Moorman-in-the-street?

[Bill Miller]

name='David G. Healy' date='Mar 6 2009, 01:11 AM' post='163679']

[name=Bill Miller' post='163675' date='Mar 5 2009, 11:21 AM][...]

Your Gif seems to stop at the moment Z313 was exposed. Correct me if I am wrong. Moorman's photo was exposed 3.6 frames after Z313. I would want to check Newman's posture at the same moment Moorman took her photo.

Keeping you honest, the cite re 3.6 frames (the .6 is impossible btw) after Z-313, is who?

Oh, the Moorman in the street issue? Next to the WCR SBT, the Moorman/Street issue is a farce, pure shuck-and-jive. My opinion of course...

The 3.6 seconds from Z313 to the moment of Moorman's photo being exposed was obtained by Anthony Marsh by breaking each frame into tenths. The position of the cycles to each other in Mary's photo comes between the two exposed frames (Z315 and Z316). If you fade in one frame over the other and do it in 1/10th increments, then 6/10ths into the transition ... the two cycles come into line on the Zapruder film as they are seen in Moorman's photo.

As far as the Moorman being in the street claim ... I agree with you that its a farce.

Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

name='David G. Healy' date='Mar 6 2009, 01:11 AM' post='163679']

[name=Bill Miller' post='163675' date='Mar 5 2009, 11:21 AM][...]

Your Gif seems to stop at the moment Z313 was exposed. Correct me if I am wrong. Moorman's photo was exposed 3.6 frames after Z313. I would want to check Newman's posture at the same moment Moorman took her photo.

Keeping you honest, the cite re 3.6 frames (the .6 is impossible btw) after Z-313, is who?

Oh, the Moorman in the street issue? Next to the WCR SBT, the Moorman/Street issue is a farce, pure shuck-and-jive. My opinion of course...

The 3.6 seconds from Z313 to the moment of Moorman's photo being exposed was obtained by Anthony Marsh by breaking each frame into tenths. The position of the cycles to each other in Mary's photo comes between the two exposed frames (Z315 and Z316). If you fade in one frame over the other and do it in 1/10th increments, then 6/10ths into the transition ... the two cycles come into line on the Zapruder film as they are seen in Moorman's photo.

As far as the Moorman being in the street claim ... I agree with you that its a farce.

Bill Miller

Bill,

No need to break it down in tenth's

2 frames should do. Headshot to well after frame 316.

That arm never leaves his son's head. Stays at approx 45 degrees.

Color frame of Newman. Sleeve consists of dark/black cross striped pattern.

I'm not concerned with an actual distance in feet with regards to Sitzman.

The size difference between Sitzman and Newman is enormous. More detail from Newman's left arm should appear.

If this camera can't pick up the rest of his arm at approx 40ft, what would make someone believe it can distinguish between elements behind the wall or fence.

Keep the comparisons within the Moorman photo itself.

chris

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Josiah displays an acute lack of reading comprehension. John agrees with him that the Moorman photograph is consistent with the Zapruder film. John disagrees with him that Mary Moorman was on the grass. He believes that she was actually in the street. It follows that, if she was in the street when she took her photograph and if the photograph is consistent with the Zapruder, then it has to have been altered. Is that too difficult for Josiah to understand? So it is not "true without qualification" that John Costella "has bailed out on Fetzer". What is "true without qualification" is that Josiah is a dunce.

Let me offer an alternative. Three lines of argument demonstrate--conclusively, in my opinion--that Josiah is either a dunce (quite possibly, mentally bewildered) or, if that is not the case, has been acting as a disinfo op. The arguments are these:

(1) Josiah insists that, if the Moorman is consistent with the Zapruder, then the Zapruder is authentic. Since he maintains this even knowing that John Costella believes BOTH that the Moorman is consistent with the Zapruder AND that the Zapruder is faked ("A Scientist's Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication", HOAX), Josiah is either mentally bewildered or deliberately making claims that are obviously false. Persumably, he would do that if he is not mentally bewildered only if he is an op.

(2) Josiah repeatedly insists that the films are authentic BECAUSE they are CONSISTENT. The films are authentic only if they accurately represent events that actually occurred in Dealey Plaza that correspond to those they present. All kind of movies are consistent--comedies, romances, murder mysteries, sci fi)--and there are series of films that are consistent (Indiana Jones, Star Wars) but are not therefore authentic. Again we are confronted with the choice of demented or an op.

(3) Josiah ignores massive uncontested evidence that the Zapruder is a fabrication, including the massive blow-out to the right front of JFK's head, a deception reinforced by altered X-rays, LIFE magazine, and even Zapruder on television, as I have repeatedly explained. That the other films are consistent with a fabrication means that they are fabrications, too, as reinforcing deceptions. We again confront the choice: He is either mentally bewildered or an op. There is no third way.

In the past, I would have added a premise that tends to resolve the matter, namely: that a Yale Ph.D. is most unlikely to be mentally bewildered. By the same token, the history of Yale and the OSS and CIA is consistent with his being an op. These arguments are so simple and straightforward that even his most devoted followers--Lamson, Miller, Junk, and the rest--risk demonstrating that they belong in the same category if they are going to dispute them. There is no third way.

Just for starters, it is true without qualification that John Costella, has bailed out on Fetzer. I quoted the following accurately in our study: "John Costella recently lectured Fetzer on Fetzer’s mistakes of interpretation pointing out on 12/17/08 that “it has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street... It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film’s location of her lens.” [NOTE: Emphasis in original; see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6147] A week earlier, Costella posted, “Just to bring everyone up to speed: I do NOT believe that the extant Moorman Polaroid places her on the street. In other words, I am on the Thompson et al. side of this argument, not Jim’s .” [NOTE: Emphasis in original; see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/5999.]" Costella was Fetzer's collaborator earlier and still is on various things. However, since 2002 Costella has pointed out that Fetzer's Moorman-in-the-street claims are wrong. I didn't mention in the study, this quote from Costella: "My position on Moorman has not changed since May 2002. The extant Polaroid could not have been taken from the street by Mary. If she really did step into the street when taking it, then the extant photo cannot be genuine. But since we have no corroborating evidence for Mary being in the street, other than her own say-so, then I don't tie myself down to either conclusion." (HTTP://GROUPS.YAHOO.COM/GROUP/JFK-RESEARCH/MESSAGE/6230)

What Costella believes is not in doubt no matter how much Fetzer believes it to be. Just ask Costella.

Josiah Thompson

From Dr. Fetzer:

.............

