David G. Healy

...

If it was altered, I'd like to know when it was altered, I want to know when, before or after the three copies were made?

...

Thanks,

Bk

Your IF urged me to respond so.... between Nov. 24th and mid-February 1964, when the WC officially saw the film, as a group the first time. AFTER the 3 copies were made. One can reasonably suspect the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film has been altered more since then. Who'd know? The only folks needing to see the Zapruder film (in 1964) that is until Jim Garrison came on scene was the Warren Commission. Plenty of time to tidy up loose ends for that trial...

We have your number, Lamson. Ad hominems are no substitute for logic

and evidence, but are all you have to deploy when you've been exposed.

Sadly, for you and your sorry little group, Costella has been destroyed here by solid and unimpeachable empirical evidence.

Costella's folly

Now I can understand why you are running away, you learned it from Costella.

"destroyed here by solid and unimpeachable empirical evidence"? An essay written by Bab's, Tink and Wild Bill Miller, ya gotta be kidding me.... Actually, over-the-years Dr. John Costella has made mince-meat out of anyone feigning qualifications that has debated him, your wishful thinking aside...

What, reading beyond your education level David?

Costella's Folly....read it Healy and you might actually learn something

ya might as well send along a url for the WCR, Craigster.... LMFAO! They did get the date, place and time of the assassination correct though

Try this and tell me the wrongs that need righting?

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

Ya have a tough time, I'm sure Wild Bill can pull your fat out of the fire. And for all those with a 1.5GPA and below, I could care less about the Moorman #5 photo, its a canard, canard of diversion, only the latest that fear throws up stalling the truth.

Is that the best you can do David? Clearly you can't be this utterly ignorant. Like your pal Fetzer, you seem to be pimping for Costella without even checking to see if he knows what he is talking about. Or perhaps you can tell us how you know his work is correct? If you want to know what needs correcting you must have lost your ability to read. But given the quality of your posts here, that is no longer in doubt , at least to me.

My work will stand David, take your best shot.

what you think Craig, what you AND other people *seem* to think is totally irrelevant -- what Wild Bill Miller thinks is a waste of my valuable time.

Ya want a pissing match with Dr. John Costella, challenge him, gird those loins and get it on.... I'll watch! He doesn't want to play, that's his decision... who could blame him, past experience shows he cleaned everyone of the Gangs clock 5 years ago. (see below)

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

and THAT friends and neighbors is/was the best the Lone Nuttesr have, AND had

Yea, Duncan, But it ain't suitable for research, reference, archive or analysis if it isn't transcribed in print. It's just an entertaining show.

If the witnesses were sworn in, their testimony may even be under oath. If so, a transcript of it would be admissible as evidence in a grand jury (but not another trial).

While I have often transcribed such testimony, I'm not going to bother if it has already been done.

So, I ask again, if anyone knows if this program has been transcribed?

Thanks,

BK

You can read a very good review of the trial Video HERE

Duncan MacRae

This is the trial the Bugliosi prosecuted in England, right?

BK

correct....

This appears to account for the intensity with which Tink, Barb, Miller and the rest of the

gang have defended the authenticity of the Moorman as having been taken from the grass,

which, if they were successful, would defeat the DIRECT PROOF that the Moorman impeaches

the Zapruder (because it was taken from the street, but Mary is not shown in the street at

the time she took it). That attempt, however, even if it were successful, would not defeat

the INDIRECT PROOF that the Moorman impeaches the Zapruder (because it shows that

JFK's head is not oriented dramatically to the left, which would be necessary for the fallback

position that the Newmans were observing blow-out of brains to the right front WHICH WAS

COMING FROM THE DEFECT AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD! Which means the testimony and

medical evidence of a large defect to the back-right of his head and the massive blow-out

of brains and gore to the left-rear, which struck Officer Hargis, impeaches the Zapruder.

It's little wonder that O'Reilly made a complete fool of you on his show, Mr. Fetzer. You are aware are you not that debris landed near Altgens and Brehm which were both to the front and rear of the car.

wow, that 16th generation Z-film animation with brightness removed, contrast added and saturation over-driven explains a lot.... LMAO! Kinda like that photo analysis with the ghost in the bushes your famous for..... and that's Bill O'Rally of FIX news, btw.

...

I was an ardent supporter of Obama when he ran for president, but right now I would vote for his Impeachment for failure to uphold the Law and the Constitution.

...

yeah sure Ray, but did you VOTE for him?

Judith left this poem for me to find after her death:

Miss Me But Let Me Go

When I come to the end of the road

And the sun has set for me,

I want no rites in a gloom-filled room.

Why cry for a soul that is free?

Miss me a little, but not too long

And not with your head bowed low,

Remember the love

that we once shared

Miss me-but let me go.

For this is a journey

that we all must take,

And each must go alone,

It's all a part of the master plan

A step on the road home.

When you are lonely and sick of heart,

Go to the friends we know.

And bury your sorrows

in doing good deeds,

Miss me-but let me go.

there are few words that adequately express at times like this. I did not know your wife but by her above words (noticeably absent of fear) its plain to see she was more than prepared for what she faced (as we all shall face one day). She had the time to prepare, emotionally and spiritually -- we can thank GOD you were present during the difficult times and displayed the support a life partner needs during those last moments.... She's on her way to another tomorrow - always beyond the horizon, her thoughts will never leave you, she's in good hands.

