Moorman Comparison

[Jack White]

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

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

You are not paying attention. Gary and I did NO recreation photos.

Nigel Turner first had the idea of doing a recreation of the badgeman group.

Bernice has just posted Nigel's photo. This was at least six years after

Gary and I did our work.

The GAP NONSENSE was originated in a desperate attempt at distraction

after the publication of Fetzer's MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, and Thompson's

paranoid hatred of Fetzer. THE GAP IS IRRELEVANT. I have never used

the corner of the pedestal in determining the line of sight because of the

gap caused by the one-inch offset at the top of the pedestal. I use the

EDGE OF THE PEDESTAL. It is YOU who claim that the GAP is important.

I repeat...there is a gap, but it is irrelevant to any of MY studies.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

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.

Relax, Jack ... for I am only the messenger. You and Gary can hash out the story when you guys meet again. What I do not need Gary to tell me is that you took measurements of the area and the position of the people you believed to be seen in Mary's photograph. That photo shows a gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window that YOUR test photo does not show. For your study to come from a Moorman print, then you must also have the correct location and LOS or else all your data would pertain to another location that didn't involve Mary, thus your work will be faulty.

Bill

[Jack White]

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.

Relax, Jack ... for I am only the messenger. You and Gary can hash out the story when you guys meet again. What I do not need Gary to tell me is that you took measurements of the area and the position of the people you believed to be seen in Mary's photograph. That photo shows a gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window that YOUR test photo does not show. For your study to come from a Moorman print, then you must also have the correct location and LOS or else all your data would pertain to another location that didn't involve Mary, thus your work will be faulty.

Bill

No, you are not the messenger, you are the "xxxx".

I repeat...Gary and I did not use any line of sight or measurements in OUR badgeman studies.

Gary was NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WAY when about 1999 I alone did all of my line of sight

studies because Jim Fetzer had asked me to contribute new studies for MDIP. You simply do

not know the facts, or are making things up.

Please quit misrepresenting my research, and Gary's too.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

The GAP NONSENSE was originated in a desperate attempt at distraction

after the publication of Fetzer's MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, and Thompson's

paranoid hatred of Fetzer. THE GAP IS IRRELEVANT. I have never used

the corner of the pedestal in determining the line of sight because of the

gap caused by the one-inch offset at the top of the pedestal. I use the

EDGE OF THE PEDESTAL. It is YOU who claim that the GAP is important.

I repeat...there is a gap, but it is irrelevant to any of MY studies.

Jack

Jack,

It is YOU and YOU only who doesn't understand the importance of that gap. YOUR gap is closed and Mary's is wide open. If one goes to the plaza and stands just a few feet left or right of Mary's true position - the width of the gap changes. YOUR gap is so far off that a blind man who cannot see could still sense your error. And the reason that YOU wish to ignore the gap is because it destroys your being in the street claim for when you took a photo from where you thought Moorman stood - your gap was all but closed. You then said that it was only the 'DRUM SCAN' that showed a gap and I replied that all the Moorman prints show the gap. When invited to show a Moorman print hat shows no gap - your reply then becomes one that says the gap is irrelevant.

I warned you to think this stuff through carefully before answering because what you are making up in one area to save a bad claim will destroy a good claim of yours elsewhere.

Bill

Edited July 10, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bernice Moore]

Here you are Jack....

B....

[Jack White]

Thanks, Duncan.

The clip you uploaded was one I scanned years ago from likely

one of the very first copies printed of the Moorman photo that

shows ZAPRUDER ON THE PEDESTAL. So it establishes a time limit

on any retouching done. The clipping is from THE FORT WORTH

PRESS of either Saturday or Sunday. Thanks.

Jack

[John Bockmon]

The GAP NONSENSE was originated in a desperate attempt at distraction

after the publication of Fetzer's MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, and Thompson's

paranoid hatred of Fetzer. THE GAP IS IRRELEVANT. I have never used

the corner of the pedestal in determining the line of sight because of the

gap caused by the one-inch offset at the top of the pedestal. I use the

EDGE OF THE PEDESTAL. It is YOU who claim that the GAP is important.

