Moorman Comparison

[Craig Lamson]

This composite is a frame from the Malcolm Couch movie layed over Moorman.

If the pergola and wall line up between the two photos (red arrows), not the pergola openings per say, shouldn't the limo be at the same angle as the curb line?

thanks

chris

Parallax.....

[Miles Scull]

dgh,

Additionally, it might be useful to ask the narrower question:

Can you, and will you, produce for the forum the exact source for the valid information that the top of that *SPECIFIC* windshield is exactly 58" off the ground?

Let's see the goods, Dobbsie.

M

I would suggest anyone really interested in this subject to do a forum search so they can read all the information that has been posted on the subject. This would save valuable time for people like myself by not having to repeat everything again to those too busy to actually do research for themselves.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

do research for themselves

Bill;

You must be a "communist" or something along that lines.

Exactly what would this world come to if everyone were actually to conduct their own research.

Barbara had never seen JFK, so we watched it last night.

Does that mean that I get "extra credit" for having done this wonderful "research" again???????

If I should drag out and read "BEST EVIDENCE" again, do I get to sit in the front of the class????

do research for themselves

Move over "Fantasyland", here comes Bill!

Good point, Tom,

Take it that Barbara is the honored Mrs. Purvis?

Well, not all of us are so fortunate, as we are, to be married men, with kids?

It makes a difference.

I think you see what I mean.

M

[Bill Miller]

Bill;

You must be a "communist" or something along that lines.

Exactly what would this world come to if everyone were actually to conduct their own research.

I do not know how the world would be, but I believe the forum would be better off if people would conduct their own research before trying to debate a topic one way or the other. But getting back to the manner in which I used the phrase - it was over research that has already been written where someone like David can go read it or refresh their memory with it rather than have needless lengthy responses be given all over again.

Barbara had never seen JFK, so we watched it last night.

Does that mean that I get "extra credit" for having done this wonderful "research" again???????

I must say that I am troubled as to how someone like yourself will consider watching a movie as research. Anyway, is there something about the Moorman in the street claim that you would like to address?

Bill Miller

Edited July 10, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Good point, Tom,

Take it that Barbara is the honored Mrs. Purvis?

Well, not all of us are so fortunate, as we are, to be married men, with kids?

It makes a difference.

I think you see what I mean.

M

I am wondering if this forum should have a chat line where you guys can talk about the wife and kids so to leave more room on the JFK forum for actual JFK related data. Just a thought ~

Bill Miller

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Why Bill Miller (or anyone else, for that matter) would suppose that David or I had changed our minds about Mary-in-the-street is beyond me! Our work with Jack was spot-on at the time and no evidence to the contrary has emerged since. Indeed, my impression is that the case has only grown stronger. I would encourage everyone with a serious interest in these matters to read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, which provides the most thorough and detailed discussion of the photographic record, including, especially, the Zapruder film, currently available, including an excellent series of studies by Jack!

Either Mary was wrong in her recollection...

or

The Moorman, Altens, Muchmore and Zapruder films were altered to move her OUT of the street.

I am not sure why it was written that maybe Mary was wrong in her recollection??? Mary at some point, as far as I recall, had remembered taking one of her photos from in the street and that's all. I imagine that it was Jack who took that ball and ran with it from there. The obvious photo that tells us which photo she took from within the street was that of Officer McBride. In that photo she is looking at the people across the street through McBride's windshield.

The same thing happened with Jean Hill's statement where she said she had stepped into the street. Jack posted an edited clip showing Jean saying 'I stepped into the street', but what Jean was referring to was her stepping into the street when the limo rounded the corner. On Black Op Radio, Jean was asked about her stepping into the street and Jean cleared up the matter by telling the listeners that she had gotten back out of the street BEFORE the first shot was heard.

As far as Jack's partners in the plaza goes ... I think Mantik and Fetzer have since realized their error, while Jack continues to cling to the 'everyone is wrong - all the films and photos must be altered when they do not support my alteration claims' mentality.

Bill

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Bill;

You must be a "communist" or something along that lines.

Exactly what would this world come to if everyone were actually to conduct their own research.