Take care John Simkin,

David Healy

We have your number, Lamson. Ad hominems are no substitute for logic

and evidence, but are all you have to deploy when you've been exposed.

Sadly, for you and your sorry little group, Costella has been destroyed here by solid and unimpeachable empirical evidence.

Costella's folly

Now I can understand why you are running away, you learned it from Costella.

"destroyed here by solid and unimpeachable empirical evidence"? An essay written by Bab's, Tink and Wild Bill Miller, ya gotta be kidding me.... Actually, over-the-years Dr. John Costella has made mince-meat out of anyone feigning qualifications that has debated him, your wishful thinking aside...

What, reading beyond your education level David?

Costella's Folly....read it Healy and you might actually learn something

ya might as well send along a url for the WCR, Craigster.... LMFAO! They did get the date, place and time of the assassination correct though

Try this and tell me the wrongs that need righting?

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

Ya have a tough time, I'm sure Wild Bill can pull your fat out of the fire. And for all those with a 1.5GPA and below, I could care less about the Moorman #5 photo, its a canard, canard of diversion, only the latest that fear throws up stalling the truth.

We have your number, Lamson. Ad hominems are no substitute for logic

and evidence, but are all you have to deploy when you've been exposed.

Sadly, for you and your sorry little group, Costella has been destroyed here by solid and unimpeachable empirical evidence.

Costella's folly

Now I can understand why you are running away, you learned it from Costella.

"destroyed here by solid and unimpeachable empirical evidence"? An essay written by Bab's, Tink and Wild Bill Miller, ya gotta be kidding me.... Actually, over-the-years Dr. John Costella has made mince-meat out of anyone feigning qualifications that has debated him, your wishful thinking aside...

hmmmm, no less than 4 witnesses claimed a wound on the side of the head, humph! How many witnesses claimed a (rather large) hole in the back of Kennedy's head, again? Listen Barb, if your dead set on arguing and debating the Z-film, have the non-alteration crowd handlers provide the alleged in-camera Zapruder original for forensic testing. Simple as that.

What's the big deal, the Zapruder family is enjoying 16 million American taxpayer dollar$ for a film we (the American taxpayers) can't touch or mount up on a projector and run.... The Z-film film isn't the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.... get over it!

(emphasis mine)

Yes, no less than four. That's more than "none" in my wacky little world. How many saw the rather large gaping wound in the right rear of the head? Many. Clint Hill in DP ... a real up close and personal view all the way to Parkland, multiple people at Parkland, most notably the treating physicians, and then, of course, damage reported by Hill and Parkland was corroborated at autopsy.

Your point? :-)

LNs deny damage to the right rear of the head at all costs because they mistakenly equate damage to the rear of the head as having to have come from a shot from the front, and they have no place in their world for that.

But why is it some CTs do the same thing as regards the wound that opened so graphically on the Zfilm? Actually, I guess that would just be the alterationists. It is not a situation where it has to be either the wound in the back or the wound on the right side ... it was both. Virtually the entire right side of JFK's head was shattered, destroyed, exploded ... the full extent of the damage, of course, could not be seen until autopy when they reflected the scalp .... when more bone fell to the table and some pieces stuck to the scalp ... and left them with one big honking area of missing bone ... 10cm lateral right from 1" right of the eop, and 17cm forward from there.

Forensic exam of the film ... sure, that would be great. Why don't you contact the Archives about that? Contact some independent qualified professional examiners about pursuing the project and have them apply to the Archives. Go for it, that's what research is all about, right?

As for being "dead set on arguing and debating the Z-film" ... not this girl. Don't know where you got that idea. The Moorman in the street issue was just that ... the Moorman in the street issue. And, imo, it has been resolved. As "proofs" of film alteration emerged, sometimes almost daily, several years ago, I did participate in some discussion about them ... saw all that I can think of debunked. I have seen no evidence that stands up to scrutiny that the film has been altered, fabricated or in any way diddled.

Have you? Tell me what you know proves the film is altered. :-) Oh wait, that's right, you yourself wrote that you can't prove it. So, it seems reasonable to you to try to make something out of others not believing the film was altered? There's logic. Believe with all the passion you want - when there is verifiable proof, let me know.

Barb :-)

my goodness... you finally have a grasp on evidence that demands testing. You nor I, Wild Bill Miller, Josiah Thompson Ph.D., Gary Mack, Len Brazil, or Craig Lamson can prove, nor disprove the authenticity of the alleged in-camera Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA... not even Roland Zavada (and all the Lone Nut contrary whining aside). And let's face it, that (and John Costella Ph.D. prodding, of course) is the reason Roland backed away from the 2003 UofMinn Zapruder Film Symposium....

So, to comment on your above sophomoric comment (which Wild Bill Miller also loves), "of course I can't prove its altered". and here's the rest of the story for Barb: I have never examined, touched or even seen the alleged NARA housed, in-camera original Z-film (up close and personal), have you? Now, I know this is above your pay grade but, how can a competent researcher state a film or photo is altered if that researcher can't examine the alleged "original in-camera film/photo.... Tell us how that works Barb, your best John McAdams definition will do just fine....

Hell Barb, ya can't even tell me or this board the exact date the Z-frames were numbered...

Done! Multiple times on this forum.

Bang------------------------------------------------------Bang-------------------Bang

Z204/206-----------------------------------------------Z312/313--------------Z349/350

Tom, the Z-film reveals blood in Connally's armpit around Z-340, well before you think he was hit. In your theory, was this added to the film by the government?

if the Z-film was altered, you, I nor Tom Purvis has any idea what that particular frame number represents in the actual in-camera Z-film (if in fact it was Zapruder who shot it, for some, that's for another day). Anyone ever get a straight answer as to when the Z-film frames were numbered by the FBI super sleuth Shaneyfelt? And can prove it!

Tom,

Now that you've reluctantly credited me with actually understanding your confusing standpoint on the assassination, I'll try one more time to ask you a question.

If the Warren Commission claimed Oswald fired all the shots, with the Carcano, from the sixth floor window, why would they cover up or distort anything about when each shot was fired? Why would they care, since according to your theory, it would change nothing about the basic facts? Furthermore, why would they then go to the trouble of altering film of the assassination, just to hide evidence that the final shot was fired at a later time? If I'm missing something else you think they covered up, please let me know what that was.

I know I'm a glutton for punishment, but just for the record....

delete wrong post....

Tom,

Now that you've reluctantly credited me with actually understanding your confusing standpoint on the assassination, I'll try one more time to ask you a question.

If the Warren Commission claimed Oswald fired all the shots, with the Carcano, from the sixth floor window, why would they cover up or distort anything about when each shot was fired? Why would they care, since according to your theory, it would change nothing about the basic facts? Furthermore, why would they then go to the trouble of altering film of the assassination, just to hide evidence that the final shot was fired at a later time? If I'm missing something else you think they covered up, please let me know what that was.

I know I'm a glutton for punishment, but just for the record....

delete wrong post

I understand where Bill Kelly is coming from. One of my main problems with the entire alteration debate is the intensely negative response Jack White and Jim Fetzer bring out in Josiah, Bill Miller and others. I just don't see the same kind of intense negativity and scrutiny directed at Bugliosi, David Von Pein, or any other lone nutter.

There is no doubt that the vitriol comes from both sides- it is always an uncivil exchange and I can't imagine too many lurkers are impressed or hang around long enough to sift through all the posts.

At this point, I think that Josiah's dramatic "farewell" to the forum (at least that's what it sounded like to me) indicates a need on his part to hear others say "you won!" I'm sure Jim and Jack would enjoy hearing that, too.

The problem is, in this debate, I just don't think anybody looks like a winner.

Josiah Thompson does indeed have a flair for the dramatic, but NEVER gone.... and much easier on the eyes, and in print, than Wild Bill Millah (or the forum ghost Gary Mack)!

Hi All,

I too have observed some negative and condescending posts directed at Jack since I have been here, especially the ones poking fun at his ability. Now it may well be that many of these originate from previous encounters before I joined this forum, but they are still rightly or wrongly sad to read. I don't doubt that Jack always gives as well as he gets and then some, but personally I am amazed by his observation skills and I pray that I may retain half his vigour and determination when I am his age.

I think Jack like so many others here at the EF forum such as Len Colby (who rightly or wrongly has received his share of negative posts which is also sad) should not be ridiculed or dismissed for attempting to submit information, even if it that information proves not to be valid or contrary to your own beliefs and opinions, they should be applauded for their willingness to actively participate in an area that is filled with so many great minds.

Having said this, one should never close the door on reconciliation because life is simply too short and Andy Walkers comments which appear to be offering a truce and if sincerely meant (as they appeared to me to be so) should be restated:

"It has been too easy for many of us here (including both you and me Mr White) to fall into a kind of mechanical rudeness based on negative emotion which should not be tolerated. This forum is for education and research after all. Take the plank out of your own eye and I'll do likewise."

It would be nice to see Charles Drago posting here more frequently so I personally hope the above statement applies to him also, and besides if it doesn't work out; well I am sure there will be another post right around the corner where you can fall out all over again.

Steve

Excellent post I agree with 80% of what you wrote but you put it more eloquently than I ever could. At risk of touching off a flare-up I beg to differ a bit concerning Jack though. While his mental ability is remarkable for his age in large part he attracts negative comments for repeatedly making gross errors are rarely acknowledging them.

Very cleverly part-disguised off-handed ad hom Len. Your a real master at it.

Peter apparently doesn't even know what the term "ad hom" means.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the authorof or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B makes an attack on person A.

3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."

Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."

Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"

Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

My comments about Jack were the exact opposite; I didn't attribute his errors to his age (though it could be argued this was relevant). He brought up the subject and it was discussed by Steve whose post I was responding to.

I made 2 typos in my previous post though I think most people could figure out what I meant.

"touching of a flare-up" should have been "touching off a flare-up" AND

"he attacks negative comments" should have been "he attracts negative comments

yep, sure, uh-huh..... lmao!

Below, Jack says:

"

Again, a lack of comprehension. All quotes described ENTRY WOUND, not EXIT WOUND.

Changing the subject doe not changes the facts.

Jack"

Exactly right, Jack! The *subject* introduced by Jim Fetzer, was his challenge, previously quoted,

wherein he claimed that NO WITNESS saw or reported seeing wound to the right side of JFK's head ...

where we see a graphic opening in the Z film.

The *facts* are that, as I posted, no less than four witnesses DID report seeing the

wound on the right side of JFK's head.

The SUBJECT was Jim's claim.

The FACTS, quoted statements and testimonies, show that the SUBJECT, his claim, was WRONG.

Exit vs entry (when the claim was that NO WITNESS saw or reported ANY wound on the right side of his head,

that, in fact, the wound did not exist, but was painted into the faked film) is a hoot from you and Jim at this point ...

because of the parenthetical information. It's just a dance to avoid the obvious .... that I have no doubt is clear to

everyone else .... Jim's *subject* which was the *claim* was shown to be *wrong* by the *facts* I cited.

Pretty simple. And there's really no reason to beleaguer the point. The *subject* and the *facts* are not going to change

.... no matter how hard anyone tries. :-)

Barb :-).

...

What inability to comprehend!

The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.

No wonder this person is so often wrong.

Jack

"The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND."

I can just here Barb now Jack: Tink, now what do we do? Where do we go with this, ya think Barb has the "strength of character" to admit her fallacy? We'll see!

There's nowhere to go with this, though since you seem to have not comprehended the situation,

I'll type slowly. :-)

Fetzer claimed there was no wound on the side of the head ... that it was fabricated in the film.

He further claimed that "no witnesses" reported seeing such a wound on the side of JFK's head.

I posted quotes of 4 witnesses who reported seeing a wound on the side of JFK's head.

You with me so far?

That means that Fetzer's claim was wrong, false, incorrect.

Now, I find it hilarious that the "there was no wound there and no witness saw a wound there" people

are falling all over themselves, not saying a thing about the claim that a few simple quotes showed to be

false ... but now quibbling that the witnesses said this fabricated wound they couldn't have seen because

it wasn't really there and none of them had reported it was an entry wound, not an exit.

And you climb right on board Fetzer's latest "fallacy" folly, entering stage left, doing your Tony Marsh impression! ROTFL!

Best chuckle of the day. Almost.

Barb :-)

Again, a lack of comprehension. All quotes described ENTRY WOUND, not EXIT WOUND.

Changing the subject doe not changes the facts.

Jack

hmmmm, no less than 4 witnesses claimed a wound on the side of the head, humph! How many witnesses claimed a (rather large) hole in the back of Kennedy's head, again? Listen Barb, if your dead set on arguing and debating the Z-film, have the non-alteration crowd handlers provide the alleged in-camera Zapruder original for forensic testing. Simple as that.

What's the big deal, the Zapruder family is enjoying 16 million American taxpayer dollar$ for a film we (the American taxpayers) can't touch or mount up on a projector and run.... The Z-film film isn't the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.... get over it!

(emphasis mine)

...

What inability to comprehend!

The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.

No wonder this person is so often wrong.

Jack

"The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND."

I can just here Barb now Jack: Tink, now what do we do? Where do we go with this, ya think Barb has the "strength of character" to admit her fallacy? We'll see!

There's nowhere to go with this, though since you seem to have not comprehended the situation,

I'll type slowly. :-)

Fetzer claimed there was no wound on the side of the head ... that it was fabricated in the film.

He further claimed that "no witnesses" reported seeing such a wound on the side of JFK's head.

I posted quotes of 4 witnesses who reported seeing a wound on the side of JFK's head.

You with me so far?

That means that Fetzer's claim was wrong, false, incorrect.

Now, I find it hilarious that the "there was no wound there and no witness saw a wound there" people

are falling all over themselves, not saying a thing about the claim that a few simple quotes showed to be

false ... but now quibbling that the witnesses said this fabricated wound they couldn't have seen because

it wasn't really there and none of them had reported it was an entry wound, not an exit.

And you climb right on board Fetzer's latest "fallacy" folly, entering stage left, doing your Tony Marsh impression! ROTFL!

Best chuckle of the day. Almost.

Barb :-)

Barb,

I'm not on any factions "fallacy" train here.... (remember I can't prove the Z-film is altered, eh! I'm still waiting for 6th Floor/Mack/Miller contingent to make the alleged Z-film available for forensic testing)

It does appear though you're on the Tinkster's train choo-chooing all the way down that Lone Nut track.... What ya need to do is give us your best shot at being a Cter, Barb! Here & Now. Attacking Dr. Jim Fetzer and Jack White personally, simply because they don't conform to the Dallas City fathers image of preserving local and national history (even when its an outright lie) is simply nonsense. You, Miller the Tinkster are just making noise.

There's 45 questions and 16 smoking guns out there Barb, even .john ran from them, they've been posted to this forum a few times, and countless time at acj -- no lone nutter can touch them. Perhaps you'll be the first, eh?

For much too long, we’ve watched Professor Fetzer using debunked claims to argue for a discredited theory of Zapruder film alteration. He rattles off his claims in rapid fire fashion as if their very number will scare off any criticism. There was the seven-foot woman who turned out to be 5' 4," the growing Mrs. Frantzen who turned out not to have grown at all, the William Greer head-turn which turned out to be inhumanly fast only if you speeded up his turn by picking the wrong Z-frame numbers for beginning and ending his turn, the “frozen” spectators who turned out not to be frozen at all... and on and on. Last November, he resurrected the Moorman-in-the-street claim that had been buried with full military honors in 2002. Debate was joined on JFK-research and continued for a month or two.

Finally, out of frustration with Fetzer’s tactics of duck and cover, the five of us... Barb Junkkarinen, Bill Miller, Gary Mack, Craig Lamson and I... decided to try something else. We organized the debunking of the claim into the form of a scholarly article. We researched the provenance of each copy of the Moorman Polaroid even interviewing an individual who spoke to Moorman within forty-five minutes of the assassination. We presented the best copies available of relevant photos. We gathered whatever transcripts were available of Moorman’s comments over time. We put all this together and we brought it here to this forum.

Why?

We brought it here because we hoped that with the eyes of this forum upon him, Professor Fetzer might observe minimal standards of honest discussion.

What do we mean by “minimal standards of honest discussion?” Nothing complicated at all. We mean something like this: If A says something, B either agrees with A or tells A why he is wrong. It may be that what A said was correct. In that case, B might say, “You know, you’re right. I never thought of it that way.” B might then go on to say, “On the other hand, you haven’t taken into account ‘X’.” The discussion would then proceed along the lines of whether A had taken “X” into account. Alternatively, B might say: “No, I think you are wrong about that because of ‘Y.’” This is not rocket science. It’s something with which we are all familiar.... something we are all able to do easily.

What have we seen played out here? You all undoubtedly have reached your own opinion. This is what we’ve seen.

In presenting the Moorman-in-the-street claim in MIDP, Jack White started out by writing: “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.” Because of its obvious “guarantee” as authentic, White set out to use the Moorman Polaroid to undermine the authenticity of the Zapruder film. The Z film showed Moorman taking her photo while standing on the grass with the lens of her camera at least 50 or so inches above the ground. White thought he was able to see a LOS in the Moorman photo that placed her camera either 44.5" or 41.5" above the turf. He made a mistake. The LOS he carelessly believed was in the Moorman photo wasn’t there. The true LOS in the Moorman photo placed the position of Moorman’s camera right where it appears in the Zapruder film. We demonstrated this by chronicling the history of every Moorman photo copy and showing that they all showed the same “gap.” We showed how the size of that gap raised the true LOS to what we see in the Zapruder film.

What does Fetzer say in reply? He might have disagreed with any of the substantial evidentiary points that we raised. He didn’t. More simply, he could have just admitted, “Hey, guys, we were wrong about that. The LOS does match the Z film. She really was in the grass when she took her photo... right where the Z film and other films place her.” Fetzer did neither. He neither engaged with any of the evidentiary points or simply admitted he’d made a mistake. Instead, he side-stepped. He claims now that the Moorman photo itself has been faked. He said last week on this site, “It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.” Does this mean that the photo Mary Moorman has kept is not the photo she took? Does this mean that the Moorman photo filmed by NBC-News around 1:00 PM on that Friday and broadcast nationwide at 3:16 PM is not the photo she took that day? Or that all the various copies whose provenance we carefully traced are not copies of the photo she took that day? Apparently, this is what Fetzer means to maintain in order not to have to admit that the Moorman claim was a mistake. Last week, he wrote, “Why the photo would be faked, I do not profess to know, but my guess would be there was something in the pergola area that had to be obfuscated when the alteration was done.”

Get it? The whole Moorman claim gets started because White believes it “is guaranteed to be an authentic image.” Later, when their claim has been shredded, instead of abandoning it and admitting they made a mistake, they jettison the authenticity of the photo itself. And where was the photo altered? Right in the area (“something in the pergola area”) in which they hoped to prove their claim but ultimately were tripped up. And why would anyone alter this particular area? “I believe that Jack may have hit on the crucial reason... for fiddling with the Moorman in the pergola area specifically,” writes Fetzer on this site, “has to do with the images of Sitzman and Zapruder, who might or might not have been there at all... Perhaps Zapruder did not take the ‘Zapruder film’ because the evidence presented here suggests he wasn’t even there!” And who was on the pedestal? Not a “who,” replies Fetzer, just a rubber dummy!

Fine. So instead of White and Fetzer being wrong we now have to believe that the Moorman film has been altered in the area of the pergola. And why? To conceal the fact that Zapruder and Sitzman were not standing on the pedestal while Zapruder filmed. Not only is the extant Moorman Polaroid not the photo Moorman actually took on November 22nd, but the Zapruder film is not the film that Zapruder took on November 22nd. The Hesters talked with Zapruder and Sitzman just before they got up on the pedestal. Other witnesses saw Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. Zapruder himself reported on television that afternoon that he stood on the pedestal to take his film. Sitzman told me and others the same thing. The Willis, Betzner, Nix, Muchmore, Moorman and Bronson films all show individuals dressed like Sitzman and Zapruder standing on the pedestal. James Altgens shot a still photo of Zapruder and Sitzman walking away from the pedestal in the seconds after the shooting. The film screened by Zapruder to technicians at the Kodak plant that afternoon appeared to have been shot from the pedestal. The Zapruder film we have is indisputably shot from the pedestal.

All of this ducking and covering is tiresome to the rest of us. Of course, it is dishonest. Even worse, it is boring. However, now and then Fetzer provides such a big target that one can only laugh. For example, take his recent introduction into the debate of the Towner film. This is really funny.

Again and again over the years Fetzer has claimed that only “qualified” people can have opinions worth anything about the Kennedy assassination. And who will turn out to be the most “qualified” person? Of course, no one other than James Fetzer, Ph.D. For example, a couple of weeks ago Fetzer was berating some poor guy named “Zachary Luing” who disagreed with Fetzer on the JFK-research board. Fetzer told him: "Presumably, unlike Zachary Luing, I am qualified to make an assessment of this kind. If Zachary wants scholarly credentials, then he can study mine at length, and swoon." Yes, Fetzer actually said this. And then he provided a link where Luing could find those credentials to swoon over!

Fetzer has been claiming for years that Bill Miller (who has no Ph.D. after his name) is not “qualified” to have opinions. What is hilarious is that Bill Miller just stuck Fetzer with an argument of dazzling simplicity. The point is so simple that you would have to be brain-dead not to applaud it. Miller showed that the Moorman camera was looking down on the 58" high top of the motorcyclists’ windscreens as they passed her position. Therefore, she was on the grass. Understanding very little, Fetzer last week introduced a frame from the Towner film into the discussion. His purpose was to blunt the “windscreen” argument of Bill Miller. He got everything in his argument wrong. He misidentified the police motorcyclist and hence got the position of the camera wrong. He claimed that the Towner frame proved that our “argument about [Moorman] being run over if she were in the street has no basis in fact” but forgot that Houston Street had six lanes free and Elm Street only three. He claimed that “the Zippo [copy] is our best evidence” but forgot that the FBI and UPI copies have higher resolution and also lack the disfiguring thumb-print. Most importantly, Fetzer failed to grasp the very simple fact that the Towner frame actually confirmed the Miller argument. It would be impossible to make any more mistakes about something in short compass. Has Fetzer admitted any one of them? Of course not, he won’t reply to the post that points them out.

This has been Fetzer’s behavior for the last several years. A particular “proof” of film alteration is exposed as mistaken but later Fetzer continues to cite it as if it were valid. It was precisely for this reason that we brought to this board our work in putting together a systematic approach to why one of Fetzer’s major claims fails. We hoped that here, feeling the eyes of the rest of you on him, he might be persuaded to observe a modicum of intellectual honesty. Sadly, given what is highlighted above, he has not.

However, our purpose has been accomplished. You have patiently watched as Fetzer evaded our arguments, side-stepped into fantasy, and contented himself with claiming that we are all part of some “psy-op plot.” It is both unpleasant and confusing to follow Professor Fetzer’s weird acrobatics. But the recent poll about Moorman-in-the-street showed that most of you could not care less and the few who cared saw clearly what was going on. The folks on this forum, however, are quite sophisticated. Paul Baker asked if “anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together can take any of this rubbish seriously” and pointed out that therefore “Fetzer would be out of business.” Denis Pointing went on to make clear that “the danger is that people off this forum associate with these nuts.”

In closing, my own reaction is a bit different. Yes, Fetzer gives serious research in this area an incredibly bad name. Yes, that bad name ends up besmirching all of us. However, a longer view would show that Fetzer is fighting a dismal rear-guard action. Most of us in the research community got his number some time ago. Over time, his tabloid posturings seem more and more silly as he becomes more and more marginalized.. Blessedly, he has found other research communities to mess with. I end up reading his posts and after digesting the bile he throws my way either giggling or laughing out loud. I think that might be the healthiest response for all of us to what he writes.

For Barb and Bill and Gary and Craig... and for myself, I want to thank the members of this forum for your attention and comments over the last couple of weeks.

Josiah Thompson

well, it's tough when center stage is a long reach isn't it? So, it's time to move over, there's a new breed of JFK researcher coming down the pike. We should all look forward to watching them work!

...

What inability to comprehend!

The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.

No wonder this person is so often wrong.

Jack

"The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND."

I can just here Barb now Jack: Tink, now what do we do? Where do we go with this, ya think Barb has the "strength of character" to admit her fallacy? We'll see!

...

I wouldn't even be surprised to find that Purvis as an official Maxwell Smart shoe phone.

hell, you see heads with hats in Dealey Plaza bushes -- Phones in shoes? Much more realistic.....

[...]

Unless I've missed something, no one else on this forum has really taken Purvis to task for his numerous illogical and confusing posts. No one seems to mind his arrogance or his overwhelming air of self-imortance, which comes through in every word he writes. It honestly amazes me that he commands the least bit of respect here. I'm starting to feel like the little child in "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Don, no one will waste a second with you except Wild Bill Miller who is Gary Mack second here.... he of course is trying to paint a good face on everything here for the Dallas City Father's.

In so far as Tom Purvis, I suspect he's forgot more concerning this case than you'll ever know.... so, when it comes to lunacy, I'd keep myself under wraps for a while if I were you. At least till the real *in the know* CT's finally leave this forum. Then you Lone Nut wunderkinds can have your justly deserved lovefest....

btw, Josiah doesn't do autographs.... rumor has it, Miller does! LMAO

No Craig.

Let me know.

BTW,

That straightened vertical object I mentioned going up through Newman's armpit, shows up in Nix.

It's not a curved windshield

I wonder why this frame doesn't sync with Moorman.

chris

perhaps the Lone Nutter's need a good Photoshop guy/gal? Besides, I wouldn't trust where ANY of these .jpg/.gif images originated from. They're running you in circles Chris...

Healy spatteth: "speaking of fantasy and basic principels, are you finishing out your JFK assassination USENET career on this board? If so, I certainly hope you and Tony Marsh have a pleasant retirement.... For the life of me, I'd love to see something, anything you investigated [or research] concerning the JFK assassination that was original. I'd hate for you to go down in assassination lore as Bab's the rubber-stamp, blue-hair lady."

You seem to have a fixation with Tony Marsh. Are you trying to emulate him? Like you, he's much like fingernails scritching down a blackboard ... always chirping about people but never really saying anything of any import on the evidence. There is a cure for that, I found (not original, but hey, it works) ... ignoring.

Barb my work has been on JFKResearch.com for years, viewed thousands and thousands of times! If you read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, you ran into it too. All 30+ pages of it..... but, alas, most fair-haired rubber stamp Lone Nut folks don't look at what they criticize. Why? They're simply terrified their government might have lied to them, it's called D-E-N-I-A-L, that's why..... LMAO! And you expect CT's to take you seriously?

Speaking of the website JFK Research, weren't you thrown out of there? And for what reason, praytell? As far as Tony Marsh goes, Barb you have 1000's of back and forth posts with Tony Marsh most on alt.assassination.jfk (John McAdams home away from home, ya know the place most Lone Nuts ran too when when they couldn't deal with conspiracy), if anyone has a fixation it is you..... annnnnd, Tony Marsh appears to be a Lone Nut in CT clothing, certainly afraid to debate one Ben Holmes (at alt.conspiracy.jfk) concerning JFK assassination/WCR evidence. What are we Ct's to think? Even .john became mum when it came to the 45 questions and the 16 smoking guns, as have all his Nutter minions... and where do we find you guys? Hiding all over the internet debating distance measurements concerning a xxxx*ty, absolutelty useless Polaroid photo called the Moorman #5 that means nothing, nada, nil when it come to the assassination of the President of the United States.... Minutae! Even has a NYT best selling author all wrapped up in the nonsense, can you imagine THAT?

The posted (alt.conspiracy.jfk) 45 questions and the 16 smoking guns, answers to those will get to the bottom of the conspiracy angle concerning the assassination of JFK. Care to give them a whirl Barb? They've been posted to this forum, too! Might wanna take a peek at the Tom Purvis work, too! Appears he's found a few anomalies in the WCR work in Dealey PLaza.... 'SEARCH' is your friend!

Hahaha! You are showing off your ignorance again! I didn't say anything about Z film fabrication ... that is your fantasy, not surprisingly unproven (and ridiculous) despite your reams of repetitive graffiti on cyberspace walls.

What it has to do with is basic principles ... doesn't matter what the picture is ... why don't you ask Jack, the photo expert to explain it to you? And if he can, then he can explain to all of us how he can draw lines on photographs taken at different times from different angles by different cameras, with a whole host of other unknowns, and compare the size of a "known" object to objects farther from the camera. And this would be true even if he had NOT used pictures that are so fuzzy and muddy as to make it nothing but a wild assed guess where he chooses to put his lines ... especially those supposedly marking Z's height.

Aside from all that, is it really a foreign concept to you that people bend and move ... especially when taking photographs or panning with a movie camera?

There have been some doozies overs the years, but this latest "proof" has got to be one of the most preposterous profferings yet. The rearch community cringes; they are not laughing with you.

Barb

speaking of fantasy and basic principels, are you finishing out your JFK assassination USENET career on this board? If so, I certainly hope you and Tony Marsh have a pleasant retirement.... For the life of me, I'd love to see something, anything you investigated [or research] concerning the JFK assassination that was original. I'd hate for you to go down in assassination lore as Bab's the rubber-stamp, blue-hair lady.

[...]

Gary has several things wrong here. I worked with Geoff and WE figured how to load 120 film (yes, 120 Kodak film)

into the camera as we sat together in my living room. HE AND AND I went to a camera store and found the necessary

materials. He and I together figured how to load the film, using one of the undeveloped rolls. Gary was not with us

when were were doing any of this. Of course Geoff was more of a photo expert than I was...but we worked together

trying to solve the film problem. He assured me that the Kodak film he chose was close enough in grain structure

to Polaroid film to provide a useful test of the lens. I do not know the film he chose, but it was "fine grain".

I do NOT have a tendency to be forgetful. My memory is actually getting better all the time.

I did NOT remember the name of Geoff's magazine, but why should I? I just remember he was editor and columnist.

Gary told me that MARY SAID IT HAD BEEN IN HER DEPOSIT BOX SINCE 1963, but he now equivocates.

Gary borrowed the camera. That was the extent of his participation. Geoffrey and I did the experiment, which

was about whether the camera lens was capable of detail sharp enough to show the face of a person behind

the fence. It was. So the experiment was NOT a failure. My remembrance is that Nigel hired Geoff as a consultant.

He did NOT fly him from London to Dallas specifically just to conduct a photo experiment, which anyone could have

done.

Jack

That's what happens when Gary Mack sends Wild Bill Miller to do his bidding...... <sigh>

-so-

"Geoffrey and I did the experiment, which was about whether the camera lens was capable of detail sharp enough to show the face

of a person behind the fence."

Now THAT is interesting. Then you'd of thought Zapruder and Sitzman would of been readily identifiable in the the Moorman #5?

the fence. It was.

A picture IS worth a thousand words, now isn't it!

Excellent illustration, Craig. Neither Fetzer nor White will touch it with a 10 ft pole .... although if they have anymore fat red lines handy ...

Bests,

Barb :-)

This guy is shameless. He is blatantly misrepresenting our position. Notice he does not actually offer pages or posts for citations so anyone could check our actual positions. While there is a "lower right corner" of the window thirty five feet behind the pedestal, there is no "upper left corner" of the pedestal, because there is a one-inch indentation around the top of the pedestal. The proper alignment of the cross "+" requires using the left side of the pedestal and the top of the pedestal as parts of two lines that intersect in space. What this means is that, in order to make the alignment required by the line of sight, a "gap" will be created by necessity, since aligning them properly allows for the one-inch indentation (or "knotch"). I have explained this in Parts I and II of "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", JFKresearch.com/Moorman/, which was composed after weeks of discussion and debate on jfk-research@yahoogroups.com. Everyone who participated in this knows that Josiah Thompson is distorting the most basic aspect of our proof. The matter of the "red cross" is also a charade, since the same features exist with or without the red lines, which Jack used to highlight the location of the cross. If you take a look at "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", you will find an extensive and, in my opinion, decisive refutation of the claims made in this ridiculous post. If David Healy has actually posted the reply attributed to him here, then he has been taken in. No one should fall for this stunt, which is one of the most dishonest distortions possible. No doubt Josiah wanted to shift the discussion to this forum from the other because it would be virtually impossible to dupe members there, who have been living through this for months. I therefore urge Healy and others who are being played for suckers to read our study, which is supported by no less than fifteen photographic attachments, which were prepared by Jack for this purpose.

The existence of a modest distance between the pedestal top and the bottom inside of the window has also been a subject of extensive discussion. You will find the key paragraph below Attachment 7 as follows:

The second alleged "gap" is one of vertical displacement. Tink has insisted that we missed a difference of close to 2" at the pergola, which would have translated into as much as a 7" difference over the grass. Such a modest gap is almost too small to be seen on a small, blurry copy of the Moorman. Jack has candidly acknowledged that there may be a 1" gap at the pedestal, which Joe Durnavich measured (using a method John first proposed of counting pixels) to be 1.88". I do not know if he did this correctly by using an image consistent with our 41.5" estimate, but let us assume that he did. Since even a 2" difference only adds 8" to the line of sight over the grass, adding it to our figure of 41.5" would yield 49.5". Since Mary was 5'2" (5'3" with shoes) and the camera at lens should have been about 5" lower, the line of sight should have been closer to 57" (or 58"). This is still far too low by 8" (or 9") for Mary to be standing on the grass. So even Tink's strongest argument is still unavailing.

I see you are as daft as White when it comes to the simple meaning of the word "cross".

"A mark or pattern formed by the intersection of two lines, especially such a mark (X) used as a signature."

So where is that "cross" in Moorman?

Wanna try again Jim?

frankly, a case can be made the lines could actually meet. Perhaps Craig was a bit 'conservative' with his lines...

Why not show us David, instead of your standard meaningless postings. All you need to do is apply a very "liberal" dose of your vaunted photographic skills.

added on edit:

I see you have tried and failed. Have you been reduced to making things up out of thin air? So much for David Healy and his photographic analysis skills. They are non existant. Perhaps you should move along, you are in way over your head.....

I posted the photo, can't you find the meaningless photo?.... few posts above ^ post #22

And I made an addition to my original post when I saw your image...its right there...notice the words "added on edit"

Hell, I'm still trying to find Zapruder & Sitzman in this cropped recreation.... Soooooooo a horizontial pixel here, a vertical pixel there, sigh! In the 72dpi world no less, way to go.... LMAO! Hardly convincing, Craig (for neophytes perhaps, but not the pro's) --

But, many suspect this has gone way beyond photo (e)valuation. Appears it's is all about personalities, isn't it? If that's the case, you're debating from a position of weakness, so much for "professional" opinion. Your side simply can't convince anyone with case photo-film knowledge .... So, let's continue posting more piss-poor quality images, perhaps that will lend more to the Z-film anti-alteration position.... ROTFLMFAO!

btw, Zapruder and Stizman? I'd recognize them anywhere.......