s photograph in a corridor of the Dallas police headquarters as Chaney was being interviewed about what he saw. Bill Lord of ABC News did a brief interview of Chaney in the corridor in front of the Robbery/Homicide Bureau as others crowded around. Fetzer quotes only a paragraph of the interview found in Richard Trask’s book, That Day in Dallas. The Sixth Floor Museum has a videotape of the interview. This is a more complete transcript: A: Uh, Jim Chaney. Q: I understand you were riding next to the President’s car when the assassination took place. A: I was riding on the right rear fender. Q: What happened? A: We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15 to 20 miles an hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and, uh, I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then the, uh, the second shot came, well I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy's lap, and uh, it was apparent to me that we were being fired upon. I went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he (Curry) instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I went on up ahead of the, to notify the officers that were leading the escort that he had been hit and we’re gonna have to move out. Q: You did not see the person who fired the shot? A: No sir, it was back over my right shoulder. Q: What preventive measures had been taken to preclude such an incident? A: I don’t know what had been done in that part of town. Q: All right, fine, thank you. As the sequence of photos demonstrates, Chaney got only one detail wrong. He didn’t go “ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry” because “the President’s car” had passed the pilot car as both sped under the overpass. Finally, there is the report of a fairly well-known, straight-arrow researcher who talked to Curry in 1979. I’ll call him “Carl” since I don’t want him involved in this given the vileness of Fetzer’s and Costella’s tongues. Carl had been on the radio and his comments had treated Curry with affection and respect. In response, Curry’s wife called in to thank Carl for the way he treated her husband. Carl asked her if he could speak with Chief Curry the next day and she agreed. Carl’s interest than was in the acoustics and in Curry’s memory of when he put out on the radio that they were going to Parkland. In explaining this, Curry mentioned that Chaney had reached the pilot car as both were climbing up the curve onto the Stemmons Freeway. That location for their shouted interchange fits nicely with the relative positions of Chaney and Curry in the McIntire photo. Fetzer calls this a “breakthrough.” Actually, it is simply another piece of evidence for the importance of careful, non-speculative examination of the Dealey Plaza photos. The actual sequence of events is unfolded through the various films and photos. The Nix film shows Chaney and Jackson dropping back when the President’s head explodes. The Altgens photo shows the limousine accelerating towards the pilot car with no motorcyclist in sight. Frame 444 of the Zapruder film shows the limousine gaining on the pilot car as both approach the overpass. Finally, the McIntire photo shows the limousine passing the pilot car and Chaney accelerating towards both from several hundred feet back. We know all this by simply patching together a series of photos and films. If you take movies or still photos from different angles of the same event, these movies and still photos form a self-authenticating fabric. If someone altered any one of the photos or films, it would stand out like a sore thumb. The numerous photos and films taken of the Kennedy assassination are an instance of multiple photos of the same event taken from different angles. They form a self-authenticating whole. For years, Fetzer and a small coterie have claimed there were discrepancies in the photo record of what happened in Dealey Plaza. Each discrepancy gets shot down in turn and they imagine a new one. Sort of like a continuing game of wack-a-mole. For years (it seems like decades!) Fetzer has been trying to claim that the Zapruder film was altered. Since other movies of the assassination match frame for frame with the Zapruder film, he now has to claim that they too have been altered. When the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films don't show what Fetzer thinks they ought to show, he says they were all faked up. The Moorman photo? Yeah, I guess he thinks that’s been faked up too. So now will he have to add the second Altgens photo and the McIntire photo to his list of forgeries? All in all, playing wack-a-mole with Costella and Fetzer is unpleasant. No matter how many times their claims are exposed as silly, they come up with others. And their tongues become more vile with each passing year. Maybe simply ignoring his next “breakthrough” might be the best policy.

What has happened on this thread is a symptom of a strain of dishonesty that runs through the continued postings of Jack White and his friends. He puts out a kind of statement concerning the Moorman photo which mixes factual reports with opinions. In the center of this statement is yet another defense of one of his great crash-and-burn claims --- the claim that Mary Moorman was standing on Elm Street when she took her famous photo. The falsity of this claim has been demonstrated over and over again since it was made in 2000. Bill Miller and I put up some of the salient debunking reports and what does Jack White do: He simply ignores the whole thing! He starts a thread by making a number of statments. When some of these are shown to be false, he simply ignores the whole thing and then whines about other people whom he calls "provocateurs" sending him emails. There are rules to intellectual discussion and debate. You make a statement. Someone else disagrees with it and offers reasons for the disagreement. You reply and show how your disputant's statements are incorrect. This is the way discussion goes. With White, Fetzer and company, it never goes that way. When your view is clearly shown to be wrong you do one of three things: (1) Simply ignore what has been shown -- that is, shut up. (2) Change the subject to something else. (3) Accuse whomever disagrees with you as being a government agent or provocateur of something. I would just like to point out that we've seen Jack White's essential dishonesty right here in living color on this thread. I understand Jack is in his seventies. I am seventy-one. Becoming an old codger is no refuge for dishonesty. The same rules apply to all of us... independent of our age. Does tihs sound like an innocent mistake .... Jack said that Moorman and Hill were in the street ... Jack went so far as to post a carefully edited clip of Jean Hill saying, "I stepped into the street", but Jack left out Jean saying that she had gotten back out of the street BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT HAD BEEN FIRED. Mark Oakes, JFK assassination researhcer who sells autographed Moorman prints asked Mary what she thought about White's "in the street claim" about her and Mary said, "The whole thing is just silly". Then there is Altgens #6 which Jack says is a genuine image "and can be used for comparisons with the official story depicted by Zapruder" ..... and that photo taken after JFK and Connally had been shot and just seconds before the fatal shot to JFK shows both Moorman and Hill to be standing EXACTLY WHERE THE ZAPRUDER FILM SHOWS THESE WOMEN TO BE. You can also add the fact that Moorman's 54" camera lens height is looking over the top of the 58" motorcyles windshield in relation to the ground and that Mary Moorman's photo (showing two people on the pedestal) was filmed for TV not 30 to 35 minutes after the shooting and while still in Mary's possession proves beyond all doubt that White and Fetzer were way off base and yet they continue to push a proven lie to this day. One can hardly call this an innocent mistake that is still going on all these years later! Bill Miller

