Moorman Comparison

[Thomas H. Purvis]

"It is not my fault if you and others have been "burned" so badly that you no longer know what to believe on this subject matter."

Tom, I realise you're dealing with the meat of the matter.

Don't get me wrong.

Now, having read the history of your own research, I understand this better. (My own research lies in an other direction re checking frame by frame photographers positions derived from items that are peripheral to the West plat, such things as lamppost locations and the area around the underpass as well as the whole colonade structure with an unbroken connection of imagery to the buildings.) I accept your position and I also understand that the WC/Government are in possession of copies and could, if they wished, publish the plat in full size.

What you do publish here is apprecated and also you understand the problem one has in piecing together portions with complete accuracy. Peace.

re the Garrison question? Can you (in time) share what you know there?

John;

Long ago, I allowed access to information such as the "altered" survey data, as well as reduced copies of the survey plat.

Shall I again go into the subject matter of how this was utilized by various individuals, who actually had no understanding of the information, to support their theories!

What few are aware of is the fact that I knew that "someone" would not be able to sit on this NEW information!

And although I did not know exactly who would break down and begin to provide it, I was fully aware of the fact that I, not unlike the WC, had limited that infomation to each of whom was given a "parcel".

This was in fact a part of, shall we say, a "Tactical Withdrawal" from the battlefield and allowing the finger to be pointed at others.

Nevertheless, this critical information remained in the public domain, completely un-noticed as to it's true significance, until I again re-entered the battle.

I would hazard that few here have expended the time, resources, and financial expenses which has been expended in order to make some sense of this most excellent deception.

And, one will not understand the deception until they understand the sum total of it's parts.

re the Garrison question? Can you (in time) share what you know there?

For the most part, already done.

Do you think that Jim Garrison was voted into office in New Orleans based on the "Honor & Integrity" as demonstrated in the movie JFK??????????????

Jim Garrison:

1. Tulane Graduate

2. Member of the "Boston Club" of New Orleans

3. Associated (somewhat) with the REX Organization of New Orleans

4. Former FBI Agent.

All this, and yet he could not find that LHO's relatives worked for a major Law Firm in New Orleans which was directly descended from the person in whose home Jefferson Davis died?

Whose son was a major factor in the fight to prevent desegragation of Tulane

Whose other son was a co-founder of the stockbrokerage firm of Fenner & Beane/later Merril, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Beane

Whose co-partner is this firm with LHO's relatives was an attorney who had been the attorney of record for the United Fruit Company, and was engaged in certain activities related to the overthrow of the Guatemalan Goverment by United Fruit.

Please excuse me while I puke!

The "Garrison" in the movie "JFK" may have waved the american flag and handed out apple pie, but the true Garrison in New Orleans, LA was not the same individual.

Tom

P.S. Those of us who have managed to survive these "flag waving" episodes are fully aware of what to look for when it begins.

[Jack White]

This fellow appears to be massively ignorant. All of he contributors to the books I have edited on JFK, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, are experts on different aspects of the case, or I would not have invited them to contribute. Their credentials are summarized in each of the books, if you want to check out the page (cleverly) entitled, "CONTRIBUTORS". As for myself, just visit http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ and you can learn all you want about me. David W. Mantik, by the way, has a Ph.D. in phyiscs and an M.D., with a specialization in radiation oncology. John P. Costella has a Ph.D. in physics, with a specialization in electromagnetism. None of us makes a dime off the sale of these books, because all of it goes to support additional assassination research. I would bet that no one on this thread is unware of this, except for the author of this arrogant post, which displays a complete lack of knowledge about major contributors to the case, even though that information is readily available in standard works. Since the Costella version of the film, which is archived at http://www.assassinationscience.com, is the technically most accurate version we have, this guy either does not know what he is talking about or is intent on sowing confusion about research on this extremely difficult topic. Anyone who wants to begin to understand the basis for concluding that the film has been subjected to an elaborate recreation should review Costella's introductory seminar, which is archived on that same site. From this post, I infer that this guy should not be taken seriously.

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.

Thanks, Jim. You may note that I pointed out that Lifton's excellent chapter alone

is worth the price of the book.

All of this nonsense is irrelevant anyway since it now has been proved that Moorman5

has been tampered with. The much touted motorcycle windshield is therefore as suspect

as the figures on the pedestal.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Measure what, champ? The actual windscreen as it was on the actual limo escort motorcyle on 11/23/63...? Where, when, who was there (when you measured the attached windshield), and a verifiable affidavit with your measurements/ findings, complete with DPD motorcycle ID & Registration number. AND a DPD statement stating that yes indeed, the motorcyle windscreen you measured was from that very motorcycle displayed in Moorman 5 photo, left rear limo position adjacent to Elm Street north curbing (and in DP that day). Just post the evidence, big guy! No time for nonsense and/or opinions.

