Bill Miller Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) 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 Edited July 8, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 I have noticed that responses to this thread focus on personal attacks and fail to address anomalies demonstrated. Bernice will be posting two more studies here. I do not expect attempts to explain them...just more personal attacks. Incidentally, I expect Fetzer to sign in when he has time...to refute Miller's false claim. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) Ok Jack, have you shown that the video capture image of the recreation has the correct aspect ratio? Research is your friend. Is the Z/S stand-in correctly positioned as compared to Z/S inthe Moorman. If not your contention that the recreation shows the windows should be visable in Moorman fails.... Edited July 8, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) I have noticed that responses to this thread focus on personal attacksand fail to address anomalies demonstrated. Bernice will be posting two more studies here. I do not expect attempts to explain them...just more personal attacks. Incidentally, I expect Fetzer to sign in when he has time...to refute Miller's false claim. Jack Would that be the same Fetzer who for many months argued for your claims by saying that enlargement alters an image and made a number of false claims based on his ignorance on how a lever works? Edited July 8, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 8, 2007 Author Share Posted July 8, 2007 Ok Jack, have you shown that the video capture image of the recreation has the correct aspect ratio? Research is your friend.Is the Z/S stand-in correctly positioned as compared to Z/S inthe Moorman. If not your contention that the recreation shows the windows should be visable in Moorman fails.... Craig, How does one acquire the correct aspect ratio for DVD/digital photos? The process I use is to Export the frame using Quicktime, saving with no compression. If the originally filmed frame ratio is incorrect, then I would imagine my exported frame is also. I normally don't change aspect ratio's on anything I do, but since the change on the original post was less than 1 percent, I figured I try and get it as close as possible, and tell others accordingly. As a follow-up, here is a different version of the recreation, quality wasn't as good as previous one, reduced to 93 percent with no change in aspect ratio. The Moormon version this time is from the same program and introduced by Gary Mack as fairly original. I believe this is as close or closer, than my original post. thanks chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 I have noticed that responses to this thread focus on personal attacksand fail to address anomalies demonstrated. Bernice will be posting two more studies here. I do not expect attempts to explain them...just more personal attacks. Incidentally, I expect Fetzer to sign in when he has time...to refute Miller's false claim. Jack Jack, Please stop the dancing and just stick to the facts. How far are you willing to go to try and salvage a bad claim??? Jean Hill blew your claim about her being in the street when she said on Len's show "Black Op Radio, that she had gotten back out of the street BEFORE the first shot was fired. Are we to believe that Jean didn't know where she was at as the limo passed by her? Jean, while always believing there was a conspiracy, has never said that her location as seen on any assassination film is in error or has been altered - how do you explain that? Why would Moorman tell Oakes that your claim of her being in the street when taking her #5 Polaroid is just "silly"? Why wouldn't Moorman not say that the films are faked because they do not show her in the street? Could it be that it is you who got it wrong??? And why not address the observation that Mary's camera height as reported by YOU is no less than 4" shorter than the tops of the cycles windshields and yet her camera is looking downward at an angle above them. Did someone set a chair in the street for Mary to stand on? Did Mary hold the camera over her head so to get that elevated view? Come on, Jack ... if you want to be serious, then address those observations. Also, feel free to have Fetzer address them as well. Then there is that gap problem between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window. The shift that takes place between your photo and Moorman's tells me that your camera was too low and too far east and that is why the pedestal rises and shifts to the left between those two pictures. So by all means, Jack - address these points because they have been raised for years now and you just ignore them, but the rest of the world is not going to ignore them. They need to be addressed if you are as serious about these claims as you have let on to be. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) The Moormon version this time is from the same program and introduced by Gary Mack as fairly original. Just so make the purpose of that photo known ... Gary Mack wrote ... "The Unsolved History show was merely showing the trajectory, so all that was crucial was the JFK stand-in's location on Elm Street. We had him positioned accurately in the center lane with his head height the correct distance above the street. That test ended any speculation that the corner of the wall was a hindrance to Badge Man. It wasn't. Gary" Below is a recreation photo in color coming in over the top of Moorman's photo. The test photo was so close in every way that it is nearly impossible to find fault with it ... right down to the main tree branches and foliage. Bill Edited July 8, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Photo from Jack..... B..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Sorry Jack I got them in the wrong order... B... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) Ok Jack, have you shown that the video capture image of the recreation has the correct aspect ratio? Research is your friend.Is the Z/S stand-in correctly positioned as compared to Z/S inthe Moorman. If not your contention that the recreation shows the windows should be visable in Moorman fails.... Craig, How does one acquire the correct aspect ratio for DVD/digital photos? The process I use is to Export the frame using Quicktime, saving with no compression. If the originally filmed frame ratio is incorrect, then I would imagine my exported frame is also. I normally don't change aspect ratio's on anything I do, but since the change on the original post was less than 1 percent, I figured I try and get it as close as possible, and tell others accordingly. As a follow-up, here is a different version of the recreation, quality wasn't as good as previous one, reduced to 93 percent with no change in aspect ratio. The Moormon version this time is from the same program and introduced by Gary Mack as fairly original. I believe this is as close or closer, than my original post. thanks chris Chris, Much like the frame captures of the MPI Zapruder DVD, your frame captures also suffer from having the aspect ratio changed along the horizontal. If you resize the horizontal size to about 90% your captured frames will match the Moorman. The reason your latest version matches better is that they are both from the dvd source. Edited July 8, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) Jack, The reason that Mary looks so short is because you (Jack) sized her to fit your LOS which was wrong as the pedestal overlay animation shows it to be. Put her on the correct LOS and she will match in size to Hill, Brehm, Oliver, and etc., as seen in all the assassination films showing the shooting. BTW, Why is it that the good photo you produced that I used to show your Gap error is of far better quality than these ridiculous fuzzy images that you are using in #38 and #39 to try and salvage your claim. Any explanation for the sudden use of deplorable images on this matter? One more thing .... I have posted numerous times to you in the past stating that Moorman's photo was filmed within 35 minutes after the shooting and while still in Mary's possession. My question to you is - Why are you still saying that Zapruder and Sitzman are add-ons to the pedestal when Moorman's photo showed them on the pedestal when her photo was aired on tV around 3:30 CST on the afternoon of the assassination??? I have also heard Jean Hill talk about Zapruder being across the street and filming the assassination and my next question is - Do you believe that Jean Hill was part of the conspiracy to make it appear that Zapruder and Sitzman were on the pedestal in light of you saying they were not? Bill Edited July 8, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) Photo from Jack.....B..... Jack, Why are you using the recreation frame with an improper aspect ratio in your study? It appears that once again you have only proven your inability to understand the subject matter. Also in our failed attempt to keep your silly Moorman in the street claim alive, is it your opinion that the Moorman was altered in the short time from exposure until it was copied as is now known as the zippo Moorman? Edited July 8, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) Quote Craig Lamson: "Really???Please explain how short Mary, standing off the curb and in the guttter has her lens OVER the top of the windshield of the closest motorcycle, which IIRC was 54 inches tall?????? Wanna try again?"" You figure it out, your the one objecting......To Mary's information. If you do not believe the witnesses who were there, and their almost immediate interviews, while you and the rest of us were not... ....That, is entirely up to you.. B.. ********************** Chris: This photo below is from Jack....... B....... 