I repeat...there is a gap, but it is irrelevant to any of MY studies.

Jack

Jack,

It is YOU and YOU only who doesn't understand the importance of that gap. YOUR gap is closed and Mary's is wide open. If one goes to the plaza and stands just a few feet left or right of Mary's true position - the width of the gap changes. YOUR gap is so far off that a blind man who cannot see could still sense your error. And the reason that YOU wish to ignore the gap is because it destroys your being in the street claim for when you took a photo from where you thought Moorman stood - your gap was all but closed. You then said that it was only the 'DRUM SCAN' that showed a gap and I replied that all the Moorman prints show the gap. When invited to show a Moorman print hat shows no gap - your reply then becomes one that says the gap is irrelevant.

I warned you to think this stuff through carefully before answering because what you are making up in one area to save a bad claim will destroy a good claim of yours elsewhere.

Bill

Bill,Craig and Jack

I joined this forum about a year ago. I enjoy the debates and crave new information. I have only felt one other time that this forum is getting a little like kids on the play ground. That was William Dankbar(Dont know how to spell it correctly) and his attitude when someone didn't beleive James Files killed JFK just like he said.

I have enjoyed the information that Bill, Craig and Jack have added to this forum. I don't always agree but it is intresting to read. Why do you have to personally attack anyone? We are adults who are all on here to find the truth. So what if you don't agree. So what if i haven't read every single book or read every single document. That doesn't make me an idiot. It makes me uninformed. Thats why Im here to get informed. I think alot of us are tired of the bickering. We are just here for information not personal attacks. Thank you.

John

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

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

Years ago, even I was unaware of the true historical significance of those documents in my possession.

Due to the size of these documents, even the SS Survey Plat, which I recently posted, had to be copied in "sections" and then pieced together in order to get something small enough to send over this attachment system.

The WC Survey plat measures some 40 X 72 inches, and much to my own dismay, I had to cut them into pieces in order to even make that which you have seen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of the tracing measuring 40 inches in width, 72 inches in length. It is made to a scale of 1 inch equals 10 feet. From the data compiled on that day by the surveyor, this tracing was prepared.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, yes, as one should observe, I have two complete copies of the WC/West Survey Plat.

One in which was utilized to draw lines, determine angles/line-of-sight/etc; and one on which I placed the scale model size of the Presidential Limo and it's occupants (JFK & JBC).

In order to even give a copy of the SS Survey Plat, I had to take it out of it's now enclosed frame! Which I had previously resolved that I would not do.

For all practical purposes, I have destroyed two documents of considerable historical significance (that two copies of the WC/West Survey which I long ago cut up in order to be able to make copies of).

Some time back, I began to attempt to re-tape these documents back into some condition, and I thus have no intention of adding further to the destruction of these documents merely to either attempt to prove my points and/or satisfy those who feel that they have some need to know.

Hopefully, History will not be totally unkind to me for the damage which I have already created to these documents!

Lastly, even if one had the entire WC Survey Plat, without the accompanying survey notes, as well as all of that other survey information which was developed throughout the SS assassination re-enactment as well as other work, one would be much at loss as to exactly what was what.

Now that those, who have not become completely "tainted" by exposure to the garbage which has permeated this subject, have been exposed to some of the factual truths, one does not require any "Survey" information to determine the shooting sequence in Dealy Plaza on 11/22/63.

They do however need to read/study/understand the witness testimonies as presented in the WC Report, as well as even review that witness testimony in the Dallas Archives of those persons who were not called to testify.

Personally, I knew pretty well where the impact point of the third shot was long before I ever had my hands on any of the survey documents.

Just that I recognized the importance of having these documents in order to demonstrate many of these items.

After all! Exactly how many here had recognized the significance of "omitting" frames of the film past the WC printing of Z334, which is prior to James Altgens coming into view.