All,

The method of selection and elimination is on display in this latest attack

from Josiah Thompson, "Moorman-in-the-Street?", which seems to be a

desperate attempt to preserve the illusion that the assassination

films--the Zapruder, the Muchmore and the Nix--are authentic, lest the

public become concerned that it has been deceived and recognize

deception of this kind had to have involved elements at the highest

levels of government, in this case including agents of the Secret

Service, medical officers of the US Navy and even LIFE magazine, which

was also used to promote a false depiction of the death of JFK. There

are many forms of lying, of course, some of which involve photographs

and films when they are subject to alteration or recreation. That is

why the debate over the Moorman photo has been so extensive and so

intense, even though it is but one of many proofs that the films

cannot possibly be genuine. Thus, the key paragraph to understand his

objective is this one:

Because of the persistent but failing efforts of Fetzer, White and others, I can say with considerable confidence that the photo record from Dealey Plaza forms a seamless tapestry of what happened on November 22nd. If you want to know what happened there, then study the photo record. It is a self-authenticating whole that can stand as bedrock in the case. It can be used to evaluate both eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. Only by the sheerest luck did Abraham Zapruder climb up on that pedestal with his camera and Mary Moorman take her Polaroid along that day. Zapruder's film and Moorman?s Polaroid (plus many other films and photos) give us the raw material to reconstruct the event insofar as it is possible. Without them, we in the research community would have gotten nowhere.

He creates the IMPRESSION of having made his case by the highly creative

use of evidence, selecting that which agrees with a predetermined

conclusion and eliminating the rest. One of the first obligations of

responsible scholarship, for example, is to offer relevant citations to

relevant work by the subjects of your critique, which, in this case, are

Jack and me. But the study that he is attacking, "Moorman/Zapruder

Revisited", is never mentioned, much less cited. Search through Josiah's http://www.jfklancer.com/moorman_essay.html and you will find no link to http://JFKresearch.com/Moorman/ where our study can be found. The obvious explanation, of course, is that the author does not want the members of

his target audience to have their own opportunities to even read the work

he is attacking. It is in fact a very careful and nuanced study of the

major arguments advanced on both sides and does not even remotely satisfy

his description of it as 'tabloid journalism'. On the contrary, it

clearly refutes it. Not only that, but it is chock full of logic and

evidence contradicting his claim the photographic record of work

alleged to have been taken in Dealey Plaza

forms a seamless tapestry of what happened on November 22nd. If you

want to know what happened there, then study the photo record. It is a self-authenticating whole that can stand as bedrock in the case. It can be used to evaluate both eyewitness testimony and physical evidence.

No only does eyewitness testimony take precedence over photographs and

films in courts of law?as this private investigator has to be aware?but the

extensive research on this subject demonstrates this claim is an outrageous

misrepresentation, which must be deliberate. Indeed, 'Moorman/Zapruder

Revisited' quotes from McCORMICK ON LAW, 3rd edition (1984), Section

214, for example, concerning photographs, movies, and sound recordings:

________________

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

has been the opposite, where photographs and films, including the

X-rays, have been used to discount the testimony of eyewitnesses, which

is the better legal evidence. Since Josiah has to know better, what

he is saying here appears to qualify as a hoax.

Moreover, 'Moorman/Zapruder Revisited' includes multiple proofs that

the films of the assassination have been altered, changed, and even

recreated, where his position acquires such specious plausibility as

it may have only by ignoring everything we know about the films:

Jack's studies, Mantik's research, Lifton's investigations, and

Costella's proofs! I would have thought that he would be more

reasonable, but he is in a corner and has to find a way out or

confront the ignominy of acknowledging that, for more than a decade,

he has been fighting for a losing cause. I admired his chutzpah

during our debate when he concluded claiming, "So the choice is really

simple. Either believe Moorman's statement or believe the rest of the

evidence." Astounding! As though Mantik had not proven the Muchmore

cannot be authentic; as though Jack had not shown that Zapruder might

not have even taken the film; as though John had not adduced

compelling scientific proof that the Zapruder is a recreation; as

though Lifton had not even documented the history of the alteration of

the film; as though I had never edited and published THE GREAT

ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)!

Remember, the assassination films are authentic only if the events

which they depict corresponds to what actually happened at that time

and in that place. It is not enough for the Zapruder, Muchmore,

and Nix to be consistent with one another, since Muchmore and Nix,

as we believe to be the case, could have been altered to conform to

the Zapruder. What happened to the unresponsive spectators? the

Greer head turns? the "blob" and the blood spray painted in? the

absence of brains and debris being blown out the back of his head?

the absence of brains and debris on the trunk of the limo? the

publication of 232 in LIFE with physically impossible features? the

rapid dissipation of the blood spray? mistakes made inserting the

Simmons Freeway sign into the film? mistakes in introducing the

lamppost into the film? the removal of Connally?s turn to his left?

Irwin Schwartz? report of seeing JFK's brains blown out to the left

rear? the visible blow-out to the back of his head seen in frames

around 374? Homer McMahon's report of observing 6-8 impacts on

bodies? reports from William Reymond, Rich DellaRosa and others of

having seen viewed the film with features that we had predicted based

on medical evidence and eyewitness accounts? the absence of witnesses

reporting the back-and-to-the-left motion that is the most conspicuous

feature of the extant film? the missing limo stop? the absence of

Chaney's motoring forward to notify Chief Curry JFK had been shot?

Each of these impeaches the Zapruder. You can even see the blow-out

to the back of his head in frame 374!

Josiah has adopted the pose that there is a simple choice between

accepting Mary's testimony that she was really in the street?which

?Moorman/Zapruder Revisited? documents, but which this new piece

misrepresents; indeed, a new find is a video of Mary explaining

how she stepped into the street to take her photograph,

"Moorman In The Street - JFK Assassination", on YouTube

and the alleged consistency of all of the films and photographs,

when consistency is not enough to establish authenticity. He

writes as though Costella were on his side, when he is actually

Tink's greatest nightmare. It is as though he has never read

"New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" (OpEdNews), presenting John's latest

proof, much less THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. Indeed, none of what

I have said here even reaches to the mutually reinforcing deceptions

of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, (

the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and ©

the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that

the right-front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten

after twice breaking the plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the

deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that night (HOAX, page 435)! In fact, none of it

is true. Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just

fine but that she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains

together at the back of his head. Not one of the witnesses or doctors

reported it. Not even the mortician! It's not just that Tink's little

boat has sprung a leak. It has sunk like a sieve into the ocean of truth!

