Moorman Comparison

[Miles Scull]

'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?

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

dgh,

Additionally, it might be useful to ask the narrower question:

Can you, and will you, produce for the forum the exact source for the valid information that the top of that *SPECIFIC* windshield is exactly 58" off the ground?

Let's see the goods, Dobbsie.

M

[Craig Lamson]

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

Uh Jack, I have "touched" your silly question. I have said in an post upthread is it VERY CLEAR that the Z/S standins were NOWHERE NEAR the position of Z/S in Moorman. As such your claim that the recreation proves ANYTHING in regard to the window is simply hogwash.

You say it is impossible to shoot a recreation with the windows covered. But unless you have actually tried and can furnish solid proof then once again you are waving your hands wildly. You are making this silly claim...you provide the evidence to back it up.

Now if you want to pony up my expences and pay my day rate of $2500 for every day I'm there I wll be more than happy to pop on down. I'll even bring the "Horsearoid" ( my 4x5 Horseman view camera with a lens from a Polaroid Model 80...just like Mary's) and we will shoot this the right way for once. No more silly 35mm crap, no more "camera obscura", no wrong model polaroid...we will do it right. Heck we can even load up some Polaroid 3000iso sheet film and bust your Badgeman myth once and for all.

So drop me a check, expence money and 1/2 deposit on the day rate times the number of days you want me there and I'll book the time in my schedule. Better hurry though, this is my busy season and time is tight

Edited July 9, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

Some unknown dunce asked:

"Oh and how did Mary shoot OVER the top of that 54" windshield?"

Well let's figure:

Mary was about 5'2" tall...or 64 inches tall; let's add an inch for the

heels of her shoes.

Let's see...can a person 65 inches tall shoot a photo over something

54 inches tall? OF COURSE THEY CAN. Eleven inches is plenty of

room to work with! Simple math.

...and of course, that is not counting that the motorcycle was GOING

DOWNHILL AWAY FROM HER.

Next question.

Jack

[Jack White]

The expensive photographer bluffed:

"Now if you want to pony up my expences and pay my day rate of $2500 for every day I'm there I wll be more than happy to pop on down. ...Better hurry though, this is my busy season and time is tight."

Let's see now...that is about $100 an hour. With his tight schedule and being so busy and

all, I wonder if he has ever figured how much money he is losing by being on the computer

day and night. Or is someone paying his day rate for him to monitor what is said on the

internet? How does he ever have time with his busy schedule to ever do all that he does

and still take photos for pay too?

He huffs and puffs and bluffs...BECAUSE HE HAS SEEN THE PROOF THAT NO PHOTO CAN

BE TAKEN ON THE MOORMAN LINE OF SIGHT WITHOUT SHOWING THE FOUR WINDOW

OPENINGS.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

The expensive photographer bluffed:

"Now if you want to pony up my expences and pay my day rate of $2500 for every day I'm there I wll be more than happy to pop on down. ...Better hurry though, this is my busy season and time is tight."

Let's see now...that is about $100 an hour. With his tight schedule and being so busy and

all, I wonder if he has ever figured how much money he is losing by being on the computer

day and night. Or is someone paying his day rate for him to monitor what is said on the

internet? How does he ever have time with his busy schedule to ever do all that he does

and still take photos for pay too?

He huffs and puffs and bluffs...BECAUSE HE HAS SEEN THE PROOF THAT NO PHOTO CAN

BE TAKEN ON THE MOORMAN LINE OF SIGHT WITHOUT SHOWING THE FOUR WINDOW

OPENINGS.

Jack

The old man prattled...

"Let's see now...that is about $100 an hour. With his tight schedule and being so busy and

all, I wonder if he has ever figured how much money he is losing by being on the computer

day and night."

A work day consists of 8 hours, which by my math is $312.50 per hour.

My season runs about 8 months, with lots of downtime. Today for example I spent the day working on this vr movie,

http://www.infocusinc.net/startest/HS282.mov

and my here trips earlier and now are simply a break from staring at images on the screen. What I do with my personal time is my business and if I want to spend it relaxing and enjoying the sillyness coming from the ct woo woo's, I will.

Jack is now a mind reader, since he claims to know what I have seen. Amazing.

Why not pony up the cash Jack if you are so certain you are correct. Book my time and I'll show you how to do some real photographic research.