How many took the time to understand that when the WC did something such as this, along with the phony Altgens re-enactment photo, that there was a distinctive reasoning for such deceptive practices.

The conflicts between the WC stationing of 4+65.3 and the SS stationing of 4+95 are clearly obtainable from the WC Documents.

Yet, the first that anyone ever heard of it was when I pointed it out.

In life, the human species must learn to crawl before it learns to walk and subsequently run.

Therefore I would recommend to all that if they want to learn about the assassination of JFK, that they first crawl over to the WC Report (+ exhibits) and thoroughly study and learn them, instead of chasing mythological beings which were created by those who either do not have the ability to study, digest, and correlate factual informtion, or else are not willing to take the time to do so, or else have some vested interest in sending persons off to chase smoke.

One has to find the "source" as well as reasons for the WC Smoke, before they can grasp the other aspects of this subject matter.

So John; & others.

Why not resolve exactly how JFK was actually killed prior to merely asking for more information which one most probably would not fully understand were they to gain possession of it.

The information and knowledge already was present in the public domain, long before I stepped in to explain it.

How many even bothered to question the Drommer Survey Plat and the significance of those elevations which have been platted/plotted on it?????

It has many answers, but one must know what questions to ask of it!

In presentation of the West Survey Data, as well as other items related to the actual assassination, I have made every attempt to stick with, for the most part, absollutely factual and verifiable evidence.

If one choses to accept this on "blind faith", so be it.

If they chose not to do so, the better for them, as it would be an error to accept anything which I state or claim, without researching the subject matter for oneself.

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.

Might I recommend that you blame those who lit the fire.

As should be quite evident, I am merely here urinating onto the fire in order that those who desire to do so can see exactly what is smoke and what is actually flame.

Purvis destroyed valuable West plats TO COPY THEM? Indefensible!

Does he not know about blueprint services??? Architects, engineers and surveyors

routinely have copies of original drawings made cheaply at blueprint houses.

Huge originals are placed on a huge copy camera and reduced to more manageable

sizes, and multiple blueprints produced cheaply. Duh.

Jack

Purvis destroyed valuable West plats TO COPY THEM? Indefensible!

First off, that I am aware of, no one claimed that they were "destroyed".

Secondly, at that time in/around 1990, I was under the obviously mistaken conclusion that anyone who claimed to be a "researcher" into this subject matter would have also taken the time to locate and speak with Mr. West, as well as ask him about his experience's with the WC and what if any resources (survey information) he may have in his possession which would benefit someone who was interested in true and factual research.

Therefore, it was neither assumed nor was it known at the time that I came into possession of what quite possibly was two of only three known copies of the survey plat.

Since Mr. West was openly receptive to making these copies (for a fee), and it never dawned on me that anyone would be so bold as to claim to be a "researcher" yet had never even bothered to contact Mr. West, then it all seemed quite trivial at the time.

Jack! Don't you reside in Dallas?

Care to explain to us exactly why you never got around to actually questioning anyone who had "first person" knowledge and experience???

Especially Mr. West who most certainly made no attempt to hide his whereabouts.

He was listed in the phone book, so it is not like I had to conduct some giant undercover operation to locate him.

Too busy with the Unicorn Roundup were you?

Or was it due to the extensive preparations necessary for the annual "Running of the Squirrels" which occurs every November 22 in Dealy Plaza.

For anyone who desires to see the entire/intact WC Survey plat (slightly re-taped back together), it will be on display, along with the other survey plats; notes; drawings; etc; in the George County, MS Public Library during the month of November, 2007.

Along with a few other items such as the "sister" to LHO's Carcano, some WCC 6.5mm ammo, letters of conversations between myself and persons such as Dr. Boswell; FBI Agent Frazier; Dr. Malcolm Perry, etc; etc; etc.

Actually, even I have not yet decided as to exactly what all I am going to allow to be placed on display.

However! One can rest assured that we are about to begin a new generation of researchers who will not be hampered by the BS which continues to be perpetuated as to exactly how the assassination of JFK actually occurred.