Thank you, Raymond Carroll, for your appreciation of my essay arguing that the photo evidence from Dealey Plaza forms a self-authenticating fabric. I continue to expect that additional studies of the acoustics data already in the can will confirm its validity. I'm not persuaded by the various attempts that have been made to critique Don Thomas' recent work. In any case, it was nice of you to read my essay and I thank you for your comment. My compliments to Josiah Thompson for his very lucid article "Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination. While the extant photos/films are indeed bedrock evidence, I fear the same cannot be said about the accoustics. Robert Blakey was a sucker for "Science" and Blakey himself has now admitted that, at least in the case of Dr. Guinn's bullet lead comparisons, he was suckered by Junk Science. I submit that, as of now at least, the accoustics should be considered as falling into the same category. Blakey wanted to prove that CE399 could not have been planted, so he bought into Guinn's ridiculous theory. He also wanted to prove that there were three shots from the TSBD, so he bought into the accoustics. The human ear cannot hear gunshots on the dictabelt, so we are left to rely on the opinion of experts. My best guess is that future studies will confirm the findings of the National Academy, and then there is no accoustical evidence of any shots from the TSBD

This latest post by Jack White illustrates the continuation of what must be the biggest waste of time in the whole history of research on the Kennedy assassination. Once again White continues to offer a series of opinions concerning the authenticity of various photos taken in Dealey Plaza of the Kennedy assassination. First, it was the Zapruder film he claimed had been faked. When it turned out that the Nix and Muchmore films matched the Zapruder film in various ways, he claimed they too were fakes. Now he claims that the Moorman photo itself was faked and offers no indication at to how this could have happened. Let’s consider this latest claim for a moment. Early on the afternoon of November 22nd Mary Moorman and Jean Hill were waiting to be questioned by law enforcement officials. A Dallas journalist who was in the room succeeded in photographing Moorman’s Polaroid next to a Zippo lighter hence the name of this photo: “the Zippo Moorman.” Later that afternoon, Moorman’s photo was purchased by UPI and properly copied. It was on the wire within a few hours of the Kennedy shooting. There is no internal evidence in the photo that it has been altered. It matches every other photo we have of the shooting. It shows Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman standing on the Zapruder pedestal as Zapruder films the moving limousine. In showing this, it matches every other photo of the scene which likewise show Zapruder and Sitzman doing exactly what they and many other witnesses saw them to be doing. Since, for reasons unknown, Jack White believes Sitzman and Zapruder were not standing on the pedestal, he comes up with the truly whacko conclusion that the Moorman photo has been altered by showing them on the pedestal. This is not “research.” It has something to do with rejigging the world around a fixed idea. Let’s just take three paragraphs where White attempts to deal with one of his most notorious errors: “6. In the 1980s Geoffrey Crawley and I, USING MARY'S CAMERA, and jury-rigged Kodak film, took "recreation" photos in Dealey Plaza. When overlaid over the Moorman photo, they were a perfect match in the central areas. At the time, I THOUGHT IT ODD that to achieve the correct line of sight, we had to SIT ON THE GRASS ABOUT FOUR FEET SOUTH OF THE CURB. 7. In the 1990s, I determined that the line of sight of the Moorman photo WAS TOO LOW FOR HER TO STAND ON THE GRASS as shown in Zapruder, but was accurate only if Mary was standing in the gutter about 18 inches north of the curb. This has been confirmed by many others (see Fetzer et al). 8. A small group disputed this, and produced an image they called the DRUMSCAN as "proof". It proved nothing except a diversion they called the GAP. The "gap" is IMMATERIAL to my studies, and is a red herring to distract from the obvious. Too, the DRUMSCAN IS PROVABLY ALTERED from the Moorman 5 image...and the quality of the image is distinctly of inferior quality. The drumscan is worthless as proof of anything.” Paragraphs 6 and 7 make an irrelevant but true point. In 2000, Fetzer published a section by White in this book of essays, Murder in Dealey Plaza. Fetzer and White trumpeted one section as “MOORMAN POLAROID PHOTO CONTAINS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF ZAPRUDER FILM TAMPERING.” White here made the claim that in the Moorman photo two points line up exactly. These two points were the top left corner of the Zapruder pedestal and the bottom right corner of a window in the pergola behind the pedestal. Since about 35 feet separated these two points, they constituted a line of sight which would also contain the lens of Moorman’s camera. White went to Dealey Plaza, lined up the two points and then trumpeted the result. A few feet back from the curb, the line of sight to Moorman’s camera lens was only about 44 inches above the ground. However, in the Zapruder film she is shown standing on the grass taking the photo and the lens of the camera is about 53 or 54 inches above the ground. QED: The Zapruder film has been faked up. In Fetzer’s book, White published a photo with a red cross showing how the two points lined up. The only trouble is that the red cross actually covered up the fact that the two points don’t line up! When you remove the red cross from White’s photo, it is easy to see there is a gap and the two points are far from lining up. When this gap is accounted for in the calculations, it turns out that Moorman’s camera lens is right where the Zapruder film showed it to be... about 53 or 54 inches above the turf. Far from being a “red herring,” the existence of the “gap” is simply proof of the fact that White made an error of sloppiness. The drum scan image is probably the most high resolution image we have from the Moorman Polaroid. Its provenance and integrity have been demonstrated on another thread. However, finally it doesn’t matter what copy of the Mooman film you choose since all show the “gap” quite clearly. White throws up a cloud of smoke to cover up the fact that he made a sloppy mistake of observation and will not admit his error. I’ve posted as an attachment the photo from Fetzer’s book with the red lines and then without. By the way, the photo without the red lines came from Jack White himself. Looking at this photo, one has to ask how honest has been the research of those like White who keep shrilly claiming forgery in the photo record concerning Dealey Plaza. White and Fetzer published a photo which clearly showed White’s error of observation and then covered up the critical area in the photo with a wide red cross. If White can explain this innocently, I for one would like to hear the explanation. Once one gets beyond the shrill claims it is possible to see that the photo record of Dealey Plaza constitutes a bedrock for research on the case. Nothing has been faked because the tapestry of photos intertwine and are self-authenticating. A discussion of this can be found in an essay I posted on the Mary Ferrell site. If anyone would like to pursue this point farther, they can find the essay at <www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination>. Josiah Thompson