[Craig Lamson]

[...]

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?

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

dgh,

Additionally, it might be useful to ask the narrower question:

Can you, and will you, produce for the forum the exact source for the valid information that the top of that *SPECIFIC* windshield is exactly 58" off the ground?

Let's see the goods, Dobbsie.

Sigh, how about a little research before jumping off the cliff?

Dr. John Costella's work showed clearly that Moorman camera's lens was looking down on the tops of the motorcycle windshields and the strut over the top of the limousine. "In other words," Dr. Costella explained, "her camera was pointed very, very slightly 'downwards.'" From this it follows that the Moorman camera was positioned higher than the top of the limousine and the tops of the motorcycle windshields. How high was the top of the limousine? Numerous sources give the height as 57 inches. How high were the tops of the motorcycle windshields? Here Miller became quite ingenious. He got in touch with a motorcycle museum in Sturgis, North Dakota which had one of the Dallas motorcade motorcycles on display. The museum properly inflated the tires and put a man weighing 225 pounds on the cycle. They then measured the distance to the top of the windshield. It was 58 inches. Given the eight-inch curb, Moorman's camera as shown in the Zapruder film was most likely at a height above the pavement of at least 61 or 62 inches. Had she taken her photo from the street, her camera would of necessity have been located above her head!!

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/history.html

Edited July 9, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Some unknown dunce asked:

"Oh and how did Mary shoot OVER the top of that 54" windshield?"

Well let's figure:

Mary was about 5'2" tall...or 64 inches tall; let's add an inch for the

heels of her shoes.

Let's see...can a person 65 inches tall shoot a photo over something

54 inches tall? OF COURSE THEY CAN. Eleven inches is plenty of

room to work with! Simple math.

...and of course, that is not counting that the motorcycle was GOING

DOWNHILL AWAY FROM HER.

Next question.

Jack

Geez Jack,

We went OVER AND OVER this years ago and here you are spewing misinformation.

Your math sucks. Lets take your 65 inches and subtract the distance from the top of her head to her eyeball. I just measured my 5'2" wifes head and the distance from the top of her head to her eyeball is 4.5 inches. We are no down to 61.5 inches. Next we need to subtract distance from the Model 80 viewfinder to the lens. My model 80 is at home but I seem to remember 3.5 inches as the drop. I check it out later to make sure. That leaves us with 58 inches. Now where have I seen that number before? Oh yea its the height of the MC windshield Mary PHOTOGRAPHED OVER THE TOP OF....

And lets not forget the in Jacks fantasy, Mary is standing IN THE GUTTER...lowering her lens height even more....

Added on edit:

I've dug out the Polaroid Model 80 and it appears, once again, that my memory is faulty. The actual drop from the viewfinder to the center of the lens is 2 1/2 inches, not the 3 1/2 stated above.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

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

Jack,

I have lost track of how many times your missing windows has been addressed ... I am sorry to see that your memory has completely failed you. The Bronson slide shows the west side of Zapruder's clothing to be sunlit and because Moorman's photo is a B&W image - you are mistaking the shaded side of Zapruder's clothing as his entire outline. In the example below you have simply drawn a line through the sunlit side of Zapruder's pants and jacket as if it doesn't exist. This is one of your errors.

The second error is that you didn't take your photo frm where Mary Moorman stood and that is why the gaps between the colonnade window and the pedestal are different between your photo and Mary's.

If you want to see more on the subject, then just do a simple forum search and you will probably find several threads addressing that mistake

Bill

[Bill Miller]

'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?

David,

Thanks for asking a question that has been answered for you several times in the past. If needed ... I can probably do a forum search and find where that information has been posted more than once. However, I will briefly tell the story once again. Some years back when Jack first posted his claim about where he thinks Moorman stood on the JFK Research Forum - there was a guy who had a DPD motorcycle that was said to have been in the JFK Dallas motorcade. I believe the bike was on Ebay or going on Ebay at the time. Anyway, I called him and asked about some of the specs of the bike concerning its measurements. One of the first things that I wanted to know was the ground measurement to the top of the windshield. As I posted then and several times since then - the standing height was 58". I assume that you remembered this piece of information in the past and had used it to formulate that you had never seen any signs of alteration - especially concerning Moorman being in the street.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

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.