I do not know how the world would be, but I believe the forum would be better off if people would conduct their own research before trying to debate a topic one way or the other. But getting back to the manner in which I used the phrase - it was over research that has already been written where someone like David can go read it or refresh their memory with it rather than have needless lengthy responses be given all over again.

Barbara had never seen JFK, so we watched it last night.

Does that mean that I get "extra credit" for having done this wonderful "research" again???????

I must say that I am troubled as to how someone like yourself will consider watching a movie as research. Anyway, is there something about the Moorman in the street claim that you would like to address?

Bill Miller

Exactly what would this world come to if everyone were actually to conduct their own research.I do not know how the world would be, but I believe the forum would be better off if people would conduct their own research before trying to debate a topic one way or the other. But getting back to the manner in which I used the phrase - it was over research that has already been written where someone like David can go read it or refresh their memory with it rather than have needless lengthy responses be given all over again.

I would agree. However, I am also of the opinion that the human species should have progressed far enough in evolution that it would have outgrown the need to rape; rob; pillage; murder; create wars; etc, and should go about in a way that is ultimately and unilaterally for the betterment of the future generations.

Which merely demonstrates that not unlike those who hunt for mythological beings, I have my on version of "fantasyland" as well.

I must say that I am troubled as to how someone like yourself will consider watching a movie as research.

Actually, there is much in the movie with which I agree.* Such as that aspects of getting off three accurate rapid shots in succession in the 5.8 or so seconds.

Merely that this does not mean that the only conclusion is some hypothetical & mythological "Crossfire of Multiple Assassins", ie: the famous "Triangulation of Fire" COS. (Crock of S--T.)

*None of which includes exactly who and what Jim Garrison was, or his true motives for the Clay Shaw diversionary tactic/muddy the waters further activities.**

**See definition for Circumstantial Evidence and the "Link-in-the-Chain"

And, down here in the ole cow pasture, we long ago learned that one can preach to their children all day long not to step into the Cow S--T (Bovine Feces).

However, if they are never shown this item, never had it described to them, and have no other knowledge about it, then it is most unlikely that they will recognize it when they are about to step into it.

JFK happens to be an excellent "Learning Tool"* as to what one should and/or should not believe of the mass media.

As well as conducting proper research into the subject matter before sticking one's foot into their mouth.

*I also own BEST EVIDENCE and consider it to be one of the absolutely best books on the market to go into the discrepancies and problems associated with attempting to blame the injuries sustained by JFK and JBC on merely two bullets.

That the book is an excellent source for this information does not mean that those aspects related to the "body snatch/wound alteration" theories of the book have any merit, or that I ever even gave this part of the book any credibility.

is there something about the Moorman in the street claim that you would like to address?

Truthfully! That horse was beat to death long ago. And, not unlike the "Six-Groove Bullet" and the "Carcano Sling Swivel", photographs can and will always be quite deceptive without having all necessary information with which to determine varioius factors of the photograph.*

*Which is clearly demonstrated by the autopsy photographs.

Thus, not unlike speaking of the Z-film, unless one can state with absolute authority that they are in possession of either the original photograph or an absolutely original duplicate, of the same exact size as the original, then anything thereafter is, to a large degree, based on speculation.

With that stated, there is nevertheless a means in which one can take even a cropped &/or enlarged copy of some photographs and therefter determine not only the absolutely exact position at which a person stood when that photograph was taken, but the elevation of the camera as well. (+/- an acceptable tolerance of an inch or two).

That I am aware of, this has not been done.

Has this stopped some from running around yelling "THE SKY IS FALLING"?-------------------Nope!

Do many fall for and believe "THE SKY IS FALLING"?--------------------------------------------Yep!

Will many continue to fall for and believe "THE SKY IS FALLING"?-------------------------------Yep!

A good study of the likes of Charles Manson; Jim Brown; Ervil LeBaron; etc; will clearly demonstrate what even adult educated persons can be lead to believe.

So goes the human species!

There is intelligent life on Earth!

Somewhere!

[John Churchin]

After reading this thread it is just amazing, to me, how Mr. Lamson and Mr. Miller just freak about ANYTHING Mr. White says. There is a civility to a debate that appears to be lost to you gentlemen.