Okay, I'm going to try to be as patient and understanding as I can. Jack White wrote: "How could Thompson pay lots of money to a photographer AND NOT REMEMBER NOR HAVE RECORDS OF THE TRANSACTION? We are entitled to know who the photographer was that could NOT make a quality copy. What were the photographer's qualifications? In the sixties, I hired lots of Dallas photographers for photo shoots; some were excellent, others average. Best in this area was W.D. Smith, who specialized in photocopies, aerial photos, and giant mural enlargements." First of all, it wasn't "a lot of money." In the late spring and early summer of 1967 long after my work at LIFE magazine stopped, we started buying the photos we needed for "Six Seconds." Since the Moorman photo was so important, we took the trouble of employing a professional Dallas photographer to copy it using the best methods available. I don't think he charged "a lot of money." My best recollection is that it was a couple of hundred dollars. I don't know because I don't have his receipt available to me. That is the same reason why, after 49 years, I don't remember his name. Some of my files I gave to ARRC in Washington thirty years ago. Other files I threw out when I moved here from Philadelphia in 1978. Secondly, the photographer made a really top quality copy. The copy negative was about the same size as the Moorman Polaroid and its resolution is really fine (as Craig Lamson pointed out to you). Mr. Healy asked about whether the copying followed LIFE magazine's protocols... or something like that. This question mystifies me. Which copying? The copying in 1967 had nothing to do with LIFE magazine since I was gathering materials for "Six Seconds." The copying a few years ago obviously had nothing to do with LIFE magazine. What on earth are White and Healy bitching about? Back in the 1980s I made my copies of the Moorman photo available to Jack White and Gary Mack. More recently, I paid to get the Moorman 1967 negative drum-scanned and Craig Lamson just made it available on this thread. Instead of confronting the clear evidence of the "gap" on the drum-scan copy and all other copies, Jack White chooses to claim that the drum-scan copy has been fiddled in some way. To expose the silliness and basic dishonesty of this move, Craig Lamson asked Jack White to produce for us to see the highest resolution copy of the Moorman photo that he has. What did he produce? Butkus! Josiah Thompson quote name='Jack White' date='Oct 14 2006, 09:06 PM' post='77828'] Learn to read old man...Tink answered your question quite a few posts ago. Thompson wrote: "The professional photographer in Dallas who copied Mary Moorman's photo in 1967 was well-known in Dallas and, I think, was recommended by Patsy Swank and Holland McCombs, people I worked with on the LIFE magazine investigation in Dallas. I can't recall his name just now. I do recall that both he and Mary Moorman were paid to get the best copies we could possibly get. Why? Because one of the arguments in "Six Seconds" was the claim that an anomalous shape along the fence-line might be a gunman. For this reason alone, I took pains to obtain the most accurate, high resolution image I could obtain." Now how about doing some of the things that have been asked of you? Got the balls? How could Thompson pay lots of money to a photographer AND NOT REMEMBER NOR HAVE RECORDS OF THE TRANSACTION? We are entitled to know who the photographer was that could NOT make a quality copy. What were the photographer's qualifications? In the sixties, I hired lots of Dallas photographers for photo shoots; some were excellent, others average. Best in this area was W.D. Smith, who specialized in photocopies, aerial photos, and giant mural enlargements. Jack

On the afternoon of November 22nd while Mary Moorman and Jean Hill sat waiting to be interviewed by law enforcement, an enterprising Dallas reporter snapped a photo of Mary Moorman's famous photo. He stood it up and photographed it next to a Zippo lighter. The lighter then gave its name to this copy of the Moorman photo... the "Zippo copy." In terms of resolution, this photo is probably the worst we have. It does have one positive attribute. No one had smeared their fingerprint on the surface. Once you see the whole original photo, you can readily grasp why its resolution is so pure --- the photo itself only takes up a small portion of the frame of the copy. The only discrepancy between it and the socalled "Thompson drum scan copy" is its miserable resolution. It and all other copies of the Moorman photo show the same thing that the drum scan copy shows.... there is a significant gap where Jack White says there is none. I attach several photos of the Zippo copy all of which came in earlier postings by Jack White.