Since he doesn't offer a link to 'Moorman/Zapruder Revisited', based upon what

he presents here, you would never know. He shows his hand early on,

with an assault on ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), where I brought

together contributions by eleven experts on different aspects of the

case. While it would not be surprising if he were to take exception

to some of their work, he instead trashes them all regardless of their

quality and independent of their authorship:

No longer was there a small community wherein opinions and theories could be vetted before publication. With a penchant for the tabloid style, Fetzer gave voice over the years to a number of researchers who competed with each other to produce dramatic (often outlandish) claims.

Such a depiction, however, does not appear to fit the extremely careful and

meticulous work of David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who published the studies

of the autopsy X-rays that shattered the cover-up and exposed the charade

that had passed for serious research on the medical evidence. Nor does it

fit the observations of Robert B. Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the

human brain, who concluded, on the basis of his review of the reports

from multiple competent physicians at Parkland Hospital that two kinds

of brain tissue--cerebral and cerebellar--tissue extruding from a massive

wound to the back of the head that a brain shown in diagrams at photographs

at the National Archives cannot possibly be that of JKF. Nor my exchanges

with the Department of Justice to bring their new findings to the attention

of the authorities in the department with responsibility related to investigations of his death. Even apart from the other excellent

contributions to this book, these were historic developments that

shattered the back of the cover-up.

Indeed, his depiction of "tabloid style" journalism does not fit any of

the contributions to this book at all, which Josiah reviewed for amazon.com

without actually reading it! Most scholars would find that practice to be a

violation of the most basic principles of scholarship, but it appears to be

par for the course for Thompson. Indeed, Vincent Bugliosi, RECLAIMING

HISTORY (2007), describes the books I have edited as the only exclusively

scientific books (three) on the assassination (p. 947). Indeed, the ?tabloid

style? that he would force upon the contributions to my book appears to be

the approach that he himself adopts. For example, Josiah offers a grossly

exaggerated assault on MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) as follows:

___________________

For some thirty-seven years, we all thought of Mary Moorman as the

young woman seen in the Zapruder film snapping her Polaroid photo of

JFK with the knoll in the background. Fetzer?s second book, "Murder in

Dealey Plaza," made the astounding claim that she had actually taken

her photo from the street. In tabloid style, Fetzer?s book proclaimed

in headlines:

?MOORMAN POLAROID CONTAINS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF ZAPRUDER FILM

TAMPERING.... MARY AND JEAN WERE NOT ON THE GRASS; THEREFORE, THE

ZAPRUDER FILM IS FAKED?

Unchecked by anyone before publication, the claim was immediately

challenged and shown to be simply another example of Jack White?s

careless analyses.

____________________

For all the hype, you would think this heading was emblazoned on the

cover of the book. In fact, you have to search carefully to find it,

where it appears as the somewhat obscure--you have to turn the book on

its side to even read it--heading of one eight sections in Jack's color

photo section entitled, 'The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Indeed, the

second part of the title Josiah quotes is actually on another page than

the first. Precisely why this should be an astounding' claim, given that

Mary has been saying the same thing since her first interview only three

hours after the assassination in 1963 through a subsequent interview in

1997 and has been captured saying the same thing in a video, "Moorman In

The Street - JFK Assassination", which is available on YouTube, is the

question. If you only listen to Mary, she was standing in the street,

where the fact that she is shown on the grass is simply one more proof

that the Zapruder film was altered.

He not only contests Mary's own statements, unedited versions of which

can be found in "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", but makes other

misleading allegations, such as, "With respect to

Moorman-in-the-street, earlier believers in the claim, David Mantik

and John Costella, threw in the towel long ago." This, however, is

simply untrue. I called David Mantik and asked him, "Did you throw in

the towel on the Moorman?", explaining that Josiah was asserting that

he had. He told me that Josiah had his latest communication on the

matter and that, if he was saying anything like that, he was being

misquoted. For clarification, I asked David if he had changed his

mind since we conducted our experiment in Dealey Plaza and he told me

that he had not. What this reveals is that Thompson is willing to

make any statement, no matter how distorted or removed from the truth,

if he believes it will advance his cause, especially when making a

public pitch to the unwary.

__________________

Indeed, if more proof that Mary was in the street at the moment she

took the Moorman, consider what she said during an interview with KRLD

in 1997 with a host by the name of Charlie Jones, which David Mantik

included in his study of the Zapruder film in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA

on page 346 as follows:

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 that evidently was the first

shot. You know, I

could hear the sound. And . . .

Jones: Now, when you heard the sound, did you immediately think "rifle

shot?"

Moorman: Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just

immediately following which I still thought was a

firecracker. And

then I stepped back up on to the grassy area. I

guess just, people

were falling around us, you know. Knowing

something was wrong,

I certainly did not know what was wrong.

___________________

As David observes, these are her own words--she stepped into the street

to take her Polaroid picture. As if for emphasis, she also recalls not just

stepping back onto the grass, but precisely when she did so. "In fact,"

David writes, "based on our reenactments and without the additional layers

of blacktop, it is likely that Moorman could have stood erect in the street,

with her camera to her eye, while taking the photo, just as she recalled.

It is unusual in this JFK case to make a prediction, and then later to

have it verified so precisely by a statement directly from the mouth of

the pertinent witness." Moreover, unlike our words, the actions we've

taken are almost impossible to forget.

Under these conditions--when Mantik has consistently held to the position

that the films have been altered and that Mary was in the street--it is

all the more remarkable that Josiah would so grossly misrepresented

him in this forum. He similarly misrepresents John Costella's position,

but in a more subtle fashion.

While Costella does not believe that features internal to the Moorman

photograph place her on the street, he actually believes that she was

in the street when she took it, which means that, if Jack and I are

wrong in our argument that features in the photograph place her in the

street, then Mary's photograph, like so much else of the photographic

record, has to have been altered. But here is what he says:

_____________________

John Costella recently lectured Fetzer on Fetzer's mistakes of

interpretation pointing out on 12/17/08 that "it has been established,

without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been

taken from the street... It is, in fact, completely consistent with

the Zapruder film's location of her lens." [NOTE: Emphasis in original;

see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6147]

_____________________

Those who actually read this post, however, will find a nice example

of Josiah's method of selection and elimination, since John's

conclusions about the films contradict his:

_____________________

Re: FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID ON NOVEMBER 22ND.

Josiah,

I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you.

I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source

wasn't Gary Mack. But at that time I thought you were going to reveal

that she didn't say she stepped into the street at all.