If Jack White said the sun was yellow, Mr. Lamson would, with little doubt, proclaim how narrow minded he was and that the sun is orange and he needs to do better "research".

Are you gentlemen sure you are adults? From the tone of your postings, it appears otherwise.

[Craig Lamson]

After reading this thread it is just amazing, to me, how Mr. Lamson and Mr. Miller just freak about ANYTHING Mr. White says. There is a civility to a debate that appears to be lost to you gentlemen.

If Jack White said the sun was yellow, Mr. Lamson would, with little doubt, proclaim how narrow minded he was and that the sun is orange and he needs to do better "research".

Are you gentlemen sure you are adults? From the tone of your postings, it appears otherwise.

Might I suggest you stuff a sock in it.

Jack White is the KING of misinformation. Surely you don't want to see misinformation passed along as fact do you?

If you don't like the thread or the posters, then just don't read them. No one is twisting your arm.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[John Churchin]

After reading this thread it is just amazing, to me, how Mr. Lamson and Mr. Miller just freak about ANYTHING Mr. White says. There is a civility to a debate that appears to be lost to you gentlemen.

If Jack White said the sun was yellow, Mr. Lamson would, with little doubt, proclaim how narrow minded he was and that the sun is orange and he needs to do better "research".

Are you gentlemen sure you are adults? From the tone of your postings, it appears otherwise.

Might I suggest you stuff a sock in it.

Jack White is the KING of misinformation. Surely you don't want to see misinformation passed along as fact do you?

If you don't like the thread or the posters, then just don't read them. No one is twisting your arm.

You are a class act.

[Craig Lamson]

After reading this thread it is just amazing, to me, how Mr. Lamson and Mr. Miller just freak about ANYTHING Mr. White says. There is a civility to a debate that appears to be lost to you gentlemen.

If Jack White said the sun was yellow, Mr. Lamson would, with little doubt, proclaim how narrow minded he was and that the sun is orange and he needs to do better "research".

Are you gentlemen sure you are adults? From the tone of your postings, it appears otherwise.

Might I suggest you stuff a sock in it.

Jack White is the KING of misinformation. Surely you don't want to see misinformation passed along as fact do you?

If you don't like the thread or the posters, then just don't read them. No one is twisting your arm.

You are a class act.

Whats the matter? Sock too small?

I guess the truth simply does not matter to someone with your high standards

[John Dolva]

Unfortunately, Costellas Zfilm Hoax version is just that, and, unfortunately, while being the most readily available, it is also the most altered Z film version available, a hoax, just like the most used and readily available "Don Robardeau's Plat", all distortions of the original.

Why do we have the worst material to work with?

(Meanwhile the flawed material continues to be pushed as a basis for study.)

Definitive conclusions based on them, because of their fundamental flaws, also must be suspected as being flawed.

Why can't we have a copy of the pre-broken Z film, un-altered by assorted processing?

Why can't we have the whole West Plat in toto, at full resolution?

Without them any conclusions are just castles in the sky with no dependable foundation.

The conclusions may possibly be correct, but there is NO way of KNOWING that for the average independent researcher.

Time and again, the academic credentials of the Hoaxers are asked for. Where are the study abstracts? In what Scientific publications? Where are the independent confirmations/debunkings by credible scientists? Where are their abstracts/papers? What heading? What names?

One is continually exhorted to read the Hoaxers book for the truth. But woe to any attempt at questioning as it is derided as not credible if one is not a scientist in that field. So how can a non scientist possibly accept something that the producers of state are only refutable by credible scientists in that field, yet any request for the details of the scientific papers forming its basis are met with...nothing.

To know the truth one must read the Hoaxers book (ie provide the authors with royalties) but one may not question the conclusions unless one is regarded by the Hoaxers as credible and that only happens when one accepts it blindly and then there are no questions to ask as is 'true' anyway. What a lot of pseudo scientific BS.

Believe, and you're 'in', it doesn't matter how much you actually have as an education to base such belief on. You can be a dunce but as long as you 'believe', you're worth talking to. Question it, or critisise it, and a series of set responses follow which ultimately ends with only credible scientists having a right to question it.

