Jump to content
The Education Forum

Fetzer -Thompson debate paper


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Click on this URL:

http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/

Jack

Ms Moorman snapped a picture with her Polaroid camera at about the exact moment the fatal headshot was fired killing the 35th President of the United States.

Ms Moorman and her companion, Jean Hill, stated numerous times that Mary was standing in the street, the extant Zapruder film shows both women standing on the infield grass.

James Fetzer is a learned man, judging by his academic publications, but when he talks about the Zapruder film he sounds like Clever John in the old adage: Clever John could name a horse in seven languages, but bought a cow to ride on.

When Mary Moorman and Jean Hill found themselves watching a man being shot to death in front of their eyes, the exact location of their feet must have been about the last thing on their minds. Why should anyone trust their memory (the fallibility of memory is scientifically established) regarding a fact which -- at the time -- was of NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER compared to the events they were witnessing, (and that Zapruder was filming).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J:

It is not what Dr.Fetzer states in this information........

It is what the contributors have... if you had read the information within I think you would have known such...

For instance......

""Moorman: Uh, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know,there was tremendous excitement. And my friend who was with me, we were right ready to take the picture. And she’s not timid. She, as the car approached us, she did holler 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 thatevidently was the first shot. You know, I could hear the sound. And .

. .

The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness.

The practice of the Warren Commission and apologists for its findings appears to be the opposite, where photographs and films—including X-rays—have been used to discount the testimony of eyewitnesses, which is the better legal evidence.

A widely-held belief holds that eyewitness testimony tends to be unreliable. It was one of the remarkable aspects of Mantik's research, therefore, that he discovered a strikingly high degree of agreement among multiple witnesses about shots that hit the President's head. This led him to a review of the current literature on the reliability of witnesses, including a book by Elizabeth Loftus, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (1996). On Table 3.1, he discovered a summary of research with 151 subjects, which reported that, when subjects consider what they were observing to be salient (or significant), they were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their observations—reinforcing their importance as evidence and offering one more indication that popular opinions are not always true. ""

B.......

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness.

B.......

The Zapruder film is therefore admissable in evidence because Abe Zapruder testified (twice, including the Clay Shaw trial) that the film is an accurate representation of what he personally observed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness.

B.......

The Zapruder film is therefore admissable in evidence because Abe Zapruder testified (twice, including the Clay Shaw trial) that the film is an accurate representation of what he personally observed.

You ought to reread Mr. Z's testimony. He does not exactly endorse the accuracy of the film.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

When Mary Moorman and Jean Hill found themselves watching a man being shot to death in front of their eyes, the exact location of their feet must have been about the last thing on their minds. Why should anyone trust their memory (the fallibility of memory is scientifically established) regarding a fact which -- at the time -- was of NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER compared to the events they were witnessing, (and that Zapruder was filming).

Fetzer came on Lancer's forum and when pressed for details .... he stated that he was just the book editor and didn't bare the responsibility of the hoax claims found within ... that he was merely offering an alternative view. Away from Lancer he goes beyond this and goes back to supporting Jack's whacked out claims such as Moorman being in the street. I contend that these guys have motives for making these claims and the truth isn't it.

Before Jean Hill had died, Jean told Len Osanic on Black Op' Radio that she had stepped into the street when JFK's car rounded the corner at Elm and Houston, but Jean made it clear that she had also gotten back out of the street BEFORE the first shot was fired.

Jack likes to mention to people that Jean stepped into the street, but does not tell people that Jean also time stamped when she had gotten back out of the street. One must wonder what motive Jack could possibly have for continually choosing to withhold this important information when promoting his 'Moorman in the street' claim.

Mary Moorman is still living and I have never seen a single word mentioned by Jack or Fetzer where they have contacted Mary and asked her point blank if the assassination films correctly show her position when the President was fatally shot. It seems to me that this would be a no-brainer to anyone wanting to support their claim, but its not been done .... least ways by Jack or Fetzer. If they have spoken with Moorman, they must not have gotten the response that they sought or surely they would have used it to bolster their hoax claim. One must also ask why they have not done this and reported the results one way or the other?

Years ago it was pointed out to Jack and Fetzer that Moorman's camera is elevated over the tops of the passing cycles windscreens. This observation can be verified by any first year art student. Jack gave a 54/54.5" lens height for Mary Moorman's camera lens and I let them know that the windscreen's standing height on the passing cycles was 58" high. To date I have not seen where anyone has been able to deny this data ... instead it is just kept from the listener by Jack and Fetzer.