As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the

assassination, she said she stepped into the street. Given that this

is damaging to your case (and his), I now agree that his authority is

impeccable.

Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:

1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman

Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of

Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder

film's location of her lens.

2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has

repeated to this day, that she stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE

QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE PHOTO FROM THE STREET.

3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the

President's or Jackie's attention.

4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like

frozen turkeys:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../jfk/clip_C.mov

5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.

6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.

The net results are:

A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as

presenting a consistent depiction of the assassination.

B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic

evidence is fraudulent.

C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is

impeached as evidence -- its admissibility relies on the testimony of

the photographer.

D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can

see for no one else seeing her step into the street is that she did it

AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.

As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman

Polaroid as telling us anything at all. What surprises me the most is

that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of WHETHER SHE STEPPED

INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from, is the

key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder

film. The Polaroid is irrelevant in all this.

My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and

has tried to make me understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't

read his section in "Pig on a Leash" should do so. (And let me also

say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006,

when he dug out his transcript.)

I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it

as vehemently as Jim, past behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving

us this explosive and unequivocal evidence confirming Lifton's

transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun.

I think we've all learned a lot in the past week.

John

___________________

When you actually consult the sources cited, however, you will find

that John is expressing his amazement that Gary Mack has just

confirmed that, during her interview three hours after the

assassination, "I stepped into the street", which

he had not expected from this source. Moreover, he skillfully

sidesteps the fact that Costella believes the Zapruder has been

massively altered?where the title of his major chapter in HOAX is

"A Scientist's Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication",

but you would never know from Thompson's selective use of quotation.

Here is another example of his technique, which violates the standards

of scholarship. On page 3, he cites

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6048 ,

giving the impression Costella is entirely on his side, unless you

read to the end:

_____________________

I can't say you've proved that, as I haven't checked it. But it sounds

like a valid argument.

Now wait on a minute: here's something I just thought of. (Research on

the fly -- dangerous. What the hell ...) The Moorman was taken after

the head shot -- around Z-315 or so, from memory. That means that the

blood and brain matter that was blasted out the back of the

President's head must be somewhere. If it's not already splattered

over Hargis, then where is it? I don't see it in mid-air, half-way to

Hargis ...

John

______________________

Ironically, although I would ordinarily defer to an expert who

possesses greater competence than I, in this instance, for reasons

that I have explained in the study Josiah does not cite, I believe

that Costella is wrong and Jack is right about the line of sight.

I even observed there that, while Josiah might like to cite John's

Ph.D. in physics with his specialization in electromagnetism,

including the properties of light and the physics of moving objects,

to make his case against us, that would be to concede that

qualifications make a difference, which he still insists is not

the case in JFK research! If there has ever been a more bizarre

attitude toward expertise--as though competence in investigations were

inversely proportional to qualifications--I have never encountered it.

In the case of this new presentation, in order to conceal John's

complete beliefs, Josiah cites his conclusion that the Moorman puts

Mary on the grass while concealing his belief that Mary was actually

in the street! This is about as duplicitous as it gets.

In his zeal to impeach me over the Moorman, he succumbed to the temptation

to suppose that John was completely on his side, when in fact that was

far from the case. Indeed, when I asked him what we would see if we had an

authentic film, John replied with a vivid description, with which Rich

DellaRos--who has seen (what appears to be) the unaltered film on

three occasions--has agreed:

I've already said here that I'd give better than even money odds that a

genuine film of the assassination would show Mary stepping into the street.

But it would also show her taking a photo of JFK slumping after the FIRST

shot (there being no previous ridiculous "chicken dance" reaction of JFK as

shown in the Z-toon; the throat entry shot most likely occurred later, when

the limo was stopped and there was a barrage of bullets); it would show Jean

Hill reacting more like an excited girl than a frozen turkey; it would show

the limo stopping and the motorcycles scattering, Chaney going forward to the lead car; it would show Clint Hill actually push Jackie back down in the seat and cover her and the President with his body (not get stuck on the back foothold as the limo speeds out of the Plaza, as the Z-toon also

shows); and, most importantly (and gruesomely), it would show the blood and

brain matter of the President flying through the air and over the shiny trunk of the limo, over Hargis?indeed, over everything in its path?-instead of disappearing into nothingness, as the Z-toon shows, leaving Hargis and the limo as pristinely clean as Senator Specter's magic bullet was undamaged.

What then can be said of ?Moorman-in-the-Street??? For those who have

lived through the past four months on the jfk-research.yahoogroups.com

forum where this subject has been dissected in excruciating detail,

it must be very strange to discover that one of the participants

is providing such a lop-sided and completely baised presentation.

Having suffered a humiliating defeat, Josiah Thompson has now

resorted to a massive smear, which distorts the issues and manipulates

the evidence. Indeed, having taught logic, critical thinking, and

scientific reasoning for 35 years, this is an excellent case study to

test their abilities to detect and to misleading arguments and special

pleading, which is the standard designation of the practice of selection

and elimination he so skillfully deploys.

But violations of logic and evidence of this magnitude come at a

certain cost. Anyone familiar with our past debate is unlikely to be

taken in. By pulling out all the stops, he has revealed himself as

a person who is willing to take any measure, no matter how unscrupulous,

to defeat advances in understanding the death of JFK. And those who

may find this surprising really should appreciate that, in this regard,

Gary Mack, the custodian of The Sixth Floor Museum, Josiah Thompson and

their allies are engaged in a systematic and sustained effort to keep

the public from knowing the truth about the death of our 35th president.

This is not new to them and this instance will not be the final

installment in deceit and deception. They appear to be gambling

that no one is going to notice!

During a conversation about this exchange, David Lifton reminded me that he

discussed attempts to "revise history" in relation to Mary Moorman in

his chapter, "Pig on a Leash", in HOAX. And, indeed, on pp. 420-421

he reports on the making of a recent documentary involving The 6th

Floor Museum, which I also discuss in "Distorting the Photographic

Record", pp. 427-435. As Lifton writes,

_______________

Consider what happened on a recent documentary shoot in Dealey Plaza. Here was

an important issue for The Sixth Floor Museum, which controls both the Moorman

copyright as well as the Zapruder. Mary Moorman was being interviewed

for a documentary to be broadcast on national television.

Mary told major media interviewers as recently as a few years ago how

she stepped into the street to take President Kennedy's picture and then,

after the shots were fired, stepped back on the grass. She was most

specific about these two events: the step into the street, the step

back onto the grass. Here are her exact words:

Moorman: Uh, just immediately before the presidential car came into

view, we were,

you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my

friend 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 that

evidently was the first shot. You know, I could hear the

sound. And ...