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 have it figured out...do you? ****************************** Why is it, that people who were not there, continually try to put Their words into the mouths of the witnesses......And continually, try to say what they meant...?? It doesn't work that way.... These people were, intelligent, they were there, they had seen what had occurred, the researchers had not, anyone who does such, and it is continually done by some....is for their own reasons .. Mary stated what she did on Nov. 22/63..at approx 3.30 pm.....and she repeated it, in 1997... That should tell the researchers I would think something??? They were her words..you cannot change them.. Simply because they do not fit in with whomever's theory, or scenario.....does not give the researchers who try to do so, that right....... why is it that some of those researchers will believe some of the witnesses verbatum when they do fit their theory,.......... but will not accept other witnesses statements, when they do not, that is a double standard... Mary stated what she did, no one can change her words, they were and are Hers.... Deal with them, not what anyone supposes.... Deal with the documentation and evidence we have, do not try to change it.......IMO... 11-22-63, from KRLD Radio tape reels.The reel was an interview by Jay Hogan of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill at 3:30 pm...on KRLD RADIO excerpts, Tape 5B and 6A at NARA. Excerpts HOGAN: Q: Hello, Mrs. Moorman? A: Yes. Q You took the picture just after the shootong ,or just before? A: Evidently, just immediately, as the....Cause, he was looking, you know whenever I got the camera focused and I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q:About how close were you ? (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more. . . Because I fell behind my camera. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there? A: We stepped out in the street. WE WERE RIGHT AT THE CAR. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: How many shots did you hear? You say "shots rang out". A: Oh, oh, I don't know. I think three or four is what I, I uh, that I heard. Q: Uh huh. A: (continuing) that I'm sure of. Now, I don't know, there might have been more. It just took seconds for me to realize what was happening. Q: Yeah, uh, what as your first thought? A: That those ARE shots. I mean, he had been HIT. And that they're liable to hit me, cause I'm right at the car. so I decided the place for me is to get on the ground (laughs). Q: So huh, how did the president respond to this shot. I mean, did he just slump suddenly? A: He grabbed his chest, and of course, Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately, and fell over him; and she said: "My God, he's been shot." Q: Did you notice any other reactions... (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Uh, they hesitated just for a moment [referring, I believe, to the car itself, rather than to the behavior of any particular individual--dsl] cause I think they were like I was, you know--'Was that a shot," or was it just a backfire, or just what? And then, course, he clutched himself and they immediately sped up, real fast, you know, like--to get OUT of there. And, uh, the police, there were several motorcycles around him; and, uh, they stopped, and uh--one or two must of went with him, And one ran up the hill, and a friend that was with me ran up the hill across the street from where the shots came from. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: It (shots) seemed fairly close by? A: Yes, uh huh. Q And from what direction did they seem to be? A: Oh, Lord? North. Just back there (at--laughs) Q: Just just right at you? A: Yes, sir. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might have been a firecracker right there in that car. Q: And in your picture, uh, you took this picture just BEFORE the shot? (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A:Evidently, at the minute ( means "instant" that he, that hit him because, uh we was ,we was looking, at me,or I mean, he was looking, you know at the people when my picture came out. They just slumped over, so I must have got it.... (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Yes, uh huh. You could see he's clutched, he's bent over, and she's... and she hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: Uh huh. And you and your friend Miss Hill, uh, were together there at the scene. Was anybody else with you? A No, uh uh. Q: OK, well we sure thank you. FROM HERE ON OUT, the interview continues with Jean Hill This was posted here on the EF by Jack White from David Lifton Feb.07... ******************************* I found this partial copy of an interview of Mary Moorman, in a search a couple of years back.... Mary stated she WAS in the street again, when she took her polaroid.....in 1997..... While being interviewed by KRLD ....The interview was originally, and kindly provided by Debra Conway..... Moorman: "UH, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my friend who was with me ( Jean Hill ) we were right ready to take the picture. And she's not timid. She, as the car approached us, she did hollar for the president . " Mr.President, look this way ! AND I'D STEPPED OUT OFF THE CURB INTO THE STREET TO TAKE THE PICTURE. AND SNAPPED IT IMMEDIATELY .And that evidently was the first shot .You know I could hear the sound.And. Jones: "Now, when you heard the sound, did you immediately think 'rifle shot'..?" Moorman: "Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up on to the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know. Knowing something was wrong . I cetainly didn't know what was wrong. " ********************************** Mary took ONE polaroid Photo of the President, and