Jump to content
The Education Forum

Moorman-in-the-street?


Recommended Posts

I have read and looked at all of Professor Thompson's postings entitled MOORMAN-IN-THE-STREET.

I decline to participate in this charade. Dr. Thompson repeatedly refers to me and my work in a

false manner. He attributes to me things which I do not believe, and uses photos of mine in a

misleading manner. I do not have time to refute all of his false allegations. I have many things

to do that are far more productive with my time. It is wisely said that if you get involved in a

sh*t-fight, you will get covered with s*it.

This issue has been beat to death on another forum with endless ad hominem attacks and ignoring

of evidence to the contrary. I decline to get involved, and suggest that others ignore this as well.

No use inviting personal attacks.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It would be interesting to see what Jack White has to say about the claim he has backed for the last eight years. On the other forum, he also refused to participate under his own name but fed material to Professor Fetzer. Whether or not Jack White participates, the evidence stands independently for everyone to evaluate.

Josiah Thompson

I have read and looked at all of Professor Thompson's postings entitled MOORMAN-IN-THE-STREET.

I decline to participate in this charade. Dr. Thompson repeatedly refers to me and my work in a

false manner. He attributes to me things which I do not believe, and uses photos of mine in a

misleading manner. I do not have time to refute all of his false allegations. I have many things

to do that are far more productive with my time. It is wisely said that if you get involved in a

sh*t-fight, you will get covered with s*it.

This issue has been beat to death on another forum with endless ad hominem attacks and ignoring

of evidence to the contrary. I decline to get involved, and suggest that others ignore this as well.

No use inviting personal attacks.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer
It would be interesting to see what Jack White has to say about the claim he has backed for the last eight years. On the other forum, he also refused to participate under his own name but fed material to Professor Fetzer. Whether or not Jack White participates, the evidence stands independently for everyone to evaluate.

Josiah Thompson

I have read and looked at all of Professor Thompson's postings entitled MOORMAN-IN-THE-STREET.

I decline to participate in this charade. Dr. Thompson repeatedly refers to me and my work in a

false manner. He attributes to me things which I do not believe, and uses photos of mine in a

misleading manner. I do not have time to refute all of his false allegations. I have many things

to do that are far more productive with my time. It is wisely said that if you get involved in a

sh*t-fight, you will get covered with s*it.

This issue has been beat to death on another forum with endless ad hominem attacks and ignoring

of evidence to the contrary. I decline to get involved, and suggest that others ignore this as well.

No use inviting personal attacks.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

This is a ridiculous charade, as Jack has already observed. The debate over Moorman in the street consumed more than four months of exchange involving hundreds and hundreds of posts, from November through December and on to January and February. Participants included Jack White (indirectly), John P. Costella, David S. Lifton (indirectly), and me versus Josiah, Leonard Brasil, Bill Miller, and Barb. Josiah and his gang were bested "fair and square". You can find the results summarized at JFKresearch.com/Moorman/, where Rich DellaRosa archived my summary overview, "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited". Before expending time and effort in repetitious and pointless re-argument, let me suggest you review the bidding by reviewing my study. It should be apparent why, having completely exhausted the resources of jfk-research@yahoo.com, the gang wants to try to take in another audience. Buyer beward! A scam is afoot. This would be a colossal waste of time and effort. Never say I didn't warn you.

It would be interesting to see what Jack White has to say about the claim he has backed for the last eight years. On the other forum, he also refused to participate under his own name but fed material to Professor Fetzer. Whether or not Jack White participates, the evidence stands independently for everyone to evaluate.

Josiah Thompson

I have read and looked at all of Professor Thompson's postings entitled MOORMAN-IN-THE-STREET.

I decline to participate in this charade. Dr. Thompson repeatedly refers to me and my work in a

false manner. He attributes to me things which I do not believe, and uses photos of mine in a

misleading manner. I do not have time to refute all of his false allegations. I have many things

to do that are far more productive with my time. It is wisely said that if you get involved in a

sh*t-fight, you will get covered with s*it.

