Miles Scull Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I have noticed that responses to this thread focus on personal attacksand fail to address anomalies demonstrated. Jack I think Ms Kathy Beckett is keeping a close watch here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Craig & Bill....... What I do see, is that you are both still, trying to think for Mary and arrange her words to suit your purposes....... cest le vie.... B... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 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 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. I'm sorry to all who have contributed to this thread. I did not check the aspect ratio on the original Moorman photo I used. Then I compounded the problem by changing it again to get a more exact registration. Sloppy work!!!! The recreation photo had a 4:3 aspect ratio directly off the DVD. Thanks to Craig and Gary for pointing this out to me. This animation would be the original photos with 4:3 aspect ratios and the Moormon photo reduced to 26.4 %. I believe this is correct. If not, let me hear it. Will try to proceed with more caution in the future. thanks chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 (edited) Craig & Bill.......What I do see, is that you are both still, trying to think for Mary and arrange her words to suit your purposes....... cest le vie.... B... Bernice, please read my post very carefully. I know what Mary said and I asked you if she misspoke immediately after the assassination. It doesn't take a genius to understand that I am agreeing with your posting of Mary's original words, but it is the latter statement to Mark Oakes that is conflicting to it. I asked the question because I know that Mary has said that she wasn't in the street when she took her last photo, so which is right??? I laid out several reasons why she may have misspoke and I asked for your opinion, so just answer the question if you feel that you have an opinion. If you do not have an opinion, then that is ok, too. I am just checking to see how much thought you have put into this matter. Thanks, Bill Edited July 9, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I believe this is correct.If not, let me hear it. Will try to proceed with more caution in the future. thanks chris It certainly shows that the test photo was not taken from the exact spot where Moorman stood. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 OK, let's take Mary's statement: "We stepped out in the street. WE WERE RIGHT AT THE CAR." Elm Street is only 40 feet wide, curb to curb. Assuming the car about five feet wide, and the limo in the center of the center lane...we have...no, no we can't do that....because the Altgens photo shows the limo WAS NOT IN THE CENTER OF THE CENTER LANE. The right tire of the limo in Altgens appears to be "touching" one of the south lane stripes. Let's start over: Each lane is 13.3 feet wide....THEREFORE the driver side of the car was about 13 feet from the curb! Now Mary had stepped off the curb about two feet, so she was only 11 feet from the side of the car! Now it so happens that the room my computer is in is eleven feet wide, lined on each side by bookcases. Sitting in the center of the room at my computer, I can swivel my chair and get books from either side of the room. Eleven feet IS VERY CLOSE! I would say that since Mary was ELEVEN FEET FROM THE CAR, it was quite accurate of her to say: "We stepped out in the street. WE WERE RIGHT AT THE CAR." Next question... Oh...the motorcycles. Bike and rider are about 2 feet wide. Two bikes, four feet. Now let's see four feet from 13.3 feet leaves around 9 feet between the curb and limo for Mary and the two cops. But Mary was two feet off of the south curb. That just leaves 11 feet for Mary and the two bikes. Not a problem, even though the southmost bike came very close to Mary (see Moorman photo). Next question. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Craig & Bill.......What I do see, is that you are both still, trying to think for Mary and arrange her words to suit your purposes....... cest le vie.... B... The you don't see very well. I'm not doing ANYTHING to Mary's words. I'm simply checking them against other, more trustwothy evidence...the photography. The words you posted from Mary simply do not withstand scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 OK, let's take Mary's statement:"We stepped out in the street. WE WERE RIGHT AT THE CAR." Elm Street is only 40 feet wide, curb to curb. Assuming the car about five feet wide, and the limo in the center of the center lane...we have...no, no we can't do that....because the Altgens photo shows the limo WAS NOT IN THE CENTER OF THE CENTER LANE. The right tire of the limo in Altgens appears to be "touching" one of the south lane stripes. Let's start over: Each lane is 13.3 feet wide....THEREFORE the driver side of the car was about 13 feet from the curb! Now Mary had stepped off the curb about two feet, so she was only 11 feet from the side of the car! Now it so happens that the room my computer is in is eleven feet wide, lined on each side by bookcases. Sitting in the center of the room at my computer, I can swivel my chair and get books from either side of the room. Eleven feet IS VERY CLOSE! I would say that since Mary was ELEVEN FEET FROM THE CAR, it was quite accurate of her to say: "We stepped out in the street. WE WERE RIGHT AT THE CAR." Next question... Oh...the motorcycles. Bike and rider are about 2 feet wide. Two bikes, four feet. Now let's see four feet from 13.3 feet leaves around 9 feet between the curb and limo for Mary and the two cops. But Mary was two feet off of the south curb. That just leaves 11 feet for Mary and the two bikes. Not a problem, even though the southmost bike came very close to Mary (see Moorman photo). Next question. Jack Nice handwave there Jack. The bikes were 24" wide? Now thats a laugh. Of course you can provide us with some data to support your claim, if you can. Oh and how did Mary shoot OVER the top of that 54" windshield? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 (edited) Now Mary had stepped off the curb about two feet, so shewas only 11 feet from the side of the car! Isn't it funny that this is exactly the way the McBride photo shows her to be.I would say that since Mary was ELEVEN FEET FROM THECAR, it was quite accurate of her to say: "We stepped out in the street. WE WERE RIGHT AT THE CAR." Next question... Yes - I have several questions for you. 1) Can you guess as to how close the Martin cycle is running next to the curb as seen in Altgens #6? 2) Has it not been your position that the Muchmore film shows Hill and Moorman in the street? (I believe it has been your position) Now having asked that question ... how far out into the street from where Marie Muchmore stood do you think Hill and Moorman would need to be to have the tops of their shoes seen beyond the slope to the street (plus the drop of the curb)? Oh...the motorcycles. Bike and rider are about 2 feet wide.Two bikes, four feet. Now let's see four feet from 13.3 feet leaves around 9 feet between the curb and limo for Mary and the two cops. But Mary was two feet off of the south curb. That just leaves 11 feet for Mary and the two bikes. Not a problem, even though the southmost bike came very close to Mary (see Moorman photo). Next question. Jack, I am so glad that you mentioned how close the Martin cycle came to Mary Moorman ... this brings me to a question that has been asked, but never answered by you. It is a known fact that a DPD motorcycle windshield stood 58" off the ground which is higher than you say Moorman's camera lens was. Please tell us how it is that Moorman's photo shows her camera lens to be above the top of Martin's windshield? Bill Edited July 9, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Oh and how did Mary shoot OVER the top of that 54" windshield? Craig, I think you misspoke. I think Jack gave Mary about a 54" lens height. The DPD cycles stood 58" from the ground to the tops of their windshields. It is also worth noting that the center of the street slopes towards the curb so the water will run to the gutters and be drained away. Having Mary standing in a gutter makes it even harder for Jack to account for why her camera lens is elevated over the tops of the cycles windshields. I look so forward to Jack giving a sound and rational answer to that question. In fact, I have been waiting years for that question to be answered by Jack. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Oh and how did Mary shoot OVER the top of that 54" windshield? Craig, I think you misspoke. I think Jack gave Mary about a 54" lens height. The DPD cycles stood 58" from the ground to the tops of their windshields. It is also worth noting that the center of the street slopes towards the curb so the water will run to the gutters and be drained away. Having Mary standing in a gutter makes it even harder for Jack to account for why her camera lens is elevated over the tops of the cycles windshields. I look so forward to Jack giving a sound and rational answer to that question. In fact, I have been waiting years for that question to be answered by Jack. Bill Thanks Bill you are correct. I spoke from memory and it appears my memory was faulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Hi Jack: Your photo.... B.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Lots of nonsensical replies so far, but nobody dares to touch the question of the missing window openings in Moorman. That is the key issue here, and the reconstruction photo helps prove the INAUTHENTICITY of the "Moorman 5" photo. The concrete construction has not changed. Show us a photo TAKEN ON THE MOORMAN LINE OF SIGHT without the windows. It cannot be done. Gap or no gap is immaterial. Lamson the photo master should be able to do it if anyone can. Fly him to Dallas and let him take as many photos as he wants on whatever he determines to be the correct line of sight to the pedestal, and if he can shoot a photo matching Moorman WHICH DOES NOT HAVE THE WINDOWS, we can all close up shop and move on. It might even be worthwhile to pay his expenses so he can work his expertise to show us that the impossible is possible. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] Next question. Jack, I am so glad that you mentioned how close the Martin cycle came to Mary Moorman ... this brings me to a question that has been asked, but never answered by you. It is a known fact that a DPD motorcycle windshield stood 58" off the ground which is higher than you say Moorman's camera lens was. Please tell us how it is that Moorman's photo shows her camera lens to be above the top of Martin's windshield? Bill dgh: For openers, perhaps you can start with how you know that the top of that *SPECIFIC* windshield is exactly 58" off the ground? Edited July 9, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Hi Jack:Your photo.... B.. Thanks again, Bernice! Note the ACTUAL HEIGHT of the windshield is lower than the windshield of the Queen Mary. Even a short woman like Mary is taller than that. Note the height of the SEATED cop; surely a STANDING Mary was not shorter than the seated cop...and if taller, she could certainly see OVER the windshield...especially since the motorcycle HAD ALREADY PASSED HER GOING DOWNHILL. Jack 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