In effect, the Hoaxers have worked theirselves into a corner and the best advice is really to not read/buy it. Or if one does, do so with a big bucket of salt.

________________

________________

Tom: "Actually, there is much in the movie with which I agree.* .....

- *None of which includes exactly who and what Jim Garrison was, or his true motives for the Clay Shaw diversionary tactic/muddy the waters further activities."

Tom, I would like to read an elaboration on this, perhaps a summary. (maybe it's a big ask for elaborate details).

Perhaps you could do a topic on this? I happen to agree that there are ways that Stone portrays Jim and his development to the position he takes that, with dramatic effect, one is led down an illogic path by a very skilled and accomplished director. (Who BTW himself states it's not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but a movie, scripted and edited with constraints, basically an elaboration of the more elusive "The Garrison Tapes".)

A summary of your knowledge of "who and what Garrison", the man, was, and the case itself dealing with: "diversionary tactic/muddy the waters", would be much apprecated.

Edited July 10, 2007 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

After reading this thread it is just amazing, to me, how Mr. Lamson and Mr. Miller just freak about ANYTHING Mr. White says. There is a civility to a debate that appears to be lost to you gentlemen.

If Jack White said the sun was yellow, Mr. Lamson would, with little doubt, proclaim how narrow minded he was and that the sun is orange and he needs to do better "research".

Are you gentlemen sure you are adults? From the tone of your postings, it appears otherwise.

Been going on for years... neither can help his-self. Some think they've never been asked to write a article, perhaps its simple jealousy? Some think its more serious, unrelated to JFK assassination research, a defect of character, if you will.

Does Jack have a right to be cautious and/or return slights. Of course he does, I suspect he's the only JFK researcher posting to this board that has been physically attacked (while he slept), stabbed multiple times and nearly died from same assault (related to his research, eh? Who knows!)....

[Craig Lamson]

After reading this thread it is just amazing, to me, how Mr. Lamson and Mr. Miller just freak about ANYTHING Mr. White says. There is a civility to a debate that appears to be lost to you gentlemen.

If Jack White said the sun was yellow, Mr. Lamson would, with little doubt, proclaim how narrow minded he was and that the sun is orange and he needs to do better "research".

Are you gentlemen sure you are adults? From the tone of your postings, it appears otherwise.

Been going on for years... neither can help his-self. Some think they've never been asked to write a article, perhaps its simple jealousy? Some think its more serious, unrelated to JFK assassination research, a defect of character, if you will.

Does Jack have a right to be cautious and/or return slights. Of course he does, I suspect he's the only JFK researcher posting to this board that has been physically attacked (while he slept), stabbed multiple times and nearly died from same assault (related to his research, eh? Who knows!)....

I see you have that mirror to your face again davie....truck on dude.

[Jack White]

After reading this thread it is just amazing, to me, how Mr. Lamson and Mr. Miller just freak about ANYTHING Mr. White says. There is a civility to a debate that appears to be lost to you gentlemen.

If Jack White said the sun was yellow, Mr. Lamson would, with little doubt, proclaim how narrow minded he was and that the sun is orange and he needs to do better "research".

Are you gentlemen sure you are adults? From the tone of your postings, it appears otherwise.

It is refreshing to have a new member of the forum with intelligence.

As for Lamson and "Miller"...ignore them. Their words tell us everything

we need to know about them.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

After reading this thread it is just amazing, to me, how Mr. Lamson and Mr. Miller just freak about ANYTHING Mr. White says. There is a civility to a debate that appears to be lost to you gentlemen.

If Jack White said the sun was yellow, Mr. Lamson would, with little doubt, proclaim how narrow minded he was and that the sun is orange and he needs to do better "research".

Are you gentlemen sure you are adults? From the tone of your postings, it appears otherwise.

It is refreshing to have a new member of the forum with intelligence.

As for Lamson and "Miller"...ignore them. Their words tell us everything

we need to know about them.

Jack

Churchin has shown some flash of intelligence? Oh yea, he posted blind support of the misinformation-ist in chief!

So Jack you gonna deal with your error about the height of the MC windshields and Marys lens height or are you gonna run away as usual?