This issue has been beat to death on another forum with endless ad hominem attacks and ignoring

of evidence to the contrary. I decline to get involved, and suggest that others ignore this as well.

No use inviting personal attacks.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see: "Josiah and his gang were bested "fair and square". You can find the results summarized at JFKresearch.com/Moorman/, where Rich DellaRosa archived my summary overview, "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited". Before expending time and effort in repetitious and pointless re-argument, let me suggest you review the bidding by reviewing my study."

Let's see now. Instead of looking at the evidence concerning this issue (some of which is new and gathered only recently), you are all invited to forget what is posted and refer yourselves to Professor Fetzer's "study." Now, why would one want to do that rather than look at the evidence itself? But why not? Why not take a look at Professor Fetzer's study and see how incoherent it is before taking a look at the evidence?

Josiah Thompson

It would be interesting to see what Jack White has to say about the claim he has backed for the last eight years. On the other forum, he also refused to participate under his own name but fed material to Professor Fetzer. Whether or not Jack White participates, the evidence stands independently for everyone to evaluate.

Josiah Thompson

I have read and looked at all of Professor Thompson's postings entitled MOORMAN-IN-THE-STREET.

I decline to participate in this charade. Dr. Thompson repeatedly refers to me and my work in a

false manner. He attributes to me things which I do not believe, and uses photos of mine in a

misleading manner. I do not have time to refute all of his false allegations. I have many things

to do that are far more productive with my time. It is wisely said that if you get involved in a

sh*t-fight, you will get covered with s*it.

This issue has been beat to death on another forum with endless ad hominem attacks and ignoring

of evidence to the contrary. I decline to get involved, and suggest that others ignore this as well.

No use inviting personal attacks.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest that a far more important issue than Moorman-in-the-street, regarding Dallas on 11/22/63, is Jack-in-the-box.

As for Z-film alteration, I've been told that this would prove conspiracy. Is that really necessary? Well, it would prove the power of the conspirators. Is that really necessary? Well, it would prove the CIA (given a high-tech film lab and all) was probably involved. Is that really necessary? Well, . . . Oh, forget it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ name=James H. Fetzer' date='Mar 4 2009, 03:39 AM' post='163578]

Participants included Jack White (indirectly), John P. Costella, David S. Lifton (indirectly), and me versus Josiah, Leonard Brasil, Bill Miller, and Barb. Josiah and his gang were bested "fair and square". You can find the results summarized at JFKresearch.com/Moorman/, where Rich DellaRosa archived my summary overview, "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited". Before expending time and effort in repetitious and pointless re-argument, let me suggest you review the bidding by reviewing my study. It should be apparent why, having completely exhausted the resources of jfk-research@yahoo.com, the gang wants to try to take in another audience. Buyer beward! A scam is afoot. This would be a colossal waste of time and effort. Never say I didn't warn you.

[ name=Jack White' post='163575' date='Mar 4 2009, 01:38 AM]I have read and looked at all of Professor Thompson's postings entitled MOORMAN-IN-THE-STREET.

I decline to participate in this charade. Dr. Thompson repeatedly refers to me and my work in a

false manner. He attributes to me things which I do not believe, and uses photos of mine in a

misleading manner. I do not have time to refute all of his false allegations. I have many things

to do that are far more productive with my time. It is wisely said that if you get involved in a

sh*t-fight, you will get covered with s*it.

This issue has been beat to death on another forum with endless ad hominem attacks and ignoring

of evidence to the contrary. I decline to get involved, and suggest that others ignore this as well.

No use inviting personal attacks.

Jack

To any and all interested parties,

History will not have to tell the individuals who trying to sell Moorman being in the street that they should be ashamed of themselves for History will be ashamed enough of them for everyone. Not for questioning the photographic record, but for denying the basic facts in order to make an unbiased and educated evaluation. To anyone who can understand 'perspective' - they can let Moorman's photo tell them where she stood by the information contained within it.