The professional photographer in Dallas who copied Mary Moorman's photo in 1967 was well-known in Dallas and, I think, was recommended by Patsy Swank and Holland McCombs, people I worked with on the LIFE magazine investigation in Dallas. I can't recall his name just now. I do recall that both he and Mary Moorman were paid to get the best copies we could possibly get. Why? Because one of the arguments in "Six Seconds" was the claim that an anomalous shape along the fence-line might be a gunman. For this reason alone, I took pains to obtain the most accurate, high resolution image I could obtain. The socalled "Thompson drum-scan image" was the result of that effort. I have maintained it in my custody ever since. As Craig Lamson pointed out, when I had it drum-scanned a few years ago I took stringent precautions to make sure the scanning process did not introduce anything new into the photograph. Jack White now comes along and claims either I or someone else has fiddled the evidence and produced a dishonest image. This claim is both insulting and self-serving. It is nothing more than sour grapes. Years ago, Jack White made a sloppy observation and jumped to a false conclusion. He claimed that the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal lined up exactly with the bottom right corner of a window in the pergola behind it. If this were true, it would establish a line of sight to Moorman's camera lens. But White was sloppy. He claimed the two points lined up when they didn't. A significant "gap" is apparent in the good detail of the drum-scan image. What is just as important is that this gap is also visible in every other image made from the Moorman original. Years ago, White failed to see the "gap" and jumped to a conclusion. For years now, he has been truying to save face by claiming no "gap" exists. Instead of doing the honorable thing and admitting a simple mistake of observation, White claims that other people (including me) are guilty of a conspiracy to fake evidence. If White will simply produce his highest resolution copy of the Moorman photo, everyone can judge whether the "gap" is there and we can be done with yet another controversy caused by a mistake of White's. Josiah Thompson Shanet...thanks. While on this subject, maybe we can get Lamson to come clean (confess?) who did the PHOTOSHOP alteration to his beloved DRUMSCAN Moorman. Someone (who?) SHARPENED THE TOP OF THE PEDESTAL AND TILTED IT A LITTLE TO INCREASE A PERCEIVED "GAP". Maybe Lamson knows who did this. Jack PS...back in the 80s when I did the TILT-EASEL discovery on the backyard photos, NOBODY had computers. Lamson implies I should have used computer controls to do this instead of such a "primitive" method. More rectal smoke. Have you used up your bag of xxxx yet Jack, the walls are getting all covered in the slimy goo but nothing is sticking. While we are at it, why not show us all a nice big and clean scan of YOUR copy of the Moorman original...in the area of the gap. Of course we all know you will NEVER do that because it will disprove your ignorant claim that the drum scan has been retouched. We all also know that you use the zippo simply because the quality is soooo bad. So come on Jack, step up to the plate and post your copy of the moorman orginal...nice and big in the ped area....You got the balls old man? You really can't read can you Jack. I suggested that Shanet use the computer NOW, not that you shOuld have used It way back in the dark ages. But while we are at it, why don'T YOU redo the tilt easal thing using the computer. You can prove once and for all that you are right. Just be sure to record all the information so we can all verify your work. You don't have the balls for that one either.

Jack White has made two statements about me in the discussion above. First, he said that "Thompson never had the original copied." That is false. He also said that the original Polaroid was never out of Mary Moorman’s possession. I have no idea whether this second statement is true or false. This I know. In 1967, I paid Mary Moorman to make her original Polaroid available for copying. I also paid a professional photographer to copy that original in such a way as to produce the highest resolution. I have no idea whether Mary Moorman kept the Polaroid at home and the professional photographer came to her home to copy it. Likewise, I have no idea whether she may have permitted him to keep the Polaroid at his studio for several days while he copied it. All I know is that both were paid and that the professional photographer produced several copy negatives of about the same size as the original Polaroid. He also produced several 8" by 10" prints made from the copy negatives. These materials have been in my custody since 1967. A couple of years ago, Craig Lamson suggested that I take one of the copy negatives to a photolab here in San Francisco which could make a high resolution drum scan. I did that and paid the lab for the drum scan. That drum scan (which is arguably the most accurate copy of the Moorman Polaroid in existence) we used to debunk the claim of Jack White, James Fetzer, Ph.D., and David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. (excuse all the letters after the names but Fetzer never leaves home without them) that Mary Moorman was standing on Elm Street when she took her photo. The point is that White started this claim with sloppy observation. He claimed in one of Fetzer’s books that you could line-up exactly the right front corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom left corner of a window in the pergola behind. He was correct to point out that if these two points lined up then the lens of Moorman’s camera had to be on that same line-of-sight. The problem was, of course, that the two points didn’t line up. You can see this if you look carefully at the photograph which has been posted. There is a considerable gap. Sloppy research on Jack White’s part backed by some pompous silliness on Fetzer and Mantik’s part wasted a lot of time for a lot of people. The badgeman controversy which is the focus of this thread is another wild goose chase sponsored by Jack White. Once again, in this silliness I have a role. Back in the 1980s, I sent to Gary Mack and Jack White an 8" by 10" print of the Moorman Polaroid which I had obtained from UPI or Black Star in 1967. I wish I hadn’t. It was apparent at the outset that the badgeman shape was a function of contrast and lighting, that it was not present in many other prints made from the Polaroid original. That was why they went with the particular print that I sent them. No matter how many “colorized” versions Jack White can pump out, he cannot meet the basic objection Craig Lamson has made and explained: the resolving power of Moorman’s lens and the film in her camera was not sufficient to record what White says was recorded. End of argument. I hope no one will feel this question is ungenerous but I have wasted a lot of research time dealing with bad claims of Jack White and his pals. He was wrong about Moorman-in-the-street? He was wrong about “badgeman?” He was wrong about the Oswald photos? His repeated claims about the fakery of the Zapruder film have turned out to be feckless? Has Jack White ever made a claim that turned out to be true? If one had a Jack White film festival, what would one show? Has any of his “photo interpretation” turned out to be sound? I don’t know. I’m asking. Josiah Thompson Craig, your point on what the cause of the alleged badge or police patch may or may not be correct, but the face and head shape is what sells me on the image in combination with Gordon Arnold's statements. When I look at the Badge Man's face ... I see the side of his face from which the sun would be on to be lighter than the side facing away from the sun, thus I do not believe his appearence to be part of the tree foilage. So whille I believe you certainly have an argument as to whether this individual wore a badge or police patch ... I disagree that his complete image is nothing more than lint, dust, and shadows. In asking Gary Mack for what he recalls pertaining to these images ... "In 1966/1967, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg separately received several 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo from United Press International (not Wide World Photos). Groden made slide blowups from one of Thompson's prints and some included the Badge Man area. He sent a slide to me, I noticed Badge Man, and gave the slide to Jack to see what he could do to improve the image. Later, I borrowed Thompson's 8x10 print and Jack made blowups from that, too. I have seen both Groden's and Jack's Badge Man images - and Jack's are better. " Bill Miller Thanks, Bill...Gary is absolutely correct. He should know. He did all the leg work, I did all the photo work. I shared every step of my work with him. He knows more about the Moorman photo and its history than ANY OTHER RESEARCHER. Jack Lamson claims that Thompson had in his possession the ORIGINAL MOORMAN POLAROID, which he had a professional photographer copy. Mary Moorman told Gary Mack and me when she brought us the original for me to copy, that the print and camera had been in her bank lock box since 1963/64. Whom should we believe...Mary or Lamson? Jack PS...as far as I know, Lamson has NEVER POSTED AN IMAGE OF ANY KIND ON THE FORUM. Let him prove his arguments by posting the images he alleges so we can see them. His "drumscan" is not from the Thompson #1 image, which Gary and I determined was the best of all Moorman images. Bill Miller, What the hell are you talking about? Mary Moorman took a POLAROID! She didn't use any film. Comprendo? Gr. Paul. BTW: why are you always replying in bold text? Is that really necessary? Or are you thinking we otherwise don't read your replies? For the benefit of the ignorant, Polaroid has always referred to its product as FILM. Doubt me? Just Google POLAROID FILM. Jack Who should we believe...NOT YOU JACK! I've posted many an image on this forum, The image from the Thompson drum scan was posted on this very forum (you remember Jack its the image you said was YOURS but in fact it was not) I posted a very high res copy on my Pbase page and linked so members of this forum could download it. Come one Jack. You are being stupid again. And I never said the drumscan was from the Thompson UPI print. It's not. It is a THUMBPRINT Moorman. Its from the professional copy Thompson had made in 1967. Despite of the bullcrap spewing from Whites keyboard, Thompson DID have the original Moorman print copied. From this link, an article in part authored by Thompson: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/drum_scan_gap.html "The drum scan In 1967, Josiah Thompson hired a professional Dallas photographer to copy the original Moorman Polaroid. The photographer returned to Thompson two 4 x 5 inch black and white negatives and 8 x 10 prints from the negatives. When the Moorman controversy arose recently, Thompson scanned one of the prints on a consumer-grade flatbed scanner and made the image available to the JFK research community. Dr. Costella used a version of this image file for his gap analysis. As part of the analysis, he magnified the image 3 times larger and rotated it to compensate for both camera rotation and scanner rotation. Both the Thompson original image and Dr. Costella's enlarged version contain compression artifacts, presumably from the source JPEG image file. The edges show signs of ringing, which is a byproduct of the compression inherent in JPEG, but also may be a sign of edge enhancement. Dr. Costella's processing of the image inevitably contributed its own artifacts. Unsure of the effect of these artifacts on gap measurement, we decided to get as close to the Moorman original as we could. Josiah Thompson took his negatives to Octagon Digital in San Francisco to have one of them professionally scanned on a drum scanner. He had the 4 x 5 negative scanned at 2400 DPI with no edge enhancement, no tonal adjustments, and no other processing. The scanner generated a 110 MB, 8-bit grayscale image to CD as an uncompressed TIFF file." Bottom Line: Jack White simply has no clue. The version of the "drumscan" I used was on a CD that someone in Tink's Gang mailed to me; I don't remember who. Presumably it should be superior quality to one downloaded from the internet. I am sure that Gary Mack can verify whether the original Polaroid ever left Mary's possession. When Smith and I copied the original, Mary and/or her husband waited while it was copied, never letting it out of their sight. So now Lamson not claims that the drumscan was made FROM A NEGATIVE SHOT FROM THE ORIGINAL, and not from a Thompson print. Interesting. Jack Sigh...your mind is going old man. I sent you the cd with the drumscan file. I also sent it to ANYONE who requested it at the JKFresearch forum. I've never claimed it was made from a print. I've mentioned any nuber of time ON THIS FORUM that the scan was direct from the negative. That was the whole point of getting the scan done...to get as close to the original as possible. We had a scan of the print produced from this negative, why scan it again... sheesh. As stated the file in the above quote was untouched off the scanner. As such it has not had any levels or curves adjustments made to it. It looks "flat" This was also done for a reason...to keep guys like you from making stupid comment about the file being altered. Not that it stopped you in any case. The file I posted (and was copied by a great many people during the time it was up) did have the levels adjusted as I pointed out when I posted the link. As such it DID look better than the file on the cd. It was also reduced in size down to about 11x14 at 300dpi from he original which was 39"x32" at 300dpi...and this was native resolution from the scanner, no interpolation. Good grief Jack, you knew all of this stuff, why suddenly are you making this seem like new news. Senile? BTW, Gary Mack was part of our group that trashed your silly claim that Mary was in the street. Are you suggesting that he was willing to put a falsehood about the origin of the drumscan in the article?