The person selling the bike came to me ... I believe through another researcher. That information was posted in detail on more than one occasion and on more than one forum. If I am not mistaken ... that bike was also used in the movie "JFK". I believe the man's name who was considered the guru of Harley Davidson Motorcycles was named Lonnie Isam. Do a forum search and refresh your memory. In fact, JFK Research probably had the most details that were posted - good luck in finding the information there. I am surprised at you, David. I would have thought that you checked on all this stuff when it was posted in the past and that was what led you to say on this forum that YOU had never seen anything that proved alteration. But seeing how you like proof ... here is the proof that I cited what you said correctly .............

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

Bill

[Bill Miller]

All of this nonsense is irrelevant anyway since it now has been proved that Moorman5

has been tampered with. The much touted motorcycle windshield is therefore as suspect

as the figures on the pedestal.

Jack

Jack, here is an easy question to answer if you can. Please tell this forum how anyone inserted Sitzman and Zapruder onto the pedestal in Mary's instant picture within the first 35 minutes of the assassination and while still in Moorman's possession??? That photo was filmed by a local station and was aired on TV by 3:30PM CST. If you cannot answer that simple question, then you have no alteration claim pertaining to Moorman's photo.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

We've the BEST (Costella's) of the worst Z-film/frames, you're correct! When one realizes there are (6th Floor Museum?) 35mm slides or 4x5 trannies taken of Z-film frames, access to those either sets, with in-camera Zapruder film ccomparison and confirmation would get us well on down the road...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

[John Dolva]

James: "This fellow [John Dolva. (my edit)] appears to be massively ignorant." "From this post, I infer that this guy should not be taken seriously."

Indeed, 'tis true. Thank you, James.

"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[EDIT:: most presumptious of me. This forum does at times come across as a 'bookshop',]) 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."

Edited July 10, 2007 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

All of this nonsense is irrelevant anyway since it now has been proved that Moorman5

has been tampered with. The much touted motorcycle windshield is therefore as suspect

as the figures on the pedestal.

Jack

Jack, here is an easy question to answer if you can. Please tell this forum how anyone inserted Sitzman and Zapruder onto the pedestal in Mary's instant picture within the first 35 minutes of the assassination and while still in Moorman's possession??? That photo was filmed by a local station and was aired on TV by 3:30PM CST. If you cannot answer that simple question, then you have no alteration claim pertaining to Moorman's photo.

Bill Miller

It is incumbent on Miller to back up his claim with an image of this.

All early reproductions of Moorman5 did not include the pedestal.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

To know the truth one must read the Hoaxers book (ie provide the authors with royalties[EDIT:: most presumptious of me.]) 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 criticize it, and a series of set responses follow which ultimately ends with only credible scientists having a right to question it[/color]."

Well said! You have just described the audience that TGZFH was directed at.

Bill

[Craig Lamson]

All of this nonsense is irrelevant anyway since it now has been proved that Moorman5

has been tampered with. The much touted motorcycle windshield is therefore as suspect

as the figures on the pedestal.

Jack

ROFLMAO! There is NO PROOF that the Moorman has been tampered with, other that some silly fantasy running around inside your head. As usual when cornered and his argument lies in tatters on the floor, Jack White resorts to his standard comeback...THE PHOTO IS ALTERED! What a piece of work you are Jack. Its a real shame you have corrupted the minds of so many people who are ignorant of the subject of photography.

So tell us Jack, just WHEN was the Moorman altered?

[Craig Lamson]

All of this nonsense is irrelevant anyway since it now has been proved that Moorman5

has been tampered with. The much touted motorcycle windshield is therefore as suspect

as the figures on the pedestal.

Jack

Jack, here is an easy question to answer if you can. Please tell this forum how anyone inserted Sitzman and Zapruder onto the pedestal in Mary's instant picture within the first 35 minutes of the assassination and while still in Moorman's possession??? That photo was filmed by a local station and was aired on TV by 3:30PM CST. If you cannot answer that simple question, then you have no alteration claim pertaining to Moorman's photo.

Bill Miller

It is incumbent on Miller to back up his claim with an image of this.

All early reproductions of Moorman5 did not include the pedestal.

Jack

Does that include the Zippo??????