Jones: Now when you heard the sound, did you immediately think,

"rifle shot"?

Moorman: Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just

immediately

following which I still thought was a firecracker. And

then I stepped

back up on the grassy area. I guess just, people were

falling around

us, you know. Knowing something was wrong. I certainly

didn't know what was wrong.

The trouble is the Zapruder film shows no such thing. And if this

actually happened, then Mary's account is further evidence, just like

the car stop, that the film was altered through professional optical

editing, where Mary was put up on the grass.

But now, some years later, at a time when The Sixth Floor Museum

controls Mary's copyright, she is being interviewed by the Museum's

Gary Mack. Mack has learned she should not say she stepped into the

street, but she still says she stepped forward. And she says so again

and again, on each successive take. The problem is: Mary doesn't

even do that on the Zapruder film. She just stands there.

And Mary apparently remembers something else?how slowly the car was

moving. Just the way she told me when I visited her back in November

1971 and she told me that it stopped. Now she simply says it

"wasn't going that fast."

The film shoot stops.

Mack cuts in. HE turns to the cameraman and says, "That's it",

indicating the camera should be turned off.

Someone says "going that fast". Gary Mack looks down at the grass and

fidgets at Mary's blooper. HE turns to Mary and says, "They will or

will not use that. That's OK."

A senior producer walks over, in a casual manner: "Wasn't going that

fast"? he says, mimicking her. Then he continues, "Mary, you're so

cute!" The implication is clear. She should be careful about what

she says and stick to the script.

Mary Ann puts her head in her hands, like a child who has made a

mistake. Mack says, "We're going to do one more take. We'll have

it go 'slowly'."

Meanwhile, before the shoot resumes, Mary keeps saying that she

"stepped forward". This is clearly a troublesome phrase, because

if Mary "stepped forward" that raises all sorts of problems, one being

that she must then "step back" when the Zapruder film shows neither.

During one take, the one actually broadcast, Mary tells it this way

and uses the troublesome phrase:

I just stepped to the, uh, to the edge here, and Jean is

hollering, "Look Mr.

President, look our way!" and then I snapped the picture, which was at the

same instant, evidently, as the bullet hit him, not realizing that's what

had happened. But I did hear a noise.

[And then I stepped back, and then, two more noises,] and then I could see

people around me falling to the ground, or running, and doing--and that

let me to know that something was happening.

I put the ten words in brackets above because--as actually broadcast--these particular words were deleted. As actually broadcast, Mary's account was as follows:

But I did hear a noise, and then I could see people around me

falling to the ground, or running, and doing--and that let me

know that something was happening.

By the deletion of the words ("and then I stepped back, and then, [i

heard] two more noises"), two critical matters were omitted from Mary's

account, namely: (1) the implication that she had stepped forward, very

possibly into the street, especially if she was already standing at the

edge; and (2) the fact that Mary Moorman believes that she heard three

shots--the first as she took her picture and then two more!

This is quite different than the official version, but it is the one

Mary has always given as her version of this event. Mary always says that

in her various interviews--both during this filming and elsewhere--and

it's plain as day that what she calls the "first shot" occurred the

instant she took her picture, and then there were two more. But

that raises complications and contradicts the official version, so the

problem was dealt with by making a silent edit (omitting the bracketed

words above). Obviously, when the witness' account came up against

the official version, there was no contest--it was the official version

that prevailed.

Discovery Channel personnel say, with reasonable self-mocking wit,

that they are not scholars and historians but popularizers, that their

speciality is "history-lite". But I wonder if this even qualifies in that category.

It seems to me it is simply false, and manipulative--and all of it is

happening under the auspices of an interview being conducted by someone

from The Sixth Floor Museum. Is this valid history? I would like to

see a full dress interview of Mary Moorman by an objective investigator

in which no attempt is made to edit or guide her; and the matter of

when it was first pointed out to her that she should be careful about

this issue of whether or not she "stepped forward" is discussed in

detail. Who communicated to her the fact that, her memory notwithstanding,

the Zapruder film showed something else, so perhaps she should tailor her

story accordingly?

At another point, the matter of Mary's medical bills comes up. Something

that costs almost a thousand dollars. In what appears to be innocent

small talk, Mack says that she'll be able to take care of that easily

in view of the payment being made to her that day. Then they all get

down to business.

The whole thing is so unsavory. It's not even that there is a

deliberate effort to promote lies, but certain people have made up

their minds as how what happened has to be presented--how many shots

were fired, whether the car stopped, whether Mary stepped into the street, etcetera--and that provides a criterion for what is acceptable, for what

should or should not be said. For what is and is not correct. Politically correct.

I don't know exactly what to call this, but it is certainly not the

proper way to approach documentary film making in the area of history.

____________________

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

This message was sent using the University of Minnesota Duluth Webmail

[Bill Miller]

If this camera can't pick up the rest of his arm at approx 40ft, what would make someone believe it can distinguish between elements behind the wall or fence.

Keep the comparisons within the Moorman photo itself.

chris

Two things I learned ...

1- The quality of the print you are using plays a big part as to the amount of detail that can be obtained from an image.

2- It was discovered years ago that some prints from the same source were clearer in some areas of the photo one time and then somewhere else on another print. It appears that the prints were not always copied while laying perfectly flat.

I would defer to Gary Mack for information on this if you are really interested.

Bill Miller

BTW, the top of my yellow stand seems to have blended into the grass when the rest of it is quite discernible. Do you see any similarities to what happened to a portion of William Newman's arm?

Edited March 6, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Quoting Dr. Thompson:

"What Costella believes is not in doubt no matter how much Fetzer believes it to be. Just ask Costella."

OK. GOOD IDEA. LET'S ASK COSTELLA....

Quoting John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>:

> Josiah,

>

> I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you.

>

> I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source wasn't Gary Mack. But at > that time I thought you were going to reveal that she didn't say she stepped into the street at all.

>

> As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the assassination, she said she

> stepped into the street. Given that this is damaging to your case (and his), I now agree that his > authority is impeccable.

>

> Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:

>

> 1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT

> have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely

> consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens.

>

> 2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has repeated to this day, that she

> stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE

> PHOTO FROM THE STREET.

>

> 3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the President's or Jackie's

> attention.

>

> 4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like frozen turkeys:

>

> http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../jfk/clip_C.mov

>

> 5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.

>

> 6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.