Jack White has made two statements above. One of which is correct; the other is incorrect. He said that I never copied the original Moorman Polaroid. That statement is false. He said that the original Polaroid never left Mary Moorman's custody. That statement may very well be true. What I know to be true is the following: In 1967, I paid Mary Moorman to make her Polaroid available for copying by a professional Dallas photographer. I have no idea how this was done. Did he stop by her home and copy it there? Did she drop it by his studio and leave it there for a few days? I don't have a clue what the answer is. I know that I paid her to make the Polaroid available and I paid a professional photographer to copy it. The professional photographer produced several copy negatives about the same size as the Polaroid and also several 8" by 10" prints made from these copy negatives. All of these materials have remained in my custody from the time I obtained them in 1967. At Craig's suggestion, I took a copy negative to a local shop that had a high quality drum scanner. I paid them to drum scan the copy negative. The high resolution scan of the copy negative was then used to show that the claim of Jack White, James Fetzer, Ph.D., and David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. (sorry for the all the letters after the names but Fetzer never leaves home without them) concerning Mary Moorman standing in the street was based on sloppy research. The point here was that White believed that the front left corner of the Zapruder pedestal lined up perfectly with the bottom right corner of a window behind in the pergola. If these points line up, they would have formed a line of sight to the camera lens of Moorman's camera. They didn't. You can note a considerable gap if you look at those two points in the photo in question. Because they didn't, White, Fetzer and Mantik have been suffering the slings and arrows of misled researchers ever since. Ask White.... I think he's still claiming he made no error of observation. The whole badgeman brou-ha-ha is based upon another copy of the Moorman photo which I obtained from UPI or Black Star photo in 1967. I sent it to Gary Mack and Jack White nearly twenty years ago. Only if you fiddle around with contrast and such things can you see any semblance of what Jack White says is there and tries to prove with his "colorized" versions. Craig Lamson is right when he says the resolving power of Moorman's lens and film was not sufficient to produce what Jack White says is there. Many of us have spent a lot of time debunking claims Jack White has made. The badgeman claim is wrong; the Mary Moorman in the street claim is wrong. Has he ever produced any claim that was right? All the various proofs about the Zapruder film being faked up have been shown to wrong. Please don't trot out any of NASA fabricated man-on-the-moon nonsense. I mean seriously has he produced a significant claim about the Kennedy assassination that proved to be right? Josiah Thompson P>S> I apologize folks. I posted this message and it didn't show up. So I posted it again... and again. Suddenly, all three showed up and I haven't been able to figure out how to delete the other two. Any advice on how to delete a posted message will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Craig, your point on what the cause of the alleged badge or police patch may or may not be correct, but the face and head shape is what sells me on the image in combination with Gordon Arnold's statements. When I look at the Badge Man's face ... I see the side of his face from which the sun would be on to be lighter than the side facing away from the sun, thus I do not believe his appearence to be part of the tree foilage. So whille I believe you certainly have an argument as to whether this individual wore a badge or police patch ... I disagree that his complete image is nothing more than lint, dust, and shadows. In asking Gary Mack for what he recalls pertaining to these images ... "In 1966/1967, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg separately received several 8x10 prints of the Moorman photo from United Press International (not Wide World Photos). Groden made slide blowups from one of Thompson's prints and some included the Badge Man area. He sent a slide to me, I noticed Badge Man, and gave the slide to Jack to see what he could do to improve the image. Later, I borrowed Thompson's 8x10 print and Jack made blowups from that, too. I have seen both Groden's and Jack's Badge Man images - and Jack's are better. " Bill Miller Thanks, Bill...Gary is absolutely correct. He should know. He did all the leg work, I did all the photo work. I shared every step of my work with him. He knows more about the Moorman photo and its history than ANY OTHER RESEARCHER. Jack Lamson claims that Thompson had in his possession the ORIGINAL MOORMAN POLAROID, which he had a professional photographer copy. Mary Moorman told Gary Mack and me when she brought us the original for me to copy, that the print and camera had been in her bank lock box since 1963/64. Whom should we believe...Mary or Lamson? Jack PS...as far as I know, Lamson has NEVER POSTED AN IMAGE OF ANY KIND ON THE FORUM. Let him prove his arguments by posting the images he alleges so we can see them. His "drumscan" is not from the Thompson #1 image, which Gary and I determined was the best of all Moorman images. Bill Miller, What the hell are you talking about? Mary Moorman took a POLAROID! She didn't use any film. Comprendo? Gr. Paul. BTW: why are you always replying in bold text? Is that really necessary? Or are you thinking we otherwise don't read your replies? For the benefit of the ignorant, Polaroid has always referred to its product as FILM. Doubt me? Just Google POLAROID FILM. Jack Who should we believe...NOT YOU JACK! I've posted many an image on this forum, The image from the Thompson drum scan was posted on this very forum (you remember Jack its the image you said was YOURS but in fact it was not) I posted a very high res copy on my Pbase page and linked so members of this forum could download it. Come one Jack. You are being stupid again. And I never said the drumscan was from the Thompson UPI print. It's not. It is a THUMBPRINT Moorman. Its from the professional copy Thompson had made in 1967. Despite of the bullcrap spewing from Whites keyboard, Thompson DID have the original Moorman print copied. From this link, an article in part authored by Thompson: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/drum_scan_gap.html "The drum scan In 1967, Josiah Thompson hired a professional Dallas photographer to copy the original Moorman Polaroid. The photographer returned to Thompson two 4 x 5 inch black and white negatives and 8 x 10 prints from the negatives. When the Moorman controversy arose recently, Thompson scanned one of the prints on a consumer-grade flatbed scanner and made the image available to the JFK research community. Dr. Costella used a version of this image file for his gap analysis. As part of the analysis, he magnified the image 3 times larger and rotated it to compensate for both camera rotation and scanner rotation. Both the Thompson original image and Dr. Costella's enlarged version contain compression artifacts, presumably from the source JPEG image file. The edges show signs of ringing, which is a byproduct of the compression inherent in JPEG, but also may be a sign of edge enhancement. Dr. Costella's processing of the image inevitably contributed its own artifacts. Unsure of the effect of these artifacts on gap measurement, we decided to get as close to the Moorman original as we could. Josiah Thompson took his negatives to Octagon Digital in San Francisco to have one of them professionally scanned on a drum scanner. He had the 4 x 5 negative scanned at 2400 DPI with no edge enhancement, no tonal adjustments, and no other processing. The scanner generated a 110 MB, 8-bit grayscale image to CD as an uncompressed TIFF file." Bottom Line: Jack White simply has no clue. The version of the "drumscan" I used was on a CD that someone in Tink's Gang mailed to me; I don't remember who. Presumably it should be superior quality to one downloaded from the internet. I am sure that Gary Mack can verify whether the original Polaroid ever left Mary's possession. When Smith and I copied the original, Mary and/or her husband waited while it was copied, never letting it out of their sight. So now Lamson not claims that the drumscan was made FROM A NEGATIVE SHOT FROM THE ORIGINAL, and not from a Thompson print. Interesting. Jack Sigh...your mind is going old man. I sent you the cd with the drumscan file. I also sent it to ANYONE who requested it at the JKFresearch forum. I've never claimed it was made from a print. I've mentioned any nuber of time ON THIS FORUM that the scan was direct from the negative. That was the whole point of getting the scan done...to get as close to the original as possible. We had a scan of the print produced from this negative, why scan it again... sheesh. As stated the file in the above quote was untouched off the scanner. As such it has not had any levels or curves adjustments made to it. It looks "flat" This was also done for a reason...to keep guys like you from making stupid comment about the file being altered. Not that it stopped you in any case. The file I posted (and was copied by a great many people during the time it was up) did have the levels adjusted as I pointed out when I posted the link. As such it DID look better than the file on the cd. It was also reduced in size down to about 11x14 at 300dpi from he original which was 39"x32" at 300dpi...and this was native resolution from the scanner, no interpolation. Good grief Jack, you knew all of this stuff, why suddenly are you making this seem like new news. Senile? BTW, Gary Mack was part of our group that trashed your silly claim that Mary was in the street. Are you suggesting that he was willing to put a falsehood about the origin of the drumscan in the article?