Jack ... do you know what the height of the Queen Mary's windshield is from the ground - up??? Is it 58" as well??? I would appreciate you sharing that information with everyone.

Thanks!

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

Jack, there is a saying in the midwest that goes "IF" the dog hadn't of stopped to crap, then he would have caught the rabbit." Surely this and surely that isn't very convincing. The height of a Dallas cycles windshield on that make of bike was 58". YOU have Mary's camera lens height at 54". Now "SURELY" you can see the problem of you merely guessing at how something should look because where I come from - 58" is taller than 54".

...especially since the motorcycle HAD ALREADY PASSED

HER GOING DOWNHILL.

Jack

Martin is not even in view in Moorman's photo - just his windshield and handle bars. This means Martin was in the process of passing Mary when she took her photo. According to YOU - Mary is in the street just inches away from Martin's cycle and the road only has a 3% grade to it, so just how do you figure that short of a distance is effected by the grade of the street and why is Mary's camera lens height of only 54" according to YOU still higher elevated than Martin's 58" tall windshield in Mary's photograph?

This should be good!

Bill

Edited July 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

dgh,

Additionally, it might be useful to ask the narrower question:

Can you, and will you, produce for the forum the exact source for the valid information that the top of that *SPECIFIC* windshield is exactly 58" off the ground?

Let's see the goods, Dobbsie.

M

I would suggest anyone really interested in this subject to do a forum search so they can read all the information that has been posted on the subject. This would save valuable time for people like myself by not having to repeat everything again to those too busy to actually do research for themselves.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote

David,

Thanks for asking a question that has been answered for you several times in the past. If needed ... I can probably do a forum search and find where that information has been posted more than once. However, I will briefly tell the story once again. Some years back when Jack first posted his claim about where he thinks Moorman stood on the JFK Research Forum - there was a guy who had a DPD motorcycle that was said to have been in the JFK Dallas motorcade. I believe the bike was on Ebay or going on Ebay at the time. Anyway, I called him and asked about some of the specs of the bike concerning its measurements. One of the first things that I wanted to know was the ground measurement to the top of the windshield. As I posted then and several times since then - the standing height was 58". I assume that you remembered this piece of information in the past and had used it to formulate that you had never seen any signs of alteration - especially concerning Moorman being in the street.

Bill

Edited July 9, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Thomas H. Purvis]

dgh,

Additionally, it might be useful to ask the narrower question:

Can you, and will you, produce for the forum the exact source for the valid information that the top of that *SPECIFIC* windshield is exactly 58" off the ground?

Let's see the goods, Dobbsie.

M

I would suggest anyone really interested in this subject to do a forum search so they can read all the information that has been posted on the subject. This would save valuable time for people like myself by not having to repeat everything again to those too busy to actually do research for themselves.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

do research for themselves

Bill;

You must be a "communist" or something along that lines.

Exactly what would this world come to if everyone were actually to conduct their own research.

Barbara had never seen JFK, so we watched it last night.

Does that mean that I get "extra credit" for having done this wonderful "research" again???????

If I should drag out and read "BEST EVIDENCE" again, do I get to sit in the front of the class????

do research for themselves

Move over "Fantasyland", here comes Bill!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

dgh,

Additionally, it might be useful to ask the narrower question:

Can you, and will you, produce for the forum the exact source for the valid information that the top of that *SPECIFIC* windshield is exactly 58" off the ground?

Let's see the goods, Dobbsie.

M

I would suggest anyone really interested in this subject to do a forum search so they can read all the information that has been posted on the subject. This would save valuable time for people like myself by not having to repeat everything again to those too busy to actually do research for themselves.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

do research for themselves

Bill;

You must be a "communist" or something along that lines.

Exactly what would this world come to if everyone were actually to conduct their own research.

Barbara had never seen JFK, so we watched it last night.

Does that mean that I get "extra credit" for having done this wonderful "research" again???????

If I should drag out and read "BEST EVIDENCE" again, do I get to sit in the front of the class????

do research for themselves

Move over "Fantasyland", here comes Bill!

[Chris Davidson]

This composite is a frame from the Malcolm Couch movie layed over Moorman.

If the pergola and wall line up between the two photos (red arrows), not the pergola openings per say, shouldn't the limo be at the same angle as the curb line?

thanks

chris