So, just perhaps History will be somewhat forgiving for the damage which was created to the WC Drawings.

Although my son's most certainly would not be so forgiving were they to understand the true potential historical (monetary) value that these two documents would have in an "uncut" condition.

And, as Mr. Dolva has so elegantly stated, true knowledge should always be free and openly shared for the benefit of all, and one should not have to pay for it.

And, it is even worse when one pays for the proverbial "pig in a poke", and winds up with merely another empty sack which contains only the remnant of feces.

[Craig Lamson]

I hope this might be of some help to you Jack. I've improved the upi photograph which appeared in the newspaper.

It appears to show NO GAP. ...Repeat NO GAP.

I'm uploading the Newspaper cutting and my improvement enhancement.

Duncan

No gap you say? Exactly how can you tell such a thing from that mishmash of pixels you posted?

Sheesh.

[Jack White]

The GAP NONSENSE was originated in a desperate attempt at distraction

after the publication of Fetzer's MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, and Thompson's

paranoid hatred of Fetzer. THE GAP IS IRRELEVANT. I have never used

the corner of the pedestal in determining the line of sight because of the

gap caused by the one-inch offset at the top of the pedestal. I use the

EDGE OF THE PEDESTAL. It is YOU who claim that the GAP is important.

I repeat...there is a gap, but it is irrelevant to any of MY studies.

Jack

Jack,

It is YOU and YOU only who doesn't understand the importance of that gap. YOUR gap is closed and Mary's is wide open. If one goes to the plaza and stands just a few feet left or right of Mary's true position - the width of the gap changes. YOUR gap is so far off that a blind man who cannot see could still sense your error. And the reason that YOU wish to ignore the gap is because it destroys your being in the street claim for when you took a photo from where you thought Moorman stood - your gap was all but closed. You then said that it was only the 'DRUM SCAN' that showed a gap and I replied that all the Moorman prints show the gap. When invited to show a Moorman print hat shows no gap - your reply then becomes one that says the gap is irrelevant.

I warned you to think this stuff through carefully before answering because what you are making up in one area to save a bad claim will destroy a good claim of yours elsewhere.

Bill

Bill,Craig and Jack

I joined this forum about a year ago. I enjoy the debates and crave new information. I have only felt one other time that this forum is getting a little like kids on the play ground. That was William Dankbar(Dont know how to spell it correctly) and his attitude when someone didn't beleive James Files killed JFK just like he said.

I have enjoyed the information that Bill, Craig and Jack have added to this forum. I don't always agree but it is intresting to read. Why do you have to personally attack anyone? We are adults who are all on here to find the truth. So what if you don't agree. So what if i haven't read every single book or read every single document. That doesn't make me an idiot. It makes me uninformed. Thats why Im here to get informed. I think alot of us are tired of the bickering. We are just here for information not personal attacks. Thank you.

John

Thanks, John.

However, I want to point out that when I call someone a xxxx, that is not a

personal attack. I say that only when they have just posted something that

I KNOW TO BE UNTRUE. I trust that you appreciate this distinction.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Thanks, Duncan.

The clip you uploaded was one I scanned years ago from likely

one of the very first copies printed of the Moorman photo that

shows ZAPRUDER ON THE PEDESTAL. So it establishes a time limit

on any retouching done. The clipping is from THE FORT WORTH

PRESS of either Saturday or Sunday. Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

Duncan's poor newspaper print left a little to be desired. Jack, you have said that 'the gang' faked the gap and I notice that Groden has several different Moorman prints in his book that also show the same wide gap. Now these prints were in Groden's possession well before the drum scan was ever done, so is it your position that 'the gang' got into Groden's collection of prints and faked their gaps, as well?

And about the window of time for faking Moorman's photo .... what part of the news people filming Moorman's photograph not 35 minutes following the shooting did you not understand? Within 2.5 hours from that moment the photo will appear on NBC. YOU will not have come up with the silly idea that Moorman was in the street for more than two decades, so why would anyone want to alter the gap of Moorman's instant picture immediately following the shooting? Keep in mind that the faking of the gap according to YOU was not until Thompson did the drum scan.

