Jack White Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 All of this nonsense is irrelevant anyway since it now has been proved that Moorman5has 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?????? Please tell us all you know about the Zippo. Do you know who the Zippo lighter belonged to? Do you know why it is in the photo? Who took the photo? Provenance, please. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 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. Whats the matter davie, the subject matter to deep for you? You have been told WHERE to find all of the evidence you need to check Bills claim of the windshield height. Why not do so? I'm not suprised to see you yelping like a rabid dog, seeing that White is going down like a stone in deep water. But as usual LOTS of words from davie but not a bit of work to back up the bluster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 All of this nonsense is irrelevant anyway since it now has been proved that Moorman5has 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?????? Please tell us all you know about the Zippo. Do you know who the Zippo lighter belonged to? Do you know why it is in the photo? Who took the photo? Provenance, please. Jack Why the attempt to change the subject Jack? Are you unable to answer the simple question I asked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) It appears that Jack has overlooked an import post in need of an important answer before going on about Zippo lighters, so here it is again. Please answer the question Jack! The post read in part ...... "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 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 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 Utter nonsense from a know-nothing who has no idea what he is saying. Gary discovered the Badgeman image in a photo taken on 11-22. We made the best possible copy of the image from a print furnished by Josiah Thompson. "Miller" says: "which would null and void your Badge Man study because you had picked the wrong place to work from??? Gary will confirm that our study of Badgeman was not associated with having picked a place to "work from"; this is uninformed nonsense. I will say that for Nigel Turner, British expert Geoffrey Crawley used Mary's camera, loaned to Gary, to replicate Moorman5's line of sight. It did not set off any "alarm bells" at the time, BUT GEOFFREY AND I HAD TO SIT ON THE GRASS rather than stand to achieve the correct line of sight. At that time we were only interested in getting the line of sight correct, NOT WHERE MARY WAS STANDING. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) 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 Utter nonsense from a know-nothing who has no idea what he is saying. Gary discovered the Badgeman image in a photo taken on 11-22. We made the best possible copy of the image from a print furnished by Josiah Thompson. "Miller" says: "which would null and void your Badge Man study because you had picked the wrong place to work from??? Gary will confirm that our study of Badgeman was not associated with having picked a place to "work from"; this is uninformed nonsense. I will say that for Nigel Turner, British expert Geoffrey Crawley used Mary's camera, loaned to Gary, to replicate Moorman5's line of sight. It did not set off any "alarm bells" at the time, BUT GEOFFREY AND I HAD TO SIT ON THE GRASS rather than stand to achieve the correct line of sight. At that time we were only interested in getting the line of sight correct, NOT WHERE MARY WAS STANDING. Jack AH...is that REALLY correct. Is it not a fact that your badgeman print, the one published here and elsewhere is made from a b/w negative created of a 35mm slide provided by Groden and produced on a slide duplicator? Edited July 10, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) 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. Whats the matter davie, the subject matter to deep for you? You have been told WHERE to find all of the evidence you need to check Bills claim of the windshield height. Why not do so? I'm not suprised to see you yelping like a rabid dog, seeing that White is going down like a stone in deep water. But as usual LOTS of words from davie but not a bit of work to back up the bluster. just post the 58" evidence Craigster -- regarding your "rabid dog" comment; you do indeed have a magnificent imagination just like most of your postings -- there's no need for hot wind, Craigster, just your proof, please. If you can't post it, you ain't got it... Those NASA photo kids must be handing you your hat, again? Edited July 10, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 If you can't post it, you ain't got it... My my David, the subject matter IS over your head. Poor boy. I've no need to post anything. I did the work to satisfy Bills material for myself. It seems YOU are the one making all the noise about Bills research. Why not YOU prove him wrong for a change? The work beyond you? I've given you the place to start and heck I'll even give you another clue to move you along. Why not shine a light of truth on the subject for a change. Now if you can prove that Bill is wrong (which would be a major change for you davie) then we can talk. Until then you are irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 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 Utter nonsense from a know-nothing who has no idea what he is saying. Gary discovered the Badgeman image in a photo taken on 11-22. We made the best possible copy of the image from a print furnished by Josiah Thompson. "Miller" says: "which would null and void your Badge Man study because you had picked the wrong place to work from??? Gary will confirm that our study of Badgeman was not associated with having picked a place to "work from"; this is uninformed nonsense. I will say that for Nigel Turner, British expert Geoffrey Crawley used Mary's camera, loaned to Gary, to replicate Moorman5's line of sight. It did not set off any "alarm bells" at the time, BUT GEOFFREY AND I HAD TO SIT ON THE GRASS rather than stand to achieve the correct line of sight. At that time we were only interested in getting the line of sight correct, NOT WHERE MARY WAS STANDING. Jack AH...is that REALLY correct. Is it not a fact that your badgeman print, the one published here and elsewhere is made from a b/w negative created of a 35mm slide provided by Groden and produced on a slide duplicator? Only if you are speaking of the ORIGINAL study, yes. All subsequent study was focused on using the Thompson print, the Weisberg print and several others. The Thompson print was copied by a pro photographer at extreme magnification using an 8x10 bellows camera. Gary Mack arranged for local photographer Byrd Williams IV to do this. From this was made the widely misinterpreted "colorized" "badgeman group" image which shows Gordon Arnold and the "hardhatman". Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 If you can't post it, you ain't got it... My my David, the subject matter IS over your head. Poor boy. I've no need to post anything. I did the work to satisfy Bills material for myself. It seems YOU are the one making all the noise about Bills research. Why not YOU prove him wrong for a change? The work beyond you? I've given you the place to start and heck I'll even give you another clue to move you along. Why not shine a light of truth on the subject for a change. Now if you can prove that Bill is wrong (which would be a major change for you davie) then we can talk. Until then you are irrelevant. No, Lamson...it is you who are irrelevant. Now get back in your studio and start earning $300 an hour; I figure you have already blown about $1800 today wasting your time on the computer. You must be missing lots of deadlines with all the photoshoots you have on your busy schedule. As far as I can determine, you have been logged on for about six hours straight. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Craig Lamson: wroteIf you can't post it, you ain't got it... My my David, the subject matter IS over your head. Poor boy. I've no need to post anything. I did the work to satisfy Bills material for myself. It seems YOU are the one making all the noise about Bills research. Why not YOU prove him wrong for a change? The work beyond you? I've given you the place to start and heck I'll even give you another clue to move you along. Why not shine a light of truth on the subject for a change. Now if you can prove that Bill is wrong (which would be a major change for you davie) then we can talk. Until then you are irrelevant. ouch..... oh-wee LMAO, you know we CT's don't trust you Lone Nutter any further than we can throw your sorry asses..... Again, if you can't post your proof, you don't have PROOF, period! 53", 58" 64" or higher which is it? Show us the methodolgy, documentation and verification, till then your claims are empty words, like nearly everything you post... Not until THEN, when it comes to the case related pictorial evidence, you are irrelevant. Seeya around the hood, champ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 It appears that Jack has overlooked an import post in need of an important answer before going on about Zippo lighters, so here it is again. Please answer the question Jack! The post read in part ......"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 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." THIS IS A LIE. Never in our studies of badgeman did we ever consider the line of sight of any significance to the image seen. All of our studies were related to the image itself, not the line of sight. Later, when Nigel Turner became involved, he suggested trying to replicate Moorman5, and hired British expert Geoffrey Crawley to do it. That was one of the earliest efforts to replicate the line of sight. BUT THE LINE OF SIGHT WAS NEVER CONSIDERED BY GARY OR ME TO BE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE WHEN WERE WERE DOING THE BADGEMAN WORK. ZERO. ZIP. FALSE. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 If you can't post it, you ain't got it... My my David, the subject matter IS over your head. Poor boy. I've no need to post anything. I did the work to satisfy Bills material for myself. It seems YOU are the one making all the noise about Bills research. Why not YOU prove him wrong for a change? The work beyond you? I've given you the place to start and heck I'll even give you another clue to move you along. Why not shine a light of truth on the subject for a change. Now if you can prove that Bill is wrong (which would be a major change for you davie) then we can talk. Until then you are irrelevant. No, Lamson...it is you who are irrelevant. Now get back in your studio and start earning $300 an hour; I figure you have already blown about $1800 today wasting your time on the computer. You must be missing lots of deadlines with all the photoshoots you have on your busy schedule. As far as I can determine, you have been logged on for about six hours straight. Jack Still dodging that really hard question about the Zippo I see. You are a cornered dog. Quite entertaining I mihgt add. I finished a 3 month long project last week and I'm cranking out the last of the files this week which means I'm at the computer all day. Its pretty easy to just drop in and check on your latest nonsense while a file runs through Genuine Fractuals and a complex photoshop action. Multi-tasking is so much fun. Dont worry I'm still making plenty of cash even while I trash your work. But the fun and games here will slow down for me in a few days, the product for the next project , which will last for the next 5 weeks, starts to arrive on Friday. But don't fret, I'll still be here for the rest of this week. Your nemesis, Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) Only if you are speaking of the ORIGINAL study, yes. All subsequent studywas focused on using the Thompson print, the Weisberg print and several others. The Thompson print was copied by a pro photographer at extreme magnification using an 8x10 bellows camera. Gary Mack arranged for local photographer Byrd Williams IV to do this. From this was made the widely misinterpreted "colorized" "badgeman group" image which shows Gordon Arnold and the "hardhatman". Jack Jack, That is hardly a direct answer to my questions, but I will work with what little you gave me. Now those prints that you did your Badge Man study work from - do any of them show the absence of the gap like your recreation photo shows? No need to answer that question really because I can tell you that they DO NOT. The only thing you need to address is if you sitting on the ground was a correct height for Moorman's camera, then why is the gap in all the Moorman prints not as you show it in your test photo? Bill Edited July 10, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Hi Jack: Here's the photo..... B... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now