I was shocked long ago that these individuals didn't bother to gather the necessary data needed to solve the matter of Moorman being in the street or not. There is a indisputable fact seen in Moorman's photo. It was obvious to me long ago that Mary Moorman's camera was elevated over the tops of the passing cycles windscreens, so I bothered to find out how tall a DPD motorcycle was from the ground up to the top of its windscreen. Shortly after this debate started on the old 'looney tunes forum' ... I received a notice from another researcher that a JFK Dallas motorcade cycle was for sale on Ebay. The bike came with a certificate of authenticity and during one of my many contacts with the owner - I had him measure the bike for me. The cycle was measured from the ground up to the top of its windscreen no less than three times. Measurements were made with both a rider sitting on the bike and again with him off of the bike. The standing height was reported to be 58" tall each time it was measured.

Having found out the standing height of a DPD motorcycle - I had built for me two 58" tall wooden stands so to shoot a test picture to see how they stacked up to the 58" tall cycles seen in Moorman's Polaroid. I took those stands to Dallas and stood them in the street in the pathway of Officers Hargis and Martin. Below is an animation that shows the view of those stands when seen 54.5" off the slope and again 54.5" off the street. Pay close attention to how those 58" stands appear against the background of the colonnade from the grass and again from the street. (see below)

58_inch_stand_test_grass_vs_street_.gif

Fetzer has said the following about the 'Laws of Nature' ....

Fetzer: "A law of nature cannot be violated - the law of nature cannot be

changed - the law of nature requires no enforcement".

I then took the picture of the 58" stands that was taken from the grass slope that Moorman is seen standing on in the photographic record and did a transparency overlay. (see below)

58_inch_stand_test_c.gif

Fetzer and White speak of the evidence ... well let them deal with the evidence of these images. The laws of nature that create these changes in perspective cannot be dismissed. They cannot be violated - they cannot be changed - they cannot be argued for they are solid. There is nothing about this simple test that cannot be recreated and validated.

Anyone who looks closely at these images will see several things that change from where Moorman took her photo compared to where White and Fetzer took theirs. For instance, the drop from the slope to the street will change the angle of the horizontal lines of the colonnade. Just as when looking up at a building like the TSBD ... the floors all have a different pitch to them. Like an artist has to draw his photo off of a 'vanishing point' to match the real world, the same occurs in these images.

Below is an overlay of the colonnade window openings in Jack White's photo and placed against the same openings in Moorman's Polaroid. The Moorman print used for the animation was from the Zippo print. (see below)

zippovswhite.gif

Not only does the gap between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window in the background shift dramatically between the two pictures, which should tell any honest knowledgeable person that these two photos were not taken on the same LOS from the same location, but the pitch of the horizontal edges of the colonnade change between Moorman's camera elevation and White's. This is exactly what happens due to the change in perspective between being up on the grass and moving down into the street.

It is James Fetzer who preaches to his audience ... "A law of nature cannot be violated - the law of nature cannot be

changed - the law of nature requires no enforcement". Yet so far James Fetzer and Jack White have ignored those laws of nature. One has to wonder if this is why neither man has taken their earth shattering claim to experts for their opinions, if for no other reason than to vindicate their offerings. Instead we are told to go to DellaRosa's site to get the real deal, but what can this accomplish for DellaRosa never knew how to check Fetzer and White's work either. No matter how tired Fetzer and White are of explaining themselves or where ever they choose to argue their position ... the data and facts pointed out in this reply will stand on its own for as long as their is a universe for the laws of perspective have existed since the dawn of time and will be just as valid tomorrow as they were today.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s cut to the chase.

Miller, Mack, Lamson, Junkkarinen and I assembled the evidence concerning Moorman-in-the-street because we tired of Fetzer’s endless evasions and excuses. We would try to nail down one fact with him, and, just when we thought we had the point resolved, he would slide off on to something else. This silly argument has been around for eight years or so. It has been a dead puppy with its legs in the air for at least seven of those eight years. The underlying and simple fact is that Jack White simply misread what was present in the Moorman photograph. Fetzer and Mantik weren’t swift enough to catch the error. John Costella did and has been Fetzer’s nemesis on this at least since 2002.