ONE of the motorcyle cop...earlier..... Only ONE of the PRESIDENT.........and in that photo, he was taking a shot to the head...she did Not take any photo of him approaching her, ....so how anyone can possibly try to make it out that what she took, was as they turned the corner, has anything to do with an earlier one that she took of the Motorcycle Policeman... Simply does not and cannot gel...Deal with what Mary says, that day, not what you want to think she says..... B..... Edited July 8, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) Deal with the documentation and evidence we have, do not try to change it.......IMO... I am dealing with the evidence....the photographic evidence, and that shows she was in the grass. There is NO evidence that the photographic evidence is altered, and that leaves Mary's words as suspect. Lets take this one answer: "We stepped out in the street. WE WERE RIGHT AT THE CAR." That is simply impossible. There were TWO MC cops in the lane near Mary. BOTH are included in her polaroid image. Her lens is ABOVE the windshield of the nearest motorcycle. If she was where she stated the outboard cop would have hit her and her photograph would have shown a much larger windshied and from a lower level. She does not know how many shots were fired, She does not know the order. She does not know where she was standing. Not very convincing stuff. You can take it however you want but I know where my trust falls, and its not eyewitness statements. Edited July 8, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) Why is it, that people who were not there, continually try to put Their words into the mouths of thewitnesses......And continually, try to say what they meant...?? It doesn't work that way.... These people were, intelligent, they were there, they had seen what had occurred, the researchers had not, anyone who does such, and it is continually done by some....is for their own reasons .. Mary stated what she did on Nov. 22/63..at approx 3.30 pm.....and she repeated it, in 1997... That should tell the researchers I would think something??? They were her words..you cannot change them.. Bernice, These people were intelligent and also under a lot of stress and shock. But let me play along with your line of reasoning. So lets us examine Moorman's detailed explanation in the next few sentences .... "A: Evidently, just immediately, as the....Cause, he was looking, you know whenever I got the camera focused and I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over." I must say that her description was most enlightening. You don't think that Mary is still in shock and all those mental images are running through her head in no specific order? Do you really think Mary was out in the street near the car and that she somehow avoided getting run over by the motorcycles? Has a single witness to the assassination ever said that Hill and/or Moorman bolted into the street as JFK was killed? Of course you have not ever heard not even a whisper of a witness saying such a thing. Mary has been reported on record as saying that she had stepped out into the street to take one of her photos. Does not the McBride photo clearly show Mary's camera height to be about 4 to 6 inches down from the top of the cycle's windshield? Does not Mary's #5 picture show an elevated view looking slightly downward over the cycles windshields? Now about Mary's word not being changed ... could it be that they have been misinterpreted or that Mary may have unintentionally got the timing of her actions wrong. And how about Mary's answer to Mark Oakes when Mark asked her what she thought about Jack's claim about her being in the street when she took her famous photo - "I think the whole thing is silly." Is there any reason that Mary or Jean would not speak up and tell someone that the assassination films have it all wrong because she and Mary were in the street when JFK was fatally shot? Any reason that you can think of that Jean Hill who promoted there being a conspiracy in JFK's assassination would tell a listener on Len's radio show that she had gotten back out of the street before the first shot was fired if she had not of done so?? Then there is Jean Hill who has said that she and Mary had stepped out into the street as the motorcade approached - that would certainly account for the McBride photo. Then Jean said that she had gotten back out of the street before the first shot was ever fired. The very latest moment that the first shot could have been fired at was at Z202 because the very intelligent witness (Phil Willis) said that he took his photo upon hearing the first shot. Then there are all those assassination photos and films that are in sinc with one another and all show the exact same things. So my question to you is do YOU believe that Moorman misspoke immediately after the assassination and was later right when she told Mark that the whole thing is silly - or do you think her photo was altered while in her possession, all within the first 35 minutes following the shooting, and that she and Jean had motives to keep these film alterations a secret? Bill Edited July 8, 2007 by Bill Miller 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