>

> The net results are:

>

> A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as presenting a

> consistent depiction of the assassination.

>

> B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic evidence is fraudulent.

>

> C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is impeached as evidence – its

> admissibility relies on the testimony of the photographer.

>

> D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can see for no one else seeing

> her step into the street is that she did it AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE

> MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.

>

> As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman Polaroid as telling us anything at > all. What surprises me the most is that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of WHETHER

> SHE STEPPED INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from, is the

> key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder film. The Polaroid is

> irrelevant in all this.

>

> My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and has tried to make me

> understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't read his section in "Pig on a Leash" should

> do so. [see the Appendix.]

>

> (And let me also say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006, when he > dug out his transcript.)

>

> I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it as vehemently as Jim, past > behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving us this explosive and unequivocal evidence

> confirming Lifton's transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun.

>

>

> John

>

[Josiah Thompson]

"What Costella believes is not in doubt no matter how much Fetzer believes it to be. Just ask Costella."

OK. GOOD IDEA. LET'S ASK COSTELLA....

Quoting John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>:

"1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens."

Your yourself quoted this, Jack. Now what about that "gap" that I asked you about?

Josiah Thompson

Quoting Dr. Thompson:

"What Costella believes is not in doubt no matter how much Fetzer believes it to be. Just ask Costella."

OK. GOOD IDEA. LET'S ASK COSTELLA....

Quoting John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>:

> Josiah,

>

> I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you.

>

> I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source wasn't Gary Mack. But at > that time I thought you were going to reveal that she didn't say she stepped into the street at all.

>

> As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the assassination, she said she

> stepped into the street. Given that this is damaging to your case (and his), I now agree that his > authority is impeccable.

>

> Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:

>

> 1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT

> have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely

> consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens.

>

> 2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has repeated to this day, that she

> stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE

> PHOTO FROM THE STREET.

>

> 3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the President's or Jackie's

> attention.

>

> 4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like frozen turkeys:

>

> http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../jfk/clip_C.mov

>

> 5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.

>

> 6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.

>

> The net results are:

>

> A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as presenting a

> consistent depiction of the assassination.

>

> B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic evidence is fraudulent.

>

> C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is impeached as evidence – its

> admissibility relies on the testimony of the photographer.

>

> D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can see for no one else seeing

> her step into the street is that she did it AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE

> MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.

>

> As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman Polaroid as telling us anything at > all. What surprises me the most is that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of WHETHER

> SHE STEPPED INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from, is the

> key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder film. The Polaroid is

> irrelevant in all this.

>

> My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and has tried to make me

> understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't read his section in "Pig on a Leash" should

> do so. [see the Appendix.]

>

> (And let me also say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006, when he > dug out his transcript.)

>

> I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it as vehemently as Jim, past > behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving us this explosive and unequivocal evidence

> confirming Lifton's transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun.

>

>

> John

>

[Bill Miller]

[ name=James H. Fetzer' date='Mar 6 2009, 06:40 AM' post='163694]

(1) Josiah insists that, if the Moorman is consistent with the Zapruder, then the Zapruder is authentic.

Mr. Fetzer - Are you sure you have stated Thompson's position accurately? Now I am not a Ph.D, but would not the scholarly and accurate thing to have said is that 'if the Moorman photo is consistent with the Zapruder film, then if the Zapruder film is to ever been shown to be altered, then it wasn't shown by way of the 'Moorman in the street claim'.

(2) Josiah repeatedly insists that the films are authentic BECAUSE they are CONSISTENT. The films are authentic only if they accurately represent events that actually occurred in Dealey Plaza that correspond to those they present. All kind of movies are consistent--comedies, romances, murder mysteries, sci fi)--and there are series of films that are consistent (Indiana Jones, Star Wars) but are not therefore authentic. Again we are confronted with the choice of demented or an op.

Peoples memories fade with time, but a picture never forgets.

(3) Josiah ignores massive uncontested evidence that the Zapruder is a fabrication, including the massive blow-out to the right front of JFK's head, a deception reinforced by altered X-rays, LIFE magazine, and even Zapruder on television, as I have repeatedly explained. That the other films are consistent with a fabrication means that they are fabrications, too, as reinforcing deceptions. We again confront the choice: He is either mentally bewildered or an op. There is no third way.

I thought this was about whether Moorman was in the street ... did I get that wrong? I would think that a critical thinker would say that even if all the other things showed the Zapruder film altered, it would not mean that Moorman was in the street.

Is it an all or nothing thing behind all this 'Moorman being in the street' talk and thats why the 'laws of nature' are being ignored. I wonder what would another professor say about that kind of thinking???

Bill Miller

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Your first point is impeccable, but Josiah's rhetorical strategy is to maintain the position I have described so he won't have to confront the massive evidence / multiple proofs that the film is a fabrication, which, in turn, impeaches the Moorman and the Nix. How often have I pointed out that there is massive evidence that the Zapruder is a fabrication even if our LOS argument is wrong? You need to pay close attention to what he is saying in the key paragraph that I quoted, namely:

Because of the persistent but failing efforts of Fetzer, White and others, I can say with considerable confidence that the photo record from Dealey Plaza forms a seamless tapestry of what happened on November 22nd. If you want to know what happened there, then study the photo record. It is a self-authenticating whole that can stand as bedrock in the case. It can be used to evaluate both eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. Only by the sheerest luck did Abraham Zapruder climb up on that pedestal with his camera and Mary Moorman take her Polaroid along that day. Zapruder's film and Moorman?s Polaroid (plus many other films and photos) give us the raw material to reconstruct the event insofar as it is possible. Without them, we in the research community would have gotten nowhere.

The situation, from the point of view of logic, is ridiculous, but that has been his "game plan" from the beginning. I am just a bit surprised that you have not caught on to this, given the extent to which you support him. Of course, the point of my (2) and (3) is to demonstrate the absurdity of his position that the photo record "is a self-authenticating whole that can stand as bedrock in the case". Notice he is even obviating the requirement that witnesses attest to their authenticity, which is another line of argument that indicates he is either mentally bewildered or acting as a disinfo op. You are catching on.

[ name=James H. Fetzer' date='Mar 6 2009, 06:40 AM' post='163694]

(1) Josiah insists that, if the Moorman is consistent with the Zapruder, then the Zapruder is authentic.

Mr. Fetzer - Are you sure you have stated Thompson's position accurately? Now I am not a Ph.D, but would not the scholarly and accurate thing to have said is that 'if the Moorman photo is consistent with the Zapruder film, then if the Zapruder film is to ever been shown to be altered, then it wasn't shown by way of the 'Moorman in the street claim'.