I would like to say that I respect Craig Lamson enormously for his careful scrutiny of photographic claims and his ability to speak knowledgeably and pithily about such claims. Jack White has been claiming faux this and faux that for decades. The fact that he keeps wasting our time does not entitle him to our respect. It only entitles him to a sigh of weariness, "Not again, Jack." Craig Lamson's ability to skewer Jack has proved useful in the past and will be again in the future. You claim that Mr. Lemkin has considerable "knowledge of world politics." I fail to understand what that has to do with anything, least of all with Jack White and his latest whine about "provocateurs." He's been whining like this for years if not decades. Josiah Thompson You are looking ever more foolish Peter. You don't have the first clue about what is righ or wrong about Jacks ability to unerstand photography and yet here you are praising him to high heaven. It sure cements your status as a nutjob. You are clearly NOT the "serious researcher and truth seeker" you claim to be. You have no interest in the real truth, only that which supports your warped worldview. Peter is a much respected researcher. His understanding of world politics is clearly greater than your limited knowledge of the subject. I wonder how many members will be willing to post that they respect your views on anything?

You folks sure have put together some interesting information on Vaganov. In the fall of 1966, Vince Salandria and I got interested in him because he came from Philadelphia. I did some digging about him when I was in Dallas that fall. I think I still have a photo of Vaganov driving some beaty queen in a Pennsylvania parade. The car is a Thunderbird convertible. At some time, Agent Lewis of the Media FBI office did a number of interviews with respect to Vaganov and the Kennedy assassination. These interviews were in the initial files opened by the Commission back in the mid-60s. They may have been in CD-5.

Fetzer writes: "When I joined the University of Minnesota, by the way, all campus appointments were made by the Twin Cities. We were all members of the University of Minnesota faculty, so he is wrong on that point, too. I taught on the Duluth campus, but it would be at least five years before UMD secured autonomy in making appointments, which was probably not a good thing. But he doesn't care about truth here any more than he does about JFK, which is very sad because I once held him in high esteem. He now strikes me as a nasty, embittered, shallow and pathetic person." So let this "nasty, embittered, shallow and pathetic person" point out how slippery is the Professor's latest gambit. The philosophy department of the University of Minnesota's main campus has a distinguished tradition and reputation. The philosophy department of the University of Minnesota (Duluth) has neither. So to boost his own credentials, Fetzer elides the difference. He never had an appointment to that distinguished department although he leaves that impression by labeling himself "a University of Minnesota professor." The fact that appointments to the lesser campuses were watchdogged by Minneapolis/St. Paul in the late 1980s but are no more does not change the fact that Fetzer is just claiming a credential he never had. What a surprise! Josiah Thompson quote name='James H. Fetzer' date='May 30 2006, 03:30 AM' post='63913'] This is the first day of my retirement as professor emeritus. UMD bestowed a nice package of benefits, including several years of health and dental insurance and a six-figure lump sum as well as many other fringes, including retaining my email privileges and web site. So I will continue to be jfetzer@d.umn.edu. Not that it matters, but I already explained how I analyzed Mellen's book, so this claptrap is completely silly. Start with the index and the references and check out some key citations. What is missing can be more important than what is present. In this case, the question is not whether I have read her book but whether she has read mine. The scientific evidence presented there overwhelmingly outweighs her vast number of interviews, especially at this late date. She also appears to have been very subjective in her appraisals. Whether or not I might be right about all of this, of course, doesn't matter to this guy. I have likewise explained what happened at the press conference. We gave it our best shot, but circumstances worked against us. Better to try than not to try at all. When I joined the University of Minnesota, by the way, all campus appointments were made by the Twin Cities. We were all members of the University of Minnesota faculty, so he is wrong on that point, too. I taught on the Duluth campus, but it would be at least five years before UMD secured autonomy in making appointments, which was probably not a good thing. But he doesn't care about truth here any more than he does about JFK, which is very sad because I once held him in high esteem. He now strikes me as a nasty, embittered, shallow and pathetic person.

Bill Miller wrote: "As you recall, I am the one who pointed out that Moorman's camera lens is standing above the tops of the motorcycle windshields, which should not have done while holding the camera to her eye to take a photo. I am the one who pointed out Mary's shadow barely reaching over the curb not two seconds before the cycles passed by her and Jean. I am the one who showed that the one photo Mary did take from in the street as she had stated was the McBride photograph where her camera shows her looking through the cycle's windshield and not over the top of it. And I am the one who said Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman what she thought about the claim that she was in the street when she took her famous Polaroid and Mary said, 'I think the whole thing is just plain silly.' I would just like to say that I've followed this debate for years and Bill Miller is quite correct in saying that he made all the discoveries described above. Whether Fetzer admits this or not is irrelevant. Bill Miller did exactly what he said he did and it was a nice job of analysis indeed! I hadn't mentioned the alleged build-up on the street, but when the road surface was redone - Gary Mack went out and looked at the asphalt depth and if I recall correctly, it was about an inch or somewhere in that neighborhood. It wasn't nearly as thick as you guys guessed at. My complaint wasn't about you standing in the street ... my complaint is referenced in the animated overlay showing your transit's LOS that you claim matched Moorman's. How can someone so smart not understand that point when you have heard it said so many times. Again, I am talking about your LOS photograph showing the corner of the pedestal touching the corner of the colonnade window seen in the background. Your pretending not to understand what I am talking about is at least a higher road than White took for he merely lied about the gap only being seen in the Thompson Drum Scan, but his attempt to avoid admitting his error is only a half of a step below yours. I am also not sure who the leader is that you speak of for I did my own investigation into the matter. As you recall, I am the one who pointed out that Moorman's camera lens is standing above the tops of the motorcycle windshields, which should not have done while holding the camera to her eye to take a photo. I am the one who pointed out Mary's shadow barely reaching over the curb not two seconds before the cycles passed by her and Jean. I am the one who showed that the one photo Mary did take from in the street as she had stated was the McBride photograph where her camera shows her looking through the cycle's windshield and not over the top of it. And I am the one who said Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman what she thought about the claim that she was in the street when she took her famous Polaroid and Mary said, "I think the whole thing is just plain silly". So you guys made boners then and are making them now by not admitting to them. Bill Miller