[David G. Healy]

Measure what, champ? The actual windscreen as it was on the actual limo escort motorcyle on 11/23/63...? Where, when, who was there (when you measured the attached windshield), and a verifiable affidavit with your measurements/ findings, complete with DPD motorcycle ID & Registration number. AND a DPD statement stating that yes indeed, the motorcyle windscreen you measured was from that very motorcycle displayed in Moorman 5 photo, left rear limo position adjacent to Elm Street north curbing (and in DP that day). Just post the evidence, big guy! No time for nonsense and/or opinions.

The person selling the bike came to me ... I believe through another researcher. That information was posted in detail on more than one occasion and on more than one forum. If I am not mistaken ... that bike was also used in the movie "JFK". I believe the man's name who was considered the guru of Harley Davidson Motorcycles was named Lonnie Isam. Do a forum search and refresh your memory. In fact, JFK Research probably had the most details that were posted - good luck in finding the information there. I am surprised at you, David. I would have thought that you checked on all this stuff when it was posted in the past and that was what led you to say on this forum that YOU had never seen anything that proved alteration. But seeing how you like proof ... here is the proof that I cited what you said correctly .............

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

Bill

If you can't post Lamson's measurements-evidence w/affidavit there's nothing to talk to you about. I could care less if Harley of Harley-Davidson told you anything... somebody told me so-so, I posted on so many forums.... yadada, yadada -- nonsense, doesn't prove a damn thing.... Just post your proof with affidavit, that the left rear motorcyle cop closet to the north curb of Elm Street as depicted in the Moorman 5 photo, that to the top of THAT windscreen is 58" from the street surface.

Miller on

"David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years"

Miller off

Stay on point, Bill, you can't deal with two lines of thought at the same time...

Edited July 10, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

It is incumbent on Miller to back up his claim with an image of this.

All early reproductions of Moorman5 did not include the pedestal.

Jack

Jack,

I have posted that very information more times than I care to count and each time you do not address it. The quickest way to see that photo is to go to a show that I believe was called "JFK assassination: As It Happened". NBC aired Mary's photo in full and the time was around 3:30PM Dallas time on the afternoon of the assassination.

Now that I have your attention and while I am waiting for Gary Mack to get into the office - I am willing to bet that YOUR Badge Man study was done by having Mary Moorman in the grass just as all the assassination images show her to be. Are you sure that you want to continue this nonsense about her being in the street, which would null and void your Badge Man study because you had picked the wrong place to work from??? Think good about this before answering.

Bill

PS; Having just reached Gary Mack at his office and posing the same question I put to Jack - Gary replied that he and Jack did all their work on Badge Man by the LOS of having Mary Moorman in the grass as seen in all the assassination films and images. Gary would agree, while not buying into Jack's claim, that if Mary was in the street, then the Badge Man study that he and Jack did is unreliable based on they didn't have Moorman where Jack claimed her to be in latter years.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]Now that I have your attention and while I am waiting for Gary Mack to get into the office

[...]

Bill

sharing an TSBD office these day's? LMAO? btw, Why don't you ask Gary Mack about Badgeman, he's the co-creator of Badgeman, who better to ask, than the TSBD museum curator?

Edited July 10, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

If you can't post Lamson's measurements-evidence w/affidavit there's nothing to talk to you about. I could care less if Harley of Harley-Davidson told you anything... somebody told me so-so, I posted on so many forums.... yadada, yadada -- nonsense, doesn't prove a damn thing.... Just post your proof with affidavit, that the left rear motorcyle cop closet to the north curb

David,

Please tell this forum what affidavits you collected, read, or have in your possession that caused you to tell this forum that you have seen no proof of alteration? You seem to be playing the trolling game again, so let us see what standard of research do you uphold for yourself.

And FWIW, I had copies of the paperwork concerning the cycle being offered for sale and included was a certificate of authenticity. It is true that I didn't insult the guy by insisting on him signing an affidavit saying that what he presented me was the real deal, but I did call around to some well established people in the field and came away with the impression that the cycle was legit. Feel free to make any necessary contacts needed and let me know if you come up with anything different than what I have posted in the past.

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]Now that I have your attention and while I am waiting for Gary Mack to get into the office

[...]

Bill

sharing an TSBD office these day's? LMAO? btw, Why don't you ask Gary Mack about Badgeman, he's the co-creator of Badgeman, who better to ask, than the TSBD museum curator?

David, one thing that I can say about you is that the quality of your responses never change.

Bill

Edited July 10, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

deleted duplicate post

Edited July 10, 2007 by Bill Miller