(2) Josiah repeatedly insists that the films are authentic BECAUSE they are CONSISTENT. The films are authentic only if they accurately represent events that actually occurred in Dealey Plaza that correspond to those they present. All kind of movies are consistent--comedies, romances, murder mysteries, sci fi)--and there are series of films that are consistent (Indiana Jones, Star Wars) but are not therefore authentic. Again we are confronted with the choice of demented or an op.

Peoples memories fade with time, but a picture never forgets.

(3) Josiah ignores massive uncontested evidence that the Zapruder is a fabrication, including the massive blow-out to the right front of JFK's head, a deception reinforced by altered X-rays, LIFE magazine, and even Zapruder on television, as I have repeatedly explained. That the other films are consistent with a fabrication means that they are fabrications, too, as reinforcing deceptions. We again confront the choice: He is either mentally bewildered or an op. There is no third way.

I thought this was about whether Moorman was in the street ... did I get that wrong? I would think that a critical thinker would say that even if all the other things showed the Zapruder film altered, it would not mean that Moorman was in the street.

Is it an all or nothing thing behind all this 'Moorman being in the street' talk and thats why the 'laws of nature' are being ignored. I wonder what would another professor say about that kind of thinking???

Bill Miller

Edited March 6, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

"What Costella believes is not in doubt no matter how much Fetzer believes it to be. Just ask Costella."

OK. GOOD IDEA. LET'S ASK COSTELLA....

Quoting John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>:

"1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens."

Your yourself quoted this, Jack. Now what about that "gap" that I asked you about?

Josiah Thompson

...........................

The GAP is a distracting ploy INVENTED BY DR. THOMPSON. I have never had reason

to consider HIS GAP as any thing but a distraction. I have never relied on the presence

or absence of a gap in any of my studies. My only comment on his gap is that it is

and always has been and always will be IRRELEVANT to any study of the Moorman LOS.

My studies rely on a CROSS formed by four lines...NOT ON WHETHER OR NOT TWO

POINTS TOUCH. I have stated this dozens of times, but Dr. Thompson is unable to

grasp such a simple concept, and substitute a mistaken one of his own, WHICH HE

FALSELY ATTRIBUTES TO ME. Enough!

And note that he fails to address ANY of Costella's put-downs except ONE WHICH HE

THINKS SUPPORTS HIS POSITION...but he does not understand even the one he chose,

because he failed to understand that the KEY WORDS in Costella's statement are BY

SOMEONE OF MARY'S HEIGHT. Let's see his replies to all of the other Costella points.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

It’s nice to see that Professor Fetzer has not lost his appetite for calling people names. He has three categories in which to place people who disagree with him: (1) They are stupid. (2) They are mentally unbalanced. (3) They are agents or “ops” of some dark intelligence agency. I have had the honor to have been called all three by Fetzer. Those who agree with Fetzer get only one name...”experts.”

John Costella states that internal evidence in the photo shows that it was taken from the grass. Fetzer believes that internal evidence in the photo shows it was taken from the street. Their views are in conflict. Costella points out that this has been his position since 2002. His quotes are scattered through this thread.

It is unalterably true that photos and films of the same event taken from different locations must vary only in terms of their standpoint. If any film or photo has been altered, it will stand out in its fakery. This is the principle behind the long search of Fetzer and company for evidence of alteration. The fact that they have been unable to find it justifies the notion that the film and photo evidence from Dealey Plaza constitutes a self-authenticating whole.

If you are going to prove that the Z film has been altered you have to do it the old-fashioned way... one proof at a time. It does no good to point to old alleged proofs that have been shot down to prove that the Moorman-in-the-street claim is true. You have to do it on the basis of the evidence concerning the Moorman-in-the-street claim itself.

I am amused that Fetzer’s only way to argue is to slime his opponents: “By the same token, the history of Yale and the OSS and CIA is consistent with his being an op.” Apparently, he is ignorant of the comic tale of how the CIA tried to hire me. I told it all to a reporter who wrote it up for the New Republic in the early seventies. It’s a great comedy.

Still, it’s tiresome don’t you think? No argument with the actual factual presentation of evidence but the same old line... his “reading comprehension“ is deficient, he’s “a dunce,” he’s “mentally bewildered,” he’s “acting as a disinfo op.” But the actual argument made in our study... he stays far away from that. I can hear cranking up in the background his riff about being a distinguished academic who taught critical thinking so we should believe him. Or once again he will hit us over the head with his CV that includes the prize he won in high school. But critical writing about the evidence in Moorman-in-the-street... we’re not going to hear much about that.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah displays an acute lack of reading comprehension. John agrees with him that the Moorman photograph is consistent with the Zapruder film. John disagrees with him that Mary Moorman was on the grass. He believes that she was actually in the street. It follows that, if she was in the street when she took her photograph and if the photograph is consistent with the Zapruder, then it has to have been altered. Is that too difficult for Josiah to understand? So it is not "true without qualification" that John Costella "has bailed out on Fetzer". What is "true without qualification" is that Josiah is a dunce.

Let me offer an alternative. Three lines of argument demonstrate--conclusively, in my opinion--that Josiah is either a dunce (quite possibly, mentally bewildered) or, if that is not the case, has been acting as a disinfo op. The arguments are these:

(1) Josiah insists that, if the Moorman is consistent with the Zapruder, then the Zapruder is authentic. Since he maintains this even knowing that John Costella believes BOTH that the Moorman is consistent with the Zapruder AND that the Zapruder is faked ("A Scientist's Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication", HOAX), Josiah is either mentally bewildered or deliberately making claims that are obviously false. Persumably, he would do that if he is not mentally bewildered only if he is an op.

(2) Josiah repeatedly insists that the films are authentic BECAUSE they are CONSISTENT. The films are authentic only if they accurately represent events that actually occurred in Dealey Plaza that correspond to those they present. All kind of movies are consistent--comedies, romances, murder mysteries, sci fi)--and there are series of films that are consistent (Indiana Jones, Star Wars) but are not therefore authentic. Again we are confronted with the choice of demented or an op.

(3) Josiah ignores massive uncontested evidence that the Zapruder is a fabrication, including the massive blow-out to the right front of JFK's head, a deception reinforced by altered X-rays, LIFE magazine, and even Zapruder on television, as I have repeatedly explained. That the other films are consistent with a fabrication means that they are fabrications, too, as reinforcing deceptions. We again confront the choice: He is either mentally bewildered or an op. There is no third way.