White and Fetzer can complain ‘til the cows come home about various extraneous matters. The fact remains that our little group has assembled all the relevant facts concerning this issue. We have put those facts together into an article or essay of a scholarly nature. Fetzer and White can decide not to discuss any of this relevant evidence. If I were them, I would do the same. Or, alternatively, they can attempt to confront the evidence that has been assembled. It matters not to me. Our job in assembling this evidence has been completed. If they want to defend their claim against it, that is their prerogative. If they choose not to, we will all be able to easily understand what that means.

So quit the preliminaries. Either defend your claim or, by your silence, admit it cannot be defended. A lot of us have wasted enough time already on this silly issue.

Josiah Thompson

Just because someone bangs on my front door shouting insults

does not mean I must unlock the door.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An observation.

Your 54.5" off the grass slope frame shows a few inches of the picket fence above the wall at the corner which can not be seen in Moorman.

Your 54.5" off the street frame shows none of the picket fence above the wall, ie, exactly as it is seen in Moorman.

I am surprised that Jack and Jim have not picked up on this discrepancy, and indeed the rest of your crew.

2-6.gif1-5.gif

Duncan MacRae

Just curious Duncan, since the fence has been replaced since Moorman 5 was taken, would you consider it a good "landmark" for use in recreation images?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An observation.

Your 54.5" off the grass slope frame shows a few inches of the picket fence above the wall at the corner which can not be seen in Moorman.

Your 54.5" off the street frame shows none of the picket fence above the wall, ie, exactly as it is seen in Moorman.

I am surprised that Jack and Jim have not picked up on this discrepancy, and indeed the rest of your crew.

2-6.gif1-5.gif

Duncan MacRae

Just curious Duncan, since the fence has been replaced since Moorman 5 was taken, would you consider it a good "landmark" for use in recreation images?

No problem Craig, and don't get me wrong, i'm not a believer in Moorman in the street farce.

The case which Josiah and the rest of his crew including yourself and Bill have put forward is in my opinion indisputable.

The reason for me posting my observation was not to show the fence as a landmark, but rather to show that the photographs which Bill took and used for his animation were taken from different heights, and therefore the comparison is not accurate. This too is indisputable. Having said that, I think his animation is close enough to prove his point.

Duncan MacRae

Of course they are from different heights, thats kind of the point. One was taken down in the street below the curb and one was taken up on the grass over the curb.....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they are from different heights, thats kind of the point. One was taken down in the street below the curb and one was taken up on the grass over the curb.....

Yes, the fence had been moved several inches before the photos were taken. In fact, as I said in my past post ... I controlled the placement of the stands and I had Groden take the photos. I could have adjusted the height of the tripod to make the fence appear in relation to the wall just as it did in Mary Moorman's photo, But I held to the height White had given for Mary's standing lens height. I instead focused on aligning key reference points that had been unchanged since the time of the assassination - THE COLONNADE.

The photos show just what they should show and that is that the fence had been moved slightly east since the time of the assassination and the colonnade had not.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An observation.

Your 54.5" off the grass slope frame shows a few inches of the picket fence above the wall at the corner which can not be seen in Moorman.

Your 54.5" off the street frame shows none of the picket fence above the wall, ie, exactly as it is seen in Moorman.

I am surprised that Jack and Jim have not picked up on this discrepancy, and indeed the rest of your crew.

2-6.gif1-5.gif

Duncan MacRae

Just curious Duncan, since the fence has been replaced since Moorman 5 was taken, would you consider it a good "landmark" for use in recreation images?

No problem Craig, and don't get me wrong, i'm not a believer in Moorman in the street farce.

The case which Josiah and the rest of his crew including yourself and Bill have put forward is in my opinion indisputable.

The reason for me posting my observation was not to show the fence as a landmark, but rather to show that the photographs which Bill took and used for his animation were taken from different heights, and therefore the comparison is not accurate. This too is indisputable. Having said that, I think his animation is close enough to prove his point.