Bill

[Miles Scull]

[

Thanks, John.

However, I want to point out that when I call someone a xxxx, that is not a

personal attack. I say that only when they have just posted something that

I KNOW TO BE UNTRUE. I trust that you appreciate this distinction.

Jack

Jack,

There is no problem with disagreeing with each other, but according to John Simkin,

'The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum."

Please choose another way to get your point across. Thanks.

Kathy

______________________________________

Jack,

May I suggest that if you say: " Sir, I notice that your pants are on FIRE !! "

that you will be in complete accord with forum netiquette.

Hope this helps. (No Lie!)

Edited July 10, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

No gap you say? Exactly how can you tell such a thing from that mishmash of pixels you posted?

Sheesh.

I said it appears to show no gap, do you disagree with that? appears being the crucial word..I think it's a worthwhile contribution to this thread and possibly one worth further study.

Duncan

Yes Duncan ... run a study on poor images Vs. clearer images and please report your findings. If the Newspaper scan you posted was any poorer - there would not even be a pedestal IMO. And does it matter what someone may or may not have done to a photo for a newspaper ... isn't the first view of Moorman's photograph while it was still in her possession the best evidence. And did Jack not say that the drum scan was the only print that showed the gap and that was because 'the gang' faked it.

Bill

Edited July 10, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

No gap you say? Exactly how can you tell such a thing from that mishmash of pixels you posted?

Sheesh.

I said it appears to show no gap, do you disagree with that? appears being the crucial word..I think it's a worthwhile contribution to this thread and possibly one worth further study.

Duncan

Yes Duncan ... run a study on poor images Vs. clearer images and please report your findings. If the Newspaper scan you posted was any poorer - there would not even be a pedestal IMO. And does it matter what someone may or may not have done to a photo for a newspaper ... isn't the first view of Moorman's photograph while it was still in her possession the best evidence. And did Jack not say that the drum scan was the only print that showed the gap and that was because 'the gang' faked it.

Bill

Bill can't get anything right. I did not say THE GANG FAKED IT...I said they EXAGGERATED IT by smoothing

the top of the pedestal and changing the tilt. I have never denied that there is a "gap" between the corner

and the window. THERE IS A GAP, but it is irrelevant. I did not use it to find the line of sight. How many times

do I have say I USED THE EDGE OF THE PEDESTAL, NOT THE CORNER WHERE THE GAP IS?

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

No gap you say? Exactly how can you tell such a thing from that mishmash of pixels you posted?

Sheesh.

I said it appears to show no gap, do you disagree with that? appears being the crucial word..I think it's a worthwhile contribution to this thread and possibly one worth further study.

Duncan

What a load of BS. The files you uploaded are worthless for ANY kind of study...period. They are a waste of bandwidth. It simply amazes me that perople find any value in this kind of 'enhancement".

As to agreeing or not to your statement that the "enhancement" appears to show no gap, the answer is no. I don't agree. We are no longer lookiing at an image that resembles the data in the original Moorman photograph. You are basing your opinion on an images that has been altered, first by wire transmission (perhaps) High contrast printing to make the image newspaper printable, additional retouching by the newspaper to make the image actually look SOMEWHAT like a photograph (perhaps), then converted to a course line screen (85 lpi or less), printed on uncoated newsprint on a full web press, scanned into a computer, reduced in in size for posting on the internet and saved with jpg artifacts, copied from the net and saved again in jpg (maybe) adding even more jpg artifacts, descreened with software creating detail out of thin air, up sampled to a larger size (again creating detail out of thin air), who knows what other processes you ran on the images...levels, curves, sharpening etc...all of which change the details of an image, downsampled the image to web size and then resaved the image AGAIN in jpg creating even more artifacts.

Given the course of the processing on this single image, you think it is worthy of ANY study? I don't.