Fetzer writes: "Conversations with Joan Mellen are different. She makes pronouncements and expects everyone to fall all over them! She made this claim that I had not read her book, which in the ordinary sense is true, but gave me no opportunity to explain that I had analyzed her book. I did not want to raise the serious questions I had about it at that time, but in my opinion she has a grossly exaggerated sense of its importance." So the ex-professor from the University of Minnesota (Duluth) can analyze books without reading them! Now that is rich! Poor Joan Mellen walked into this one without knowing who Fetzer was. She should have asked any of the people who did "press conferences" with Fetzer in the past what it was like. They would have given her a blueprint for the self-aggrandizing grandstanding that occurred. Fetzer has never seen a microphone he didn't like. Hence, the Washington invitation drew him back from more pressing conspiracies --- the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7, the missile that hit the Pentagon, the death ray that brought down Wellstone's plane, the photos of the moon mission made on a sound stage in California, etc. Many of us had hoped that with the collapse of his Zapruder fakery claim, he would move on to even sillier conspiracies. But the microphone drew him back. He just couldn't stay away from it. Note how carefully Fetzer steps around the fact that he never had an appointment to "the University of Minnesota" --- that is, the main campus in Minneapolis/St. Paul --- but to its lesser satellite: "the University of Minnesota (Duluth)." Since credentials have always meant so much to Fetzer, in retirement he has to retrospectively upgrade his own by eliding the difference between "the University of Minnesota" and "the University of Minnesota (Duluth)." Josiah Thompson

Note Fetzer's self-description as given above: "James H. Fetzer, McKnight Professor at the University of Minnesota. Fetzer has chaired or co-chaired four conferences on the death of JFK and has published three books on this event: Assassination Science,Murder in Dealey Plaza, and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax." Seemingly forever, Fetzer has been championing credentials as the key to credibility. No surprise then that he should be involved in upgrading his own. Note that Fetzer (now retired after a two-month suspension without pay for "sexual harrassment" a couple of years ago) has given up any association with the University of Minnesota (Duluth). He now advertizes himself as distinguished professor "at the University of Minnesota." This is sort of like telling people you teach "at Harvard" when "Harvard" is really an obscure technical college on the outskirts of Enid, Oklahoma. Sic semper bloviatus! Is anyone surprised? Josiah Thompson

Bill, I'd love to post the photos you mention but I'm sitting in a small motel in Birmingham, Alabama where I just arrived to work for the next two weeks on a murder case. So I can't. But this should be said. What Jack White refers to as my "drum scan" is a minutely scanned copy of a negative very nearly the actual size of Mary Moorman's Photo #5. In 1967, Moorman permitted a professional photographer in Dallas to copy here Polaroid using an approximately 4" by 5" negative. This negative, of course, has not decayed at all in the intervening years and may well be the best surviving rendition of Moorman's famous photograph. But it really doesn't matter since EVERY rendition of the Moorman photo shows the gap as it is shown in the drum scan. It shows the level of White's commitment to honest, objective research that when things go against him he won't admit it and tries to impugn the very clear message of the evidence. As usual, he's just wasting people's time.

So let's see if I have this right. A few years ago Jack White wasted gargantuan amounts of people's time with the thesis he sold to Fetzer, Mantik and others. He said two points in the Moorman photo lined up. They were the left front corner of the pedestal Zapruder and Sitzman were standing upon and the bottom right corner of the window behind them in the Pergola. He published this claim in one of Fetzer's tabloid books. He was right in claiming that the center of Moorman's camera had to also be on that line. Then he went to Dealey Plaza, lined up the two points and found that Moorman's camera would then have been only 43" or 44" above the turf. Yet, in the Zapruder film, Moorman is shown with her camera to her face obviously higher than 43" or 44" above the ground. "Aha," proclaimed White, "I've finally proven that the Zapruder film is faked!" The only problem was that White's research was sloppy. The two points don't line up. The true line-of-sight formed by these two points confirms the location of Moorman's camera as shown in the Zapruder film. White's point was all hooey! So now White is claiming that not the Zapruder film but the Moorman film has been faked. This silly argument has also been around for a long time. Bill Miller, having years earlier disposed of White's earlier argument, based as it was on sloppy research, disposes of this one in the same way. "Jack, the reason you can't see the two windows is that Zapruder is standing in front of them! Duh!!? To describe this research as "sloppy" does it a favor! Thanks Bill.

David Healy first quoted my question: "Why do you think Mary Moorman was standing in the street and not on the grass when she took her famous photo?" and then wrote, "How about; she said she stepped into the street and took a photo?" Well David Healy, how about that? Moorman said she stepped into the street to take a photo and she actually did! Only the photo she took when she stepped into the street was not her famous photo. It was a photo taken almost forty seconds earlier of Officer McBride cruising by on his bike. And how do we know this is the case? Because the photo of McBride itself shows Moorman was standing in the street when she took it... looking UP at the 58 inch high top of his windscreen. All of this was worked out years ago by Bill Miller who went so far as to track down a motorcycle used in the motorcade and get measurements of the height of its windscreen. That is what real research is about. Getting the facts right... not popping off in a half-baked fashion. And Professor Fetzer... Where is Professor Fetzer? After offering a few insults and incomprehensible verbiage, he leaves. Does Professor Fetzer or David Healy believe that Mary Moorman was standing in the street when she took her famous photo? Neither one will say.