In the past, I would have added a premise that tends to resolve the matter, namely: that a Yale Ph.D. is most unlikely to be mentally bewildered. By the same token, the history of Yale and the OSS and CIA is consistent with his being an op. These arguments are so simple and straightforward that even his most devoted followers--Lamson, Miller, Junk, and the rest--risk demonstrating that they belong in the same category if they are going to dispute them. There is no third way.

[Bill Miller]

Check the shirts carefully.

Check the hairlines carefully.

Same guy? Same shirt?

Jack

I think I am starting to get it ... Bill Newman and Bill Lovelady were the same person because even though the two plaid shirts they wore were a different colors ... they still were both plaid and thats close enough.

How I ever missed that one is beyond me.

Also, can someone/anyone tell me what is meant by this statement: "he failed to understand that the KEY WORDS in Costella's statement are BY SOMEONE OF MARY'S HEIGHT". Is this the start of a new claim where Mary Moorman didn't take her own #5 photo ... what am I missing here?

Edited March 6, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

name='David G. Healy' date='Mar 6 2009, 01:11 AM' post='163679']

[name=Bill Miller' post='163675' date='Mar 5 2009, 11:21 AM][...]

Your Gif seems to stop at the moment Z313 was exposed. Correct me if I am wrong. Moorman's photo was exposed 3.6 frames after Z313. I would want to check Newman's posture at the same moment Moorman took her photo.

Keeping you honest, the cite re 3.6 frames (the .6 is impossible btw) after Z-313, is who?

Oh, the Moorman in the street issue? Next to the WCR SBT, the Moorman/Street issue is a farce, pure shuck-and-jive. My opinion of course...

The 3.6 seconds from Z313 to the moment of Moorman's photo being exposed was obtained by Anthony Marsh by breaking each frame into tenths. The position of the cycles to each other in Mary's photo comes between the two exposed frames (Z315 and Z316). If you fade in one frame over the other and do it in 1/10th increments, then 6/10ths into the transition ... the two cycles come into line on the Zapruder film as they are seen in Moorman's photo.

As far as the Moorman being in the street claim ... I agree with you that its a farce.

Bill Miller

Bill,

No need to break it down in tenth's

2 frames should do. Headshot to well after frame 316.

That arm never leaves his son's head. Stays at approx 45 degrees.

Color frame of Newman. Sleeve consists of dark/black cross striped pattern.

I'm not concerned with an actual distance in feet with regards to Sitzman.

The size difference between Sitzman and Newman is enormous. More detail from Newman's left arm should appear.

If this camera can't pick up the rest of his arm at approx 40ft, what would make someone believe it can distinguish between elements behind the wall or fence.

Keep the comparisons within the Moorman photo itself.

chris

Chris, just curious, where whould you place the windshield of the forth motorcycle in Moorman 5?

[Craig Lamson]

"What Costella believes is not in doubt no matter how much Fetzer believes it to be. Just ask Costella."

OK. GOOD IDEA. LET'S ASK COSTELLA....

Quoting John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>:

"1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens."

Your yourself quoted this, Jack. Now what about that "gap" that I asked you about?

Josiah Thompson

...........................

The GAP is a distracting ploy INVENTED BY DR. THOMPSON. I have never had reason

to consider HIS GAP as any thing but a distraction. I have never relied on the presence

or absence of a gap in any of my studies. My only comment on his gap is that it is

and always has been and always will be IRRELEVANT to any study of the Moorman LOS.

My studies rely on a CROSS formed by four lines...NOT ON WHETHER OR NOT TWO

POINTS TOUCH. I have stated this dozens of times, but Dr. Thompson is unable to

grasp such a simple concept, and substitute a mistaken one of his own, WHICH HE

FALSELY ATTRIBUTES TO ME. Enough!

And note that he fails to address ANY of Costella's put-downs except ONE WHICH HE

THINKS SUPPORTS HIS POSITION...but he does not understand even the one he chose,

because he failed to understand that the KEY WORDS in Costella's statement are BY

SOMEONE OF MARY'S HEIGHT. Let's see his replies to all of the other Costella points.

Jack

A cross? You have a funny understanding of the term "cross"

"A mark or pattern formed by the intersection of two lines, especially such a mark (X) used as a signature."

So where is this "cross" again in Moorman 5?

[Josiah Thompson]

What a shame that Jack White has decided to let Fetzer channel him! The biggest loss is that White is rather succinct while Fetzer... after the last 15 pages what can one say?

How do you manage it, Professor? You say, “He [Thompson] writes as though Costella were on his side, when he is actually Tink’s greatest nightmare.” Sure Professor. Then why does Costella write, as recently as December 9, 2008, “Just to bring everyone up to speed: I do NOT believe that the extant Moorman Polaroid places her on the street. In other words, I am on the Thompson et al. side of this argument, not Jim’s .” [NOTE: Emphasis in original; see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/5999.] Do you have something different from John dated more recently than that?

The rest of Fetzer’s fifteen pages of mush has about the same credibility as his statement above. Was our study organized to attack his “Moorman/Zapruder revisited” piece published on the restricted DellaRosa forum? Do we want to keep folks from reading his piece? On the contrary, earlier I suggested that reading his piece would be a good comparison with our own study. Why? Because our own study presents the evidence around this issue in a convincing and definitive manner while his effort is incoherent and marred by recycling all the old Jack White claims (e.g. Moorman’s shoes are the wrong color) long ago refuted. Take a look at it. The URL is http://JFKresearch.com/Moorman.

Fetzer continues to recycle his wrong and jejune interpretation of a paragraph in McCormick on Evidence. The point McCormick is making is about the admissibility of evidence not its probative value. For a photo to be admitted into evidence, it has to be authenticated as a photo of a particular scene. Right now, Barry Bonds is about to get off because his friend and personal trainer will not testify about a document’s relevance to Bond. Without the trainer coming in and authenticating the document and saying it was Bond’s calendar for steroid injections, the document cannot come into evidence. Without the personal trainer’s testimony, the document is subject to the hearsay objection. The same goes for photos. That’s why Zapruder had to testify at the Shaw trial that the film in evidence was the one he took. Likewise, Mary Moorman had to testify in the Shaw trial that the Moorman photo was the one she took. That was why she was asked to place herself on a map of Dealey Plaza and why she was asked to identify herself in frames from the Zapruder film standing in the grass taking her photo. All of this has to do with the legal requirements for the admission of a photo into evidence and has nothