David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
Reading David Healy's remark about the debate turing into a "farce", I see that, in the context, he is exactly right.
Speaking of a lack of reading comprehension skills ... Healy was talking about you and Jack's claim of Moorman standing in the street as being a "farce". It has only been YOU that keeps trying to make it appear that if one doesn't agree that Moorman was in the street when she took her #5 Polaroid, then this somehow means that the rest of the film must be correct and that is not what anyone has said. Even after this has been pointed out to you numerous times, you still misstate it. As much as I do not car for O'Reilly's show ... he had you pegged dead to rights.
I am sure that if you wish to start another thread on how boys turn into girls on the Zapruder film and visa-versa ... Josiah and others will be happy to point out the error in that claim as well. Maybe start a thread on how Mrs. Franzen grew taller which is another claim found in 'Hoax' that was shown to be bogus. This isn't the DellaRosa site where any idiot can make a claim and not have it challenged.
The bottom line is that certain 'laws of nature' show that Moorman could not be in the street when she took her photo. One can only assume that the same asinine critical thinking that would suggest that Zapruder was made of rubber has prevented you from ever being able to see what the rest of the world sees.
Here is your challenge: You and/or Jack can step down into the street and shoot on any LOS that you like. Take your photo and post it and I will overlay it onto Moorman's and I can tell you that those same laws of nature that need no enforcement will expose your mistakes.
[image]
There is no way around the laws of nature, Mr. Fetzer. The laws of nature are not to be accepted when you believe them to benefit you and ignored other times that they don't. So far it has been only YOU that has ignored them. I think before you do anything else, you have an obligation to address those cycles windscreens and those lasws of nature that you like to speak of.
Bill Miller
the cycles wind screens? LMAO. Ahh the debate concerning November 1963 events in Dealey Plaza - we're really progressing LMFAO! For the record I doubt you'd be taking on Dr. James Fetzer concerning any subject matter -- methinks you need Josiah and Gary's and the gleeclubs input to hold you up!
So, read my bytes, Nutter.... focus, you have to simply F-O-C-U-S.... I have no time for your inane debate. Gary, OR Josiah's Moorman#5 street/grass debate. On the record saying same! IMHO, a simple fact prevails Wild Bill, you're wrong most when it comes to photo analysis (all the way back to those *a head growing in DP bush days*). This is pure shuck and jive, Lone Nut distraction and disinfo..... Blatant attempt to discredit Jim Fetzer and Jack White.... So, try to sell it to someone else, eh? Frankly, I doubt you even understand why the Moorman #5 photo is debated on ANY JFK assassination board.
When it comes to the facts I'll take Dr. Jim Fetzer in debate over you, Josiah, Gary in any JFK conspiracy related head-to-head debate (in front of an audience w/or w/o cameras) you're way above your station, young man...
-
and Posner too! Of course they're disinfo..... Every Cter knows that, all but you evidently.... it is nice to see you nad up, and finally show your colors (but most of us knew anyway)....!
I wonder how you got through school ... did you copy off of O.J.??? Aside from your constant misspellings ... your thoughts are so disjointed and so poorly thought out ... its like you have never had any schooling at all. You seem to have the mentality that to be a conspiracy believer in JFK's assassination, then you must believe every cock-and-bull claim made by every lunatic that comes along when in fact that would also include you for you didn't agree with Fetzer on where Moorman was standing, thus now you are a LNr.
To refresh your less than rational memory ... you were talking as if having written something that was published must somehow put you above everyone else and my point was that even screwballs like Posner have had their writings published, thus your remarks have no validity to them.
Bill Miller
then stick with the original topic, wannabe (it's the moorman poll, dummy).... we understand at your age memory, and most importantly FOCUS begins to go. -- T'was you son who brought Posner into the discussion, shall I post a link to the post as a gentle reminder? Keep at it, you'll get published eventually.... I'm your biggest fan- ROTFLMFAO... I can hear them rooting for you all the way out west, just ask Josiah.....
-
You have it wrong Bill,
The resolution a camera can produce is just more than the lens. Its the product of stability ( tripod, handheld, panning etc), lens resolving power, film resolving power, f/stop used (was the lens diffraction limited by being stopped down too far) and shutter speed ( action stopping power.)
Crawley screwed up the test completely.
The ONLY things he got right was the lens and the shutter speed.
What he got wrong:
The film he used has a higher Lp/mm than the Polaroid film Mary used.
He used the wrong f-stop. Moorman 5 was taken with the lens stopped all the way down since it was taken using asa 3000 film in bright daylight. The lens was diffraction limited.
The camera was not panned during exposure.
The long and short of it is that Crawleys experiment is worthless as a test of the resolving power of the Moorman film/lens/fstop/shutterspeed/stability combo.
Craig, with all due respect, isn't Crawley an expert in lenses ... I think I saw somewhere how George Lucas, the Star Wars guy, would consult him on projects.
The film to my understanding was the same film Moorman used, just a different name, but never-the-less the same film.
I also thought that Crawley used the same model camera as Moorman. His camera had a glass lens as Mary's did ... and Mary's camera was said to have not been used since her taking that picture, thus the settings were checked against those on Mary's camera.
Crawley reported that he could get the resolution with that camera to see the details in Jack's work.
Do you know something different?
Bill
if you're going to banter around known commercial film-industry names - provide a cite! Also, provide lurkers where they might review Crowley's "polaroid" work!
BTW, what makes up a lens expert?
-
someday you too, may get published son.... perhaps Josiah, Gary, the 6th Floor Museum or better yet, maybe the City of Dallas will help you find a publisher.... ROTFLMFAO!
David ... the National Enquirer publishes stuff all the time ... its still crap. Bugliosi and Posner published books that you consider crap. So your notion that because something or someone was published is meaningless for its the content that matters.
Maybe I'll publish a book on all the stupid say-nothing post you make ... that will certainly be something to be proud of.
Bill Miller
and Posner too! Of course they're disinfo..... Every Cter knows that, all but you evidently.... it is nice to see you nad up, and finally show your colors (but most of us knew anyway)....!
-
My answers
1) 2
2) 3
lets see, this poll went up March 7th, its now March 13th and only 29 votes have been cast? You Lone Nuts haven't bettered your PR skills since Bugliosi issued forth Reclaiming History (which btw, is the book publishing industry mega-flop of the century) have ya? LMFAO! How many views for this poll? 600+. Oh dear! How many views for Josiah's 4 part Moorman post (and others) 3,000+ concerning the same subject matter? Yet only 29 poll votes? Nothing seems to advance the Lone Nut/WCR/SBT case, does it?
Perhaps it's Bill Miller.....
Or simply, you can't make the case.... -
DH:
Mary Moorman, herself is on-the-record stating: "she stepped onto Elm street" to take polaroid picture(s). Apology?
DH Again:
can't shuck and jive your way out of this one, son... I could care less what else Mary Moorman is on the record saying....
Ah Frank ... I see you have met the two Healy's.
someday you too, may get published son.... perhaps Josiah, Gary, the 6th Floor Museum or better yet, maybe the City of Dallas will help you find a publisher.... ROTFLMFAO!
-
can't shuck and jive your way out of this one, son... I could care less what else Mary Moorman is on the record saying.... you blew it, and know it! An apology is in order!
Yes ... I would like to go on record as apologizing to those who have had to read David Healy's incompetent say-nothing post.
Bill Miller
DH:
Mary Moorman, herself is on-the-record stating: "she stepped onto Elm street" to take polaroid picture(s). Apology?DH Again:
can't shuck and jive your way out of this one, son... I could care less what else Mary Moorman is on the record saying....your learn'in Frank..... stick with the CT's and you might get to use that education you have, maybe even learn a few things about film/image composition. And who knows, perhaps a bit about optical film printing (unless you can show us a few credits concerning the media, of course so we can take you seriously). Maybe find the Moorman #5 is a shuck and jive diversion. Ya see Frank, Lone Nutters including Bill Miller's merry band of wannabe CTer's can't deal with the fact the Zapruder Film is looking more and more like its altered
-
Remember, at least according to Bill, this camera len's resolving power is good enough to pick up badgeman in shadow, how many feet away?
chris
Chris, actually it was Geoffrey Crawley (a well noted photo scientist who specializes in debunking images) who was able to duplicate the clarity as represented in Jack's work. Crawley used the same type camera with the glass lens. So it isn't a matter of what I or you say, but rather a fact that it was done using the same equipment as Moorman did.
Bill Miller
Geoffrey Crawley! ROTFLMFAO.... You have to be kidding? Best take a look at what Craig Lamson has to say (further in this thread) about Geoffrey Crawley's test..... sheeeesh! Thank you Craig, you spared me the effort!
-
The whole Moorman being in the street idea was based on erroneous observations on Jack White's part.
Mary Moorman, herself is on-the-record stating: "she stepped onto Elm street" to take polaroid picture(s). Apology?
Mary is also on record as saying that the kill shot was the first shot ... Bill Newman saying the President's ear flew off ... Sitzman thinking that a black couple was getting up off the bench immediately after Moorman took her photo, but they were obviously wrong. Even Jack had enough sense to know that he needed more and thats where he made some erroneous observations that were easily exposed as such.
Bill Miller
can't shuck and jive your way out of this one, son... I could care less what else Mary Moorman is on the record saying.... you blew it, and know it! An apology is in order!
-
Notice that these discrepancies lend weigh to the hypothesis that
the Moorman was altered in the pergola area, which may explain
why--even though the photo in general must have been faked, as
John Costella has established--there has been such an enduring
attack on me and Jack for suggesting that something is not right.
As I have elsewhere observed, even though Mary was in the street,
there were multiple reasons for putting her back on the grass, as
David Lifton has observed, in a series of fascinating emails to me,
where he explains the significance of the debate and why it seems
extremely important to the ongoing cover up in the assassination:
> Jim:
>
> I hardly have the time to post on anything that "in a more perfect world" would
> require serious thought, serious composition, rewriting, etc. But. . .here
> goes:
>
> Barb asks something that reveals she probably has not really put herself in
> the position of those involved in this affair‹assuming there was film editing
> (and I certainly believe that to be the case).
>
> For me, the starting point for this discussion is David Healey¹s astute
> observation that ³the curb² formed a serious line of demarcation for those
> involved in such editing.
>
> Anything ³above the line² was in one world (optically speaking); anything
> ³below the line² was in another.
>
> ³Below the line² involved the fabrication of the false motion of the limo,
> going forward from frame to frame. (I think he called that the ³rolling
> matte²).
>
> ³Above the line² was ³the background², which in this case happened to include
> ³the bystanders.²
>
> One does not have to read‹or think much about‹optical printing to understand
> that to ³insert Mary² (and/or anyone else) ³below the line² would immeasurably
> complicate the process.
>
> What is wanted ³below the line² is simply the car ³moving forward² from frame
> to frame‹and certainly not that image, but complicated, terribly complicated,
> by an ³up close and personal² bystander, like Moorman, suddenly entering the
> scene.
>
> Perhaps, in principle, such an alteration could be done. But it seems
> intuitively obvious (at least to me) that it would be far better to
> DE-complicate the problem by ³moving Mary² up to the grass, than to attempt to
> create what is called a ³rolling matte² situation (the car moving forward)
> which, in ADDITION TO whatever issues have to be dealt with, would also have
> to include one or two bystanders who ³flash by² (as part of the ³rolling
> matter²) as the car moves forward.
>
> Of course, there is then this additional issue, and concerns how such a film
> would affect the investigation. If Mary Moorman were to be ³right next to² the
> car (as she basically said she was, in these early media interviews) and if
> that should become ³official² because of her placement in just that manner was
> verified on the Zapruder film, then she would become a ³star witness², perhaps
> ³the closest person to the president when he was shot,² etc etc‹and if she
> THEN testified about the car stop, it would magnify the importance of that,
> and immediately focus even more attention on that issue.
>
> Can you imagine some lawyer on the staff of the Warren Commission, arguing
> that the car could not have stopped because ³the film doesn¹t show it², when
> the person right next to the car said it did? And talked of an extended time
> frame of the shooting that was completely at odds with what the film showed?
>
> What I¹m saying is that had Moorman testified to these matters as ³facts,² and
> if the film showed her poised right next to the car (assuming that could have
> been done, optically) but with the car-stop removed, then the top of what is
> really a Pandora¹s Box of interrelated issues could easily spring open.
>
> The way to minimize all this is to minimize the impact of Mary Moorman¹s
> account, and the way to do that is to simply put her up on the grass, having
> her ³innocuously take² the photograph she did.
>
> As I recall: the top FBI official in Dallas (Gemberling) had a car immediately
> sent to Hill¹s home, in order to bring her in and speak with her. That was
> before the ³let¹s minimize² her account² behavior began.
>
> If the film showed Moorman, right there in the street, and right next to the
> car, then her entire account of having waited, stepped into the street, aimed,
> waiting. . And then ³clicked² (with the car stopped, essentially)--all that
> would have cast serious doubt on the validity of the film, which showed
> nothing of the kind.
>
> Any sharp attorney on the Commission could then have raised some serious red
> flags, and that could be another manner in which ³the record² would contain
> still additional information pointing to the film as possibly having been
> altered, fabricated, etc.
>
> So that¹s my ³answer² as to why Moorman had to be moved ³up onto the grass.²
> The starting point is that she ³had to be somewhere² (i.e., she couldn¹t be
> ignored, since her picture was distributed nationally on 11/22 or 11/23).
> ³Moving Mary up on the grass² was a sensible way to deal with the problem, and
> the reality that, from an optical editor¹s point of view, the curb was a
> dividing line of sorts; so ³moving Mary² up on the grass vastly simplified the
> fabrication of a false film.
>
> Hope these remarks contribute.
>
> DSL
When I thanked him for making some astute observations, he wrote again:
No problem, but. . .: keep in mind that mine is a totally subjective
impression.
Again let me stress that if Moorman (and Hill) were in fact in the street,
and then "lifted up" and "moved" over to the lawn, then sophisticated
optical editing/fabrication was done. That means there must have been a
graphics house somewhere that synthesized the multiple frauds involved here,
presumably with a big green light from the Johnson White House saying "Do
what you have to do--we don't want a nuclear war", etc.
You can't do this kind of work without lots of intermediate steps, work
prints, 16 (or, more likely 35 mm) work; etc Altering the films--to change
"the reality of the event" --is as significant as altering the wounds, or
removing bullets.
Someone has to edit "what actually happened" to fit the "story" of what was
suspposed to have happened. And then edit the "collateral" films
accordingly. Its not rocket science, but it would take some time and
technical talent.
So we're dealing with a very significant (and technically complex) coverup
(or "cleanup", depending on one's perspective).
DSL
> Excellent, David! I can't seem to post anything without a typo or a
> misspelling. I like your point about the perception of the wall. If
> you have no objection, I would like to use it in a forthcoming reply.
> And I can re-post it with more paragraph breaks, as you also suggest.
>
> Many thanks!
>
> Jim
>
> Quoting "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>:
>
>> Jim:
>>
. . .
>>
>> My subjective impression is that Lamson is full of baloney when he says "
>> You are comitting fraud." To the contrary, you have gone out of your way to
>> meticulously clarify what you folks have done, and what it proves.
>>
>> For what its worth--as someone who was intrigued by, and spent much time
>> with, the Moorman photograph, starting in the Spring of 1965 (and this is
>> subjecjtive): It always seemed pretty clear to me that the camera must have
>> been "down in the street" to get that exaggerated angle and height of "the
>> wall." When I first visited Dealey Plaza (Nov 1971)--and even after having
>> studied many photographs of the area--I was still a bit surprised to see how
>> "low" the wall was, in reality, compared with the impression one got of "the
>> wall" from the Moorman photo. It seemed to me that the camera had to be down
>> in the street, and "tilted up" towards the pergola, to get that view. Again,
>> these statements are not based on any quantitative data.
>>
>> Best, DSL
>>
In relation to the discover of Moorman in the Street" on YouTube, which can
be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO8vnfieuDshe , he also wrote:
I just watched that U-Tube video. . Several times. . .
Surely this video is from 20 years ago (or more?).
When I see evidence like this, I really get disgusted the with likes of
Thompson, and others, who don't seem to understand the critical importance
of what Mary Moorman is saying.
I spent an hour or more, visiting with Moorman, in 1971--and although I have
no filmed record, this is basically what she told me.
If Moorman's account is correct, then obviously the Zapruder film has been
altered. . And I see no plausible way to believe that Moorman conjured up
such a completely false account. I really find that ridiculous.
To the contrary: in view of the multiple car stop witnesses, its clear that
the film has been altered.
What Moorman's account does is indicate the extent of the alteration; the
truly sophisticated optical work that was done, to "lift" Moorman from the
street, and place her (and Hill, probably) up on the grass.
This is state of the art special effects work, circa 1963.
For years---and this is based on the fact that he never owned up to major
errors in Six Seconds--I've felt that Thompson has a puny little ego that
won't permit him to own up to the fact that the foundation for the entire
book he wrote back in 1967 was falsified evidence. So he's wedded to that
"1967 reality," where the Z film was the be-all and end-all.
Well, it isn't.
. . .
Notice how often Josiah changes the subject or creates a new thread. I suspect it has to do with people like me and Jack being on the verge of hitting on something important. In an earlier post, I was speculating as to why a Yale Ph.D. in philosophy would commit so many fallacies in argument--such as the straw man (by exaggerating my position to make it easier to attack) and especially special pleading (by offering only the evidence that supports your side)--DELIBERATELY, since he has to know better. And I made a remark about Yale's tradition of involvement with the OSS and the CIA, which may have struck a nerve. He is not an idiot, but his conduct is not that of an investigator who wants to uncover the truth.I left a similarly dangling issue in this post when I made the following observation: "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 and, when the alteration was done, it was not done quite right. The astounding part is not that a mistake was made, but that Jack White noticed the line of sight that you have done so much to obscure." I believe that Jack may have hit on the reason--or, at least, one of the reasons, since there may be more--for fiddling with the Moorman in the pergola area specifically, which has to do with the images of Sitzman and Zapruder, who might or might not have been there at all. Consider Jack's studies.
In (Z1) the Betzner, Sitzman is 69" tall and Zapruder is 62". In (Z2) the Moorman, their heights are now 66" and 58". In (Z3) the Nix, she is 70" tall and Zapruder (who is now wearing a hat) is 68". And in (Z4) the Willis, Sitzman is 71" tall and Zapruder 64". Now Sitzman cannot be 69" tall and 66" tall and 70" tall and 71" tall and be one person at one location in real time. However, her image could have been introduced into those photos and films to create a presence that was not actually at that place and time. Similarly, for Zapruder, who cannot be 62" tall and 58" tall and 68" tall and 64" tall. Something very odd is taking place here, for the discovery of which we, once again, have Jack White to thank. And this is fascinating stuff.
_______________________________________
Egad! Do you really have no sense of humor AT ALL? I knew you would leap out of your chair if I made that remark. But I did not expect you to frazzle your brain over it. Worse than your incapacity to appreciate tongue-in-cheek humor, however, is your lack of appreciation for the elements of conditional logic.
The argument is CONDITIONAL: It has an "IF ... THEN ___" structure, if that is not too difficult for a Yale Ph.D. to understand. What I conclude is that, IF the Miller/Costella argument is accepted, THEN it follows that there is internal evidence of the photo having been taken from the grass. Consider the following:
(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;
(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;
(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.
These are John's premises, which you have never understood. He agrees with you on (1), but he agrees with me on (2). It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one Mary took (3). Those are John's premises and John's conclusion. Try reading his key post in response to Mack's verification.
(4) Towner's photo is highly comparable to the Moorman in many respects.
(5) Arguments about being run over in the street thus have no foundation.
(6) The camber in the street may be the most important of the variables.
In my opinion, the camber is sufficient that, depending precisely where the motorcycles were situated on the street, relative to the camber, they could have yielded virtually any comparison, with the more distant higher or lower than the less distant. Jack made the crucial point: there are many variables.
(7) The Mantik/Fetzer experiment established internal evidence it was taken on the street;
(8) The Miller/Costella argument establishes internal evidence it was taken on the grass;
(9) The Moorman photograph displays internal properties that are physically incompatible.
This is the CONDITIONAL PART OF THE ARGUMENT. The Tina Towner photograph, in my judgment, throws premise (8) into serious doubt. I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH JACK THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. But, if it were to be accepted, then it confirms that the photo is a fake, which, I presume, is not what you were looking for. Let me repeat that: IF IT WERE TO BE ACCEPTED--which is not my position--THEN IT CONFIRMS THAT THE PHOTO IS A FAKE.
As it happens, I understand Costella's position, but you do not. 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 and, when the alteration was done, it was not done quite right. The astounding part is not that a mistake was made, but that Jack White noticed the line of sight that you have done so much to obscure.
STUDY COSTELLA's post, because what he is telling you is that his position on the photo is what I have offered here as (1), (2), and (3). He does agree with Miller about (8), but I do not, because I regard the evidence especially given the Tina Towner photo, as leaving the matter in an inconclusive state--there are too many variables with missing values. Your enduring misunderstanding is making you look like a mental midget:
____________
Re: FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID ON NOVEMBER 22ND.
Josiah,
I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you. I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source wasn't Gary Mack. But at that time I thought you were going to reveal that she didn't say she stepped into the street at all.
As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the assassination, she said she stepped into the street. Given that this is damaging to your case (and his), I now agree that his authority is impeccable.
Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:
1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens.
2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has repeated to this day, that she stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE PHOTO FROM THE STREET.
3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the President's or Jackie's attention.
4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like frozen turkeys:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../jfk/clip_C.mov
5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.
6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.
The net results are:
A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as presenting a consistent depiction of the assassination.
B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic evidence is fraudulent.
C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is impeached as evidence -- its admissibility relies on the testimony of the photographer.
D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can see for no one else seeing her step into the street is that she did it AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.
As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman Polaroid as telling us anything at all. What surprises me the most is that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of WHETHER SHE STEPPED INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from, is the key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder film. The Polaroid is irrelevant in all this.
My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and has tried to make me understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't read his section in "Pig on a Leash" should do so. (And let me also say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006, when he dug out his transcript.)
I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it as vehemently as Jim, past behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving us this explosive and unequivocal evidence confirming Lifton's transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun. I think we've all learned a lot in the past week.
John
_________________
So it is simply false that I have been "forced to admit that Bill Miller's proof concerning the motorcycles is correct". And this lapse, on your part, I take it, is because you never read anything I have written carefully, probably because it makes it easier for you to misrepresent. We also find that your argument about being run over if she were in the street has no basis and that the Zippos are our "best evidence". Fraud and fakery, alas!, are still your middle name.
Jim...remember, a degree from Yale guarantees nothing. Look at Dubya Bush, who cannoteven put two sentences together coherently.
And remember...
So Dubya Bush being a goof is supposed to mean what ... that all Yale grads are idiots??? Is that like all photographers must be bone-heads because one in particular claimed Jean Hill was standing in the street during the shooting when Jean said she was back out of it before the first shot was fired ... that hardly seems justifiable.
Bill Miller
What garbage.
Ofd course Lifton is simply full of it. Ther.eis no "above the line/below the line". Parts of the limo and the occupants extend "above the line" Nothing of Moorman IF she had been altered in Zapruder, would not have added more difficulty as it pertains to "below the line/above the line". In fact putting her in the grass IF the film had been altered would have been harder since realistic shadows would have been required. Nothing is harder to illustrate IN THIS ERA OF HIGH END DIGITAL RETOUCHING, than a realistic shadow. Back in the day of analog retouching, realistic shadow were mostly impossible.
All in all Lifton offers us nothing but bunk...as usual.
glass artists, Craig -- nothing, NOTHING was impossible including "realistic shadows". Simply depends on the artists capability and specialty (and Hollywierd had the best there was. AND that WAS their job, to make it realistic -- ala believable) -- and for only a few frames to boot? Piece of cake.
Also, I doubt there are but few more knowing than David Lifton concerning *conspiracy and the JFK assassination*. One in particular, Mark Lane. And we ALL know what happend to those WCR/SBT supporters that publicly (and private) debated Mark Lane concerning the subject matter....
-
The whole Moorman being in the street idea was based on erroneous observations on Jack White's part. What amazes me is that it found a following who didn't care if the data it used to support its presumption of guilt was accurate or not. It simply was not a well thought out claim that was then supported by a through investigation for if that was the case, then there would have been no need for so many revisions as has been seen on this forum alone. The process they implemented was little more than throwing paint on a canvas and seeing what images they could claim to see. That's hardly scientific and certainly not supported by the laws of nature.
Occam's Razor
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham).
The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
Though the principle may seem rather trivial, it is essential for model building because of what is known as the "underdetermination of theories by data". For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number of possible cases, of which the observed cases are only a finite subset. The non-observed cases are inferred by postulating general rules covering both actual and potential observations.
For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. Only Occam's razor would in this case guide you in choosing the "straight" (i.e. linear) relation as best candidate model. A similar reasoning can be made for n data points lying in any kind of distribution.
Occam's razor is especially important for universal models such as the ones developed in General Systems Theory, mathematics or philosophy, because there the subject domain is of an unlimited complexity. If one starts with too complicated foundations for a theory that potentially encompasses the universe, the chances of getting any manageable model are very slim indeed. Moreover, the principle is sometimes the only remaining guideline when entering domains of such a high level of abstraction that no concrete tests or observations can decide between rival models. In mathematical modelling of systems, the principle can be made more concrete in the form of the principle of uncertainty maximization: from your data, induce that model which minimizes the number of additional assumptions.
This principle is part of epistemology, and can be motivated by the requirement of maximal simplicity of cognitive models. However, its significance might be extended to metaphysics if it is interpreted as saying that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity.
BMiller wrote:
The whole Moorman being in the street idea was based on erroneous observations on Jack White's part.Mary Moorman, herself is on-the-record stating: "she stepped onto Elm street" to take polaroid picture(s). Apology?
-
Unlike White, Craig Lamson bent over backward to make the lines truly "conservative" from our point of view. Just looking at the photo, shows you this.
Josiah Thompson
conservative is as conservative was, its all in the eyes of the beholder...
see the attached
-
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...
-
Josiah, I stand by the posting that in your first topic: 'enough said'. You posted it all there. It's degenerated into a mudslinging match where I doubt there are many who can outlast fetzer in such a game. The persistent ego, the arrogance, by a trained manipulator/propagandist/'philosopher', when it comes to these technical matters seeks to draw the discussion to his level and then having planted all this garbage takes a high road where conveniently the pertinent points are lost in the xxxx fight. He's irrelevant. Why fall for it. There's absolutely no need to. He's so busy digging his own grave, for Gods sake, take pity on him , he doesn't need any help.
edit:typo
Josiah Thompson's glee club is big enough for Gawds sake, let him be! His ego is in check (for the time being) tsk-tsk. No bid contracts are over......
-
Bill Miller has advanced an argument about the Moorman which, I have belatedly discovered,
I have never addressed. I had formed the impression that John Costella had explained that
it was "inconclusive" in the past and, for that reason, I set it to one side. I have now learned
from John that, in fact, he likes the argument and even endorses it. Here is a post from him
when I wrote to ask him if he believes the windshield argument supports the inference that
the photo was taken from the grass, which is not the same as MARY taking if from the grass:
Jim,
It does. It relies on the height of the windshield, of course, but
let's assume that they are correct that if you put Mary on a
basketball court next to one of those motorcycles, her lens would be
below the top of the windshield. That seems to be highly likely to be
true.
If that's the case, and if the two motorcycles are essentially the
same, then if she was on the street, the near cycle's windshield would
extend higher in her photo than the far cycle. The only way for her
lens to "see the far one over the top of the near one" would be to
elevate her lens above the height of the windshield tops. The only way
to do that is to put her up on the grass.
It is an ingenious argument, and doesn't rely on much.
John
So the weight of John's expertise falls on the side of Miller's argument, which is important
especially since he has done so much excellent work demonstrating that the Zapruder is a
recreation. Sometimes it astounds me how Tink wants to "pick and choose" between John's
support for the photo having internal features that show it was taken from the grass and his
belief that Mary was actually in the street, which implies that the photo, like the film, must
be a fake. Since I have given John's response to Gary Mack's confirmation that Mary had
said, "I stepped into the street", about three hours after the event in "Moorman/Zapruder
Revisited" and in "Tink rolls the dice", as well as in posts on this and other fora, I assume
I do not have to repeat it here. But John's position is subtle on this point, which I accent:
(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;
(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;
(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.
In relation to the internal features of the photograph itself, Jack has observed the following:
It is notable that it IS SEEN ONLY IN THE ZIPPO PRINT. The thumbprint
obscures it in all other Moorman prints.
Tentative observations.
1. No other part of the Hargis motorcycle is seen...no handlebars, gas tank,
rider, arms, hands anything...only the windshield.
2. The windshield is extremely blurry.
3. The Moorman photo shows Hargis lagging behind Martin. I am not sure
other films and photos do.
4. I need to redo my studies of the cop helmets. Two styles are seen in
Moorman, and they may not be correct.
John, in fact, agrees with these points by Jack and adds that, in his view, the photographic
record, which is a shambles of alteration and fabrication, serves as a great distraction:
> > He's right on that - and in general, of the things I have looked at
> > there is nothing in the Moorman Polaroid that supports it being
> > taken from the street. And I did discuss the windshield argument in
> > the forum.
> >
> > As to what really happened, you know that my take is that the
> > photographic evidence is a crock. But while attention is fixated on
> > the Moorman Polaroid showing her to be in the street, the truth will
> > recede ever further into the background.
Thus, his study of the eyewitness accounts, which has been published in the latest issue
of assassinationresearch.com, in John's view, provides a far more reliable foundation for
drawing inferences about what actually happened in Dealey Plaza than does the photos
and films, where his and other studies by David Mantik, David Lifton, Jack White, and
others--especially those collected together in HOAX--illustrate the problem of relying on
photos and films, the vast majority of which have been proved to be altered or faked.
Jack turned up a photo taken by Tina Towner, while she was standing in the street:
Jim...as luck would have it, Tina Towner, STANDING IN THE STREET, shota frame
almost identical to the Moorman view of the windshield and limo. The two images are
so close, I conclude that the matter is INCONCLUSIVE without knowing the following:
TINA
1. How close was Hargis to Tina?
2. How close was the limo to her?
3. What was the distance between limo and Hargis' windshield?
4. What was the windshield height above the street?
5. How tall was Tina?
6. Was the street flat in that area?
7. Did the street slope downhill in that area?
8. How did the focal length of the lens affect the image?
MARY
1. How close was Hargis to Mary?
2. How close was the limo to her?
3. What was the distance between limo and Hargis' windshield?
4. What was the windshield height given the camber and slope of Elm?
5. How tall was Mary compared to Tina?
6. How much was the camber of the street in each lane?
7. Did the street slope downhill in that area? (known, 3 degrees)
8. How did the focal length of the lens affect the image?
Since most of these VARIABLE factors are UNKNOWN, it is impossible to make any
definite conclusions. Therefore I say that the windshield issue is unknowable and
immaterial.
John replied that, while Jack was right, the fact that there are two windshields in
the photograph--actually, as many as three!--eliminates many of the variables:
By itself, what you say is correct. But the point is that we are comparing
two windshields, not just one. That eliminates many variables.
The key question is: if the motorcycle cops were sitting (rolling), and Mary
were standing (ready to take a photo), on a basketball court, whether the
top of the windshields would have been above or below her lens. If there
is substantial evidence to say that they would have been below her lens,
then the issue is reopened. If they are above her lens, then there is no
way around it, in my opinion.
Jack's discovery of the Tina Towner photograph, I believe, makes the matter far more complex to resolve. Indeed, the following conclusions appear to me to be the case:
(4) Towner's photo is highly comparable to the Moorman in many respects.
(5) Arguments about being run over in the street thus have no foundation.
(6) The camber in the street may be the most important of the variables.
I am therefore inclined to agree with Jack that the argument is inconclusive. But notice that, if it is taken as further evidence of internal features that show the Moorman was taken from the grass, this does not change (1), (2), or (3). Indeed, while they support one argument,
(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;
(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;
(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street;
we now appear to have yet another. David, Jack, and I conducted our experiment on the LOS properly. It has been confirmed many times. I therefore make yet another argument:
(7) The Mantik/Fetzer experiment established internal evidence it was taken on the street;
(8) The Miller/Costella argument establishes internal evidence it was taken on the grass;
(9) The Moorman photograph displays internal properties that are physically incompatible.
In his earlier study of frame 232 published in LIFE, Costella observed that there were at least two physically incompatible features of the frame, one in the foreground and one in the background. On that basis, he rejected the frame as a fake. In these studies of the photo, I observe that there are at least two physically incompatible features of the Moorman, one in the foreground and one in the background. If premises (8) is accepted--that is, if Miller's argument is adopted--then, given premise (7), the photo should be rejected as a fake (9).
Based upon this line of argument, therefore, I conclude that, if the Miller/Costella argument is accepted, then it follows that there is internal evidence of the photo having been taken from the grass. The Tina Towner photograph, however, in my judgment, throws that claim into serious doubt. I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH JACK THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. But, if it were to be accepted, then it confirms that the photo is a fake.
The other observation that appears to follow from this discussion is that, since the photo of Mary with Jim Featherson probably represents the time at which his thumb print was made on the film, where the acid generally ate away at the image, especially of the motorcycles, as Jack has explained to me, the Zippo copies are our best evidence about the content of the photograph. It therefore appears to me that arguments attacking Jack, David and me for using the Zippo are misplaced and unwarranted, one more example of the assortment of weak arguments that have been advanced to defeat our confirmation of Jack's discovery, which, of course, should come as no surprise.
Wow! Allright! Now we can move on to the REAL issue, the Zapruder Film.... So, when are the seamless film advocates of Dealey Plaza (more commonly called: Lone Nut, anti-film alerationists-WCR supporters) going to deliver proof thaaaaaat the seamless films (of Dealey Plaza 11/22) are indeed seamless? Thus propping up their position that the Zapruder film is NOT altered. Time to talk to Robert Groden guys, heretell he's got access to most all the 11/22/63 *film* frames (and that is what you need, the frames)
-
Back off the meds again,
Bill Miller
don't need'em xxxxx, bet you sure do these day's, LMFAO.... just getting a kick out of watching all you Lone Nutters posing as CT's getting all your dander up on that new Yahoo board. You know that new one you all post to these day's. Especially Bab's daJunkkarinen.... looks like Dr. Fetzer has her running in circles over there. Her asking him what he's "blathering" about.... LMFAO. It's interesting Thompson, Junkkarinen Brazil, Lamson even you a little old newcomer (how's you make such stellar company, especially after your foolish beginning at JFKResearch?). Who knows perhaps you'll get a chance to get Von Pein's aka Dave Reitzes-Pieces autograph, eh? Now wouldn't that be sump'in!
-
[...]
Can't tell if you are ever serious or not, David. But if you are asking...
[...]
I'll stop you right there, son. I'm not asking you (of all people) a damn thing LMFAO!
-
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...tion=pages;sa=2
this guy has Moorman (in the Moorman 3) in the street by 9" or so..... so appears there's a new kid on the block, so Miller it's time for you to tighten up your act and present in a more professional way. Can the Moorman 5 be far behind?
Get ABC Dale and his EMMY award in here to do a bit of Lightwave work (if your side can afford him).
I always located Mary in the street for number 3, just based on my opinion and looking at the image. I think thats why she has confused her story.
Just curious David, do YOU think Moorman 5 was altered?
yep, it's a no-brainer #3 is in the street... it's a shame Gary (when he had the chance on-camera) didn't clarify the #3 & #5 possible mix up in Mary's mind.....
For the record, I think your Polaroid tripod setup for duplicating the Moorman 5 of yesteryear would go a long way (with the addition of a $10 dollar laser) today in clarifying a ridiculous argument over the edge. The Moorman 5 is such a horrible photo (texture wise), after all you can't recognize the gender(s) of whomever is standing on the pedestal. Ya want to tout a reverse angle to the Z-film ya got the Nix film --- IMHO the debate over the Moorman grass/street issue is a canard... So, why edit the damn thing, the original quality is so poor. What does it prove? Mary Moorman was in Dealey Plaza that day.....
(Possible) Z-film alteration (circa. 1963-1964) doesn't depend on a Mary Moorman in the street, or the grass!
-
Just curious David, do YOU think Moorman 5 was altered?
I think David is on record as saying that he has seen no proof of alteration. Even David wouldn't think that someone had altered Moorman's photo within the first 35 minutes of the assassination, but of course that may depend on whether he is taking his medication.
I think you should show a bit of restraint William, allow the one to who the question was directed me in this case to answer. Without you're obnoxious interruption. However, knowing full well your ego runs wild, and is completely out of control, we do understand, you can't help yourself..... sigh and, as usual, you're wrong, AGAIN.... but I'll let you dangle for a bit longer.....
Thorazine chum, a full or half tab -- which do you prefer?
-
name='David G. Healy' date='Mar 6 2009, 01:11 AM' post='163679']
[name=Bill Miller' post='163675' date='Mar 5 2009, 11:21 AM][...]
Your Gif seems to stop at the moment Z313 was exposed. Correct me if I am wrong. Moorman's photo was exposed 3.6 frames after Z313. I would want to check Newman's posture at the same moment Moorman took her photo.
Keeping you honest, the cite re 3.6 frames (the .6 is impossible btw) after Z-313, is who?
Oh, the Moorman in the street issue? Next to the WCR SBT, the Moorman/Street issue is a farce, pure shuck-and-jive. My opinion of course...
The 3.6 seconds from Z313 to the moment of Moorman's photo being exposed was obtained by Anthony Marsh by breaking each frame into tenths. The position of the cycles to each other in Mary's photo comes between the two exposed frames (Z315 and Z316). If you fade in one frame over the other and do it in 1/10th increments, then 6/10ths into the transition ... the two cycles come into line on the Zapruder film as they are seen in Moorman's photo.
As far as the Moorman being in the street claim ... I agree with you that its a farce.
Bill Miller
aside: if the Z-film is altered, this mean what, again? So, Tony Marsh? ROTFLMFAO --The Boston bus driver? Now he is a film/photo expert worthy of being quoted? Wake up! And you drag Josiah Thompson into this debacle? Hell, Marsh is the guy who was unearthed as a Lone Nutter acting as a CT a year or so ago.... Ben Holmes exposed him in debate on alt.conspiracy.jfk, so bad was the thrashing in fact Marsh retreated to alt.assassination.jfk (.john [John McAdams] home away from from) never to return to acj. Marsh is one of those Barb Junkkarinen... pal's. I see all these LN types are dropping by here these days -- gotta love Jim Fetzer, he keeps all you Lone Nutters (acting as CTer's) on your toes....
btw, that Moorman on the grass issue? That should read the GRASS/street issue is a farce, a complete FARCE.... the Moorman gig is a simple diversion cause you guys can't handle nor debate the possibility of an altered Z-film.... pure-n-simple.... oh, and that's Dr. Fetzer to you, and your right you damn sure don't have a Ph.D.
-
In the below, posted by Jack White but from Jim Fetzer in which he quotes John Costella ...
Costella says:
QUOTE
B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic
evidence is fraudulent.
END QUOTE
There is another possibility here. Mary Moorman, who we know had stepped into the
street to take a photo earlier, could simply be mistaken in remembering which photo
she stepped into the street to take. Given how rattled she was in the immediate aftermath of
the shooting, this is completely plausible.
Her demeanor, and how rattled she was, when she spoke to a reporter just minutes after the
shooting is covered in our essay.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb ... your scenario was not even mentioned by Fetzer, thus it shows that he just isn't qualified to be a critical thinker or else he is purposely leaving out the other possibilities so to sell what he knows to be erroneous.
Your remarks about Moorman are spot on. The one thing that can be identified in the NBC footage showing Moorman's picture is the upward stacking of those windscreens and how they relate to the colonnade. There was no faking this for it was on TV before so many other assassination films and photos had been discovered.
Fetzer will never get around those laws of nature. He is one of those people who believes that as long as he is arguing, then he is not having to admit his mistakes.
Bill Miller
Not bad for a high school graduate, Miller. Not bad at all. Are you part of that "have couch will travel " sect per chance......? ROTFLMFAO
-
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...tion=pages;sa=2
this guy has Moorman (in the Moorman 3) in the street by 9" or so..... so appears there's a new kid on the block, so Miller it's time for you to tighten up your act and present in a more professional way. Can the Moorman 5 be far behind?
Get ABC Dale and his EMMY award in here to do a bit of Lightwave work (if your side can afford him).
-
7 March 1969
Once more, Jim & Rusty donned their pressure suits and went through the connecting tunnel into Spider. Systems were powered up, the tunnel hatch closed and the docking mechanism replaced. Then, at 92 hours and 39 minutes into the mission, the spacecraft undocked. No longer was the callsign “Apollo 9” used; now they were Spider and Gumdrop. The LM slowly backed away from the CSM.
SCOTT (Gumdrop): “That’s a nice looking machine!”
McDIVITT (Spider): “So is yours.”
The two craft flew in formation, the LM staying close until it could be verified that the LM’s rendezvous radar was functioning correctly. Without the radar and associated guidance system, the LM could be lost in orbit, unable to find the Command Module – the only safe way back to Earth. Everything worked as advertised however, and so the LM moved away to simulate the manoeuvres that would take place in orbit around the Moon. Over the next several hours, the Primary Navigation & Guidance System or “Pings” was tested, the LM moving to over 180 km away from Gumdrop. McDivitt and Schweikart also tested the LM staging. On a lunar landing mission, the LM would use the Descent Propulsion System in the descent stage to get the crew safely to the surface of the Moon. When the time came to return to orbit, only the ascent stage would launch, using the descent stage as its launch pad. If a major problem occurred during the landing, the ascent stage would also be used to rapidly return the astronauts to the orbiting CSM.
The tests went well, and Spider – minus its bottom half – returned to dock with Gumdrop. An unexpected problem occurred as McDivitt went to dock with Gumdrop: the shiny CM was reflecting sunlight, making it difficult for McDivitt to see!
McDIVITT (Spider): “I just can’t even see the COAS, Dave. I don’t know where you are with respect to it.”
SCOTT (Gumdrop): “Okay – you want me to do it?”
McDIVITT (Spider): “No, let me work my way in here a little closer.”
SCOTT (Gumdrop): “Okay.”
SCHWEIKART (Spider): “Dave, I just can’t see it. Let me get in a little closer”.
SCOTT (Gumdrop): “You’re coming in fine. Just keep coming in easy like that. Looks like you are coming in from an angle, but you are coming in with the right attitude. You ought to go forward and to your right a little bit, relative to your body.”
Eventually, a safe docking was made. Jim and Rusty returned to the CM, sealed the tunnel, and Spider was jettisoned. The work wasn’t over for the LM, though: it was now set up for limited remote control flight. After the CSM backed away, the ascent stage engine was reignited, firing for another 6 minutes, depleting the fuel supply. This placed the ascent stage in an elliptical orbit around the Earth, 3760 nautical miles by 126 nautical miles. It would remain there for 5 years, before burning up in the atmosphere.
The LM had performed well, and NASA now had enough confidence in the Apollo spacecraft to rehearse a lunar landing. The crew of Apollo 9 had now met all the major objectives of the flight. Satisfied with a job well done, they powered down system, ate a meal, and went to sleep.
nice piece.... tnx!
-
duplicate...
Or simply, you can't make the case....
Moorman-in-the-street? The logic of the paper Pt. I
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David G. Healy
I posted the photo, can't you find the meaningless photo?.... few posts above ^ post #22