Furthermore, at one point, Jack had said that the Drum Scan was a false image created by Josiah Thompson designed to create a gap between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window seen in the background of Moorman's Polaroid. Jack and Fetzer offered in their allegation of Moorman standing in the street ... a view of where they claim Moorman was standing when Mary took her famous Polaroid. Their photo shows no cap between these two reference points. When I examined all the other prints available in books and such, I found that they all show the same gap that Thompson's drum scan does. I then asked Jack to produce a single known Moorman's print that shows the same thing as his recreation photo does concerning this gap issue and to date he has not done it.

One must ask with all these counter points and little details being left out of their 'Moorman in the street' claim, when should they realize that they have made a mistake, that they have not done a thorough inquiry, and that people are now aware of it ... before they quit pushing such nonsense. You see, when one pushes something that has flaws that they were not aware of, then its an honest mistake. But when they continue to push a claim that they know has flaws in it, then it becomes the promotion of a lie.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

When Mary Moorman and Jean Hill found themselves watching a man being shot to death in front of their eyes, the exact location of their feet must have been about the last thing on their minds. Why should anyone trust their memory (the fallibility of memory is scientifically established) regarding a fact which -- at the time -- was of NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER compared to the events they were witnessing, (and that Zapruder was filming).

Fetzer came on Lancer's forum and when pressed for details .... he stated that he was just the book editor and didn't bare the responsibility of the hoax claims found within ... that he was merely offering an alternative view. Away from Lancer he goes beyond this and goes back to supporting Jack's whacked out claims such as Moorman being in the street. I contend that these guys have motives for making these claims and the truth isn't it.

Before Jean Hill had died, Jean told Len Osanic on Black Op' Radio that she had stepped into the street when JFK's car rounded the corner at Elm and Houston, but Jean made it clear that she had also gotten back out of the street BEFORE the first shot was fired.

Jack likes to mention to people that Jean stepped into the street, but does not tell people that Jean also time stamped when she had gotten back out of the street. One must wonder what motive Jack could possibly have for continually choosing to withhold this important information when promoting his 'Moorman in the street' claim.

Mary Moorman is still living and I have never seen a single word mentioned by Jack or Fetzer where they have contacted Mary and asked her point blank if the assassination films correctly show her position when the President was fatally shot. It seems to me that this would be a no-brainer to anyone wanting to support their claim, but its not been done .... least ways by Jack or Fetzer. If they have spoken with Moorman, they must not have gotten the response that they sought or surely they would have used it to bolster their hoax claim. One must also ask why they have not done this and reported the results one way or the other?

Years ago it was pointed out to Jack and Fetzer that Moorman's camera is elevated over the tops of the passing cycles windscreens. This observation can be verified by any first year art student. Jack gave a 54/54.5" lens height for Mary Moorman's camera lens and I let them know that the windscreen's standing height on the passing cycles was 58" high. To date I have not seen where anyone has been able to deny this data ... instead it is just kept from the listener by Jack and Fetzer.

Furthermore, at one point, Jack had said that the Drum Scan was a false image created by Josiah Thompson designed to create a gap between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window seen in the background of Moorman's Polaroid. Jack and Fetzer offered in their allegation of Moorman standing in the street ... a view of where they claim Moorman was standing when Mary took her famous Polaroid. Their photo shows no cap between these two reference points. When I examined all the other prints available in books and such, I found that they all show the same gap that Thompson's drum scan does. I then asked Jack to produce a single known Moorman's print that shows the same thing as his recreation photo does concerning this gap issue and to date he has not done it.

One must ask with all these counter points and little details being left out of their 'Moorman in the street' claim, when should they realize that they have made a mistake, that they have not done a thorough inquiry, and that people are now aware of it ... before they quit pushing such nonsense. You see, when one pushes something that has flaws that they were not aware of, then its an honest mistake. But when they continue to push a claim that they know has flaws in it, then it becomes the promotion of a lie.

Bill Miller

In certain circles, your Elm Street Film-Photo opinion means exactly, diddley-squat

** it's a tough gig trying to impress the professionals, isn't it, Wild Bill? You do have credentials for this area, yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In certain circles, your Elm Street Film-Photo opinion means exactly, diddley-squat

** it's a tough gig trying to impress the professionals, isn't it, Wild Bill? You do have credentials for this area, yes?

I have seen the circles that you hang out in ... They have a link detailing some of the vulgar psychotic things you say.

As far as credentials ... I have two Hoax members I can use ... One is you saying that you have seen no proof of alteration, which you must believe not to have even bothered making a request to view the camera original Zapruder film ... and the other is Costella who seems to now say that he has recognized the mistakes in that 'Moorman in the street' nonsense. How many more people with credentials do I need. (LOL!!!) :blink:

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...