Duncan MacRae

Of course they are from different heights, thats kind of the point. One was taken down in the street below the curb and one was taken up on the grass over the curb.....

You're missing the whole point. The off the street frame shows the fence as it is in Moorman, ie, below the wall.

The off the grass frame shows the fence above the wall.

If Moorman 5 was taken from the grass, then any reproduction, ie, the off the grass frame, should show No Fence Above The Wall.

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, you are using a fence as a "landmark" that is not the same fence as the one in Moorman 5. Look to fixed points in both images and see if they match fit well with the Moorman 5, like the pedestal and the windows, and also compare the angles of the wall and features of the pergola. The fence is a non starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Fetzer ... Have you ever stopped and considered that Josiah having

experience in being a PI just may be why he knew that Moorman's photo had been

filmed for TV within the first 35 minutes following the shooting whereas you did

not.

Have you ever thought that Josiah's being experienced as a PI allowed him to

understand perspective and how to apply it to Moorman's photo whereas you did

not.

If it wasn't for Josiah being a PI, then maybe you would have continued on

through life not ever knowing the mistake that you and White had made, but then

I guess Costella would have eventually caught it. IF I were you, I'd be thankful

to the man for bringing to your attention such a notable error because after all

... you want nothing more than the truth to come out - RIGHT!

You may also wish to back off the mentality that ones academics will carry the

moment. It has been said that many highly intelligent book-learned individuals

in one sense didn't have the ability to figure out how to pour water out of a

boot even with the directions being written on its heel. Never more true of an

example of this was the case of you, Jack, and Mantik not being able to catch

and understand how to read the data within Moorman's photo concerning

perspective. Had any of you of been able to do that, then you would have been

forced to go back and find out why your theory wasn't supported by the obvious

'laws of nature' so to know where you went wrong.

I don't know Mantik, not heard what he had to say once he was aware of how those

cycles stacked up in Moorman's photo. I'm sure that if I was sick, then he would

be the one to call, but in reading a picture ... he would be of no help.

If I needed some dark room work done, then Jack would probably be the man to go

to, but again he is not the person I'd trust to read a photo correctly.

If I needed someone to be my 'Baghdad Bob' figure who can handle the propaganda

side of things by denying anything and everything so to conceal the truth, then

you'd be my first choice. However, you not only couldn't read Moorman's photo

when it came to perspective, but have seemingly not been able to understand that

particular 'law of nature' even after it was pointed out to you. So while you

may be intelligent in some ways - you are not so bright in others.

It may also be that you have known of you and White's error for quite some time,

but as a spokesperson for that fiasco, then you were only doing your job. But at

some point you must acknowledge that there are some things that have been

brought to your attention that cause you to want to re-think your position as to

Moorman being in the street. Because if you don't, then you become the poster

boy for another saying that says the difference between a smart person and a

stupid one is that the stupid person will never be able to see when they were

wrong.

Go back and apply those laws of nature concerning perspective ... watch

carefully what happens when the camera lens height of your study is looking at

58" tall objects from above their highest point and again from below their

highest point. Remember that the 'laws of perspective' cannot be violated - the

law of perspective cannot be changed - the law of perspective requires no enforcement.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan, you are using a fence as a "landmark" that is not the same fence as the one in Moorman 5. Look to fixed points in both images and see if they match fit well with the Moorman 5, like the pedestal and the windows, and also compare the angles of the wall and features of the pergola. The fence is a non starter.

He's been told the facts, Craig. Whether he understands them may be another matter.

Bill

"Duncan,

The fence lines don’t match because the fence is different than the one in 1963 and it is not in the exact same location. When the city of Dallas replaced the fence in 2000, they moved it two or three inches closer to both Elm and Houston, so although the height of the boards is the same, the perspective is slightly different. When Bill Miller shot his pictures in 2001, the fence was closer than it was in 1963 and that’s what makes them stick up a little farther.

Gary Mack"

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...