Moorman Comparison

[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.

[David G. Healy]

After reading this thread it is just amazing, to me, how Mr. Lamson and Mr. Miller just freak about ANYTHING Mr. White says. There is a civility to a debate that appears to be lost to you gentlemen.

If Jack White said the sun was yellow, Mr. Lamson would, with little doubt, proclaim how narrow minded he was and that the sun is orange and he needs to do better "research".

Are you gentlemen sure you are adults? From the tone of your postings, it appears otherwise.

It is refreshing to have a new member of the forum with intelligence.

As for Lamson and "Miller"...ignore them. Their words tell us everything

we need to know about them.

Jack

Churchin has shown some flash of intelligence? Oh yea, he posted blind support of the misinformation-ist in chief!

So Jack you gonna deal with your error about the height of the MC windshields and Marys lens height or are you gonna run away as usual?

post the proof -- Miller's phone call doesn't cut it, nor is it proof here or anywhere else, champ! Just another Lone Nut opinion.... So, how do YOU know the top of the MC windshield is 58" off the ground in the Moorman 5?

Edited July 10, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

JFK happens to be an excellent "Learning Tool"* as to what one should and/or should not believe of the mass media.

As well as conducting proper research into the subject matter before sticking one's foot into their mouth.

Tom,

I appreciate the movie "JFK" as well as anyone, but it is still a screenplay with many errors in it. Unless one learns the evidence first, then how will they know what is accurate and what is not when they do watch a movie like "JFK"?

I agree with much of the rest that you said.

Bill

[Jack White]

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.

John...clearly you are not familiar with the contents of TGZFH. And your slur about "royalties" is ill-conceived.

None of the contributors received ANY royalty. That is an assumption on your part. I contributed my studies

for altrustic reasons, not for compensation.

Attacking the entire book and all of its contributors is clearly illogical, for it is unlikely that every word in it

has no redeeming value. For instance, David Lifton's chapter alone is worth the price of the book...but since

you have not read it, you would not know.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

After reading this thread it is just amazing, to me, how Mr. Lamson and Mr. Miller just freak about ANYTHING Mr. White says. There is a civility to a debate that appears to be lost to you gentlemen.

If Jack White said the sun was yellow, Mr. Lamson would, with little doubt, proclaim how narrow minded he was and that the sun is orange and he needs to do better "research".

Are you gentlemen sure you are adults? From the tone of your postings, it appears otherwise.

It is refreshing to have a new member of the forum with intelligence.

As for Lamson and "Miller"...ignore them. Their words tell us everything

we need to know about them.

Jack

Churchin has shown some flash of intelligence? Oh yea, he posted blind support of the misinformation-ist in chief!

So Jack you gonna deal with your error about the height of the MC windshields and Marys lens height or are you gonna run away as usual?

post the proof -- Miller's phone call doesn't cut it, nor is it proof here or anywhere else, champ! Just another Lone Nut opinion.... So, how do YOU know the top of the MC windshield is 58" off the ground in the Moorman 5?

I MEASURED IT! I suggest YOU do the same. Plenty of clues there davie, if you know were to look. Why not try your hand at some actual photographic research for a change...you know put your name on something other that a cut and paste. You have the guts davie?

Edited July 10, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

John Dolva' wrote:

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?

[...]

We've the BEST (Costella's) of the worst Z-film/frames, you're correct! When one realizes there are (6th Floor Museum?) 35mm slides or 4x5 trannies taken of Z-film frames, access to those either sets, with in-camera Zapruder film ccomparison and confirmation would get us well on down the road...

[John Dolva]

"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."

Tom, I realise you're dealing with the meat of the matter.

Don't get me wrong.

Now, having read the history of your own research, I understand this better. (My own research lies in an other direction re checking frame by frame photographers positions derived from items that are peripheral to the West plat, such things as lamppost locations and the area around the underpass as well as the whole colonade structure with an unbroken connection of imagery to the buildings.) I accept your position and I also understand that the WC/Government are in possession of copies and could, if they wished, publish the plat in full size.

What you do publish here is apprecated and also you understand the problem one has in piecing together portions with complete accuracy. Peace.

re the Garrison question? Can you (in time) share what you know there?

EDIT:: Jack, missed your post.

I accept your comment re 'slur' and apologise. One sometimes gets a sense this forum is a "book-shop". Gratitude extended to you, and all who contribute, wthout regard for 'reward'.

Edited July 10, 2007 by John Dolva

[Bill Miller]

Why Bill Miller (or anyone else, for that matter) would suppose that David or I had changed our minds about Mary-in-the-street is beyond me! Our work with Jack was spot-on at the time and no evidence to the contrary has emerged since. Indeed, my impression is that the case has only grown stronger. I would encourage everyone with a serious interest in these matters to read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, which provides the most thorough and detailed discussion of the photographic record, including, especially, the Zapruder film, currently available, including an excellent series of studies by Jack!

Jim - you must be joking. You had told me on the phone that you were aware of some of Jack's mistakes. In fact, you posted on Lancer that you were not responsible for the claims made in your book when you came under attack for putting such poorly researched material in that book.

Any time you wish to join in and offer some actual evidence to why Moorman was in the street, then feel free to do so. So far I have not read how a 54" camera lens height got elevated above a 58" high motorcycle windshield as seen in Moorman's photo, especially when Jack has placed Moorman in the gutter near the curb which is the lowest part of the street? I also have not herard you tell us how if Moorman and Hill were in that gutter, then why are the tops of their shoes seen in Muchmore's film?? I also have not heard you say how it is that Moorman's and Hill's shadows in Altgens #6 photograph are seen coming from the grass when Jack believes them to already be in the street??? And then there is that darned "GAP" problem between the colonnade window and the corner of the pedestal. Jack has taken the position that the gap was fabricated by 'the gang' and can only be found on the drum scan that Thompson had done. That bluff by Jack was quickly called when I asked him to ciite a source or post an image of any other Moorman print that didn't show the gap - can you believe that to date Jack has never done that - what a shocker!!! So with you being so loyal to Jack's 'Moorman in the street' claim, can you cite a Moorman photo source that doesn't show the gap that is seen in all the Moorman photo prints I have seen. I have checked with Thompson, Mack, Groden, Trask's books and nowhere can I find a print that shows the gap closed as Jack's study photo does. In fact, Moorman's photo (while still in her possession) was filmed for TV not 35 minutes after the assassination. That photo was shown on TV within hours of the assassination and the gap is there ... and so are Zapruder and Sitzman who in your book are claimed to have been inserted onto the pedestal at a later time as part of the conspiracy. Yes, fine study you guys did in the plaza, thus you won't mind answering some of these all important questions.

Thanks!

Bill

[Thomas H. Purvis]

JFK happens to be an excellent "Learning Tool"* as to what one should and/or should not believe of the mass media.

As well as conducting proper research into the subject matter before sticking one's foot into their mouth.

Tom,

I appreciate the movie "JFK" as well as anyone, but it is still a screenplay with many errors in it. Unless one learns the evidence first, then how will they know what is accurate and what is not when they do watch a movie like "JFK"?

I agree with much of the rest that you said.

Bill

then how will they know what is accurate and what is not when they do watch a movie like "JFK"?

Because the human species, above all other creatures, was endowed with the ability for deductive reasoning as well as taking factual knowledge and passing it along in order that others could build on it.

(Which is of course in direct conflict with the JFK assassination subject matter)

And, the old "Vice Versa"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Versa

The title originates from the Latin phrase, "vice versa", meaning "the other way around".

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

If one accepts the theory/evidence of "Imprinting", then by that token everyone who first reads the WC Report should accept it as being the factual truths.

Although perhaps mistaken, I do not live under the impression that our creator endowed us with the abilities which we have, in order that we could remain stupid/ignorant/and/or uneducated.

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

Unfortunately, few have been trained in "Propoganda"! As well as how to recognize it when seen, and thereafter sort out what is and what is not factual.

Which of course has much to do with the JFK movie as well as the WC.

Shall we call it the "Battle of the BS"?

There will always be those who believe and follow the concepts and ideas of the movie "JFK". So goes life!

There will always be those who believe anf follow the concepts and ideas of the WC Report. So goes life!

Then there is the "Lone Nut", who climbs out on a limb all by himself and yells that both are right, yet both are wrong!

The correct concept being:

Believe none of the above!

Find out for oneself what is and what is not factual!

Which is of course becoming more and more difficult to accomplish as time; additional confusion (such as "JFK"); and death takes it's toll against what is and what is not the factual truths.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This fellow appears to be massively ignorant. All of he contributors to the books I have edited on JFK, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, are experts on different aspects of the case, or I would not have invited them to contribute. Their credentials are summarized in each of the books, if you want to check out the page (cleverly) entitled, "CONTRIBUTORS". As for myself, just visit http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ and you can learn all you want about me. David W. Mantik, by the way, has a Ph.D. in phyiscs and an M.D., with a specialization in radiation oncology. John P. Costella has a Ph.D. in physics, with a specialization in electromagnetism. None of us makes a dime off the sale of these books, because all of it goes to support additional assassination research. I would bet that no one on this thread is unware of this, except for the author of this arrogant post, which displays a complete lack of knowledge about major contributors to the case, even though that information is readily available in standard works. Since the Costella version of the film, which is archived at http://www.assassinationscience.com, is the technically most accurate version we have, this guy either does not know what he is talking about or is intent on sowing confusion about research on this extremely difficult topic. Anyone who wants to begin to understand the basis for concluding that the film has been subjected to an elaborate recreation should review Costella's introductory seminar, which is archived on that same site. From this post, I infer that this guy should not be taken seriously.

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.

Edited July 10, 2007 by James H. Fetzer

[David G. Healy]

After reading this thread it is just amazing, to me, how Mr. Lamson and Mr. Miller just freak about ANYTHING Mr. White says. There is a civility to a debate that appears to be lost to you gentlemen.

If Jack White said the sun was yellow, Mr. Lamson would, with little doubt, proclaim how narrow minded he was and that the sun is orange and he needs to do better "research".

Are you gentlemen sure you are adults? From the tone of your postings, it appears otherwise.

It is refreshing to have a new member of the forum with intelligence.

As for Lamson and "Miller"...ignore them. Their words tell us everything

we need to know about them.

Jack

Churchin has shown some flash of intelligence? Oh yea, he posted blind support of the misinformation-ist in chief!

So Jack you gonna deal with your error about the height of the MC windshields and Marys lens height or are you gonna run away as usual?

post the proof -- Miller's phone call doesn't cut it, nor is it proof here or anywhere else, champ! Just another Lone Nut opinion.... So, how do YOU know the top of the MC windshield is 58" off the ground in the Moorman 5?

I MEASURED IT! I suggest YOU do the same. Plenty of clues there davie, if you know were to look. Why not try your hand at some actual photographic research for a change...you know put your name on something other that a cut and paste. You have the guts davie?

Measure what, champ? The actual windscreen as it was on the actual limo escort motorcyle on 11/23/63...? Where, when, who was there (when you measured the attached windshield), and a verifiable affidavit with your measurements/ findings, complete with DPD motorcycle ID & Registration number. AND a DPD statement stating that yes indeed, the motorcyle windscreen you measured was from that very motorcycle displayed in Moorman 5 photo, left rear limo position adjacent to Elm Street north curbing (and in DP that day). Just post the evidence, big guy! No time for nonsense and/or opinions.

[Jack White]

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

[Craig Lamson]

After reading this thread it is just amazing, to me, how Mr. Lamson and Mr. Miller just freak about ANYTHING Mr. White says. There is a civility to a debate that appears to be lost to you gentlemen.

If Jack White said the sun was yellow, Mr. Lamson would, with little doubt, proclaim how narrow minded he was and that the sun is orange and he needs to do better "research".

Are you gentlemen sure you are adults? From the tone of your postings, it appears otherwise.

It is refreshing to have a new member of the forum with intelligence.

As for Lamson and "Miller"...ignore them. Their words tell us everything

we need to know about them.

Jack

Churchin has shown some flash of intelligence? Oh yea, he posted blind support of the misinformation-ist in chief!

So Jack you gonna deal with your error about the height of the MC windshields and Marys lens height or are you gonna run away as usual?

post the proof -- Miller's phone call doesn't cut it, nor is it proof here or anywhere else, champ! Just another Lone Nut opinion.... So, how do YOU know the top of the MC windshield is 58" off the ground in the Moorman 5?

I MEASURED IT! I suggest YOU do the same. Plenty of clues there davie, if you know were to look. Why not try your hand at some actual photographic research for a change...you know put your name on something other that a cut and paste. You have the guts davie?

Measure what, champ? The actual windscreen as it was on the actual limo escort motorcyle on 11/23/63...? Where, when, who was there (when you measured the attached windshield), and a verifiable affidavit with your measurements/ findings, complete with DPD motorcycle ID & Registration number. AND a DPD statement stating that yes indeed, the motorcyle windscreen you measured was from that very motorcycle displayed in Moorman 5 photo, left rear limo position adjacent to Elm Street north curbing (and in DP that day). Just post the evidence, big guy! No time for nonsense and/or opinions.

Yep the actual windshield of the actual escort MC on 11/23/63. My measurements CONFIRMED the measurements quoted by Bill Miller. All the evidence you need is in Altgens. Hop to it davie...do a little REAL research for a change. Your blovation and bluster are getting a bit old.

[John Dolva]

James: "This fellow appears to be massively ignorant." "From this post, I infer that this guy should not be taken seriously."

Indeed, 'tis true. Thank you.

"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[EDIT:: most presumptious of me.]) 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."

Edited July 10, 2007 by John Dolva

[Bill Miller]

After reading this thread it is just amazing, to me, how Mr. Lamson and Mr. Miller just freak about ANYTHING Mr. White says. There is a civility to a debate that appears to be lost to you gentlemen.

If Jack White said the sun was yellow, Mr. Lamson would, with little doubt, proclaim how narrow minded he was and that the sun is orange and he needs to do better "research".

Are you gentlemen sure you are adults? From the tone of your postings, it appears otherwise.

John, sorry if the tone of my responses seems short, but these points have been raised for years to these guys who bought into Jack's claims and none of them ever address these facts ... facts BTW that they did not have at the time they made their claims.

Maybe it will be time once again to cite a remark Groden had made pertaining to Jack's alteration claims and how much damage they have caused the research community. People of Jack's status have a higher responsibility to be accurate in what they say and write about. Claiming Altgens #6 to be genuine only to flip-flop once it is brought to light that it disproves a Jack White claim doesn't cut it. Here is another point ... when Jack did his Badge Man study - did he and Mack place Mary's location in the street or in the grass? I'm betting that it was in the grass.

The point is that if Jack would simply have answered the questions being put to him to start with - this topic would have been dead a long time ago. By his not addressing the problems with his claims, then he keeps them alive. The question then must be asked - When does Jack's claims become more important than getting to the truth about JFK's murder? (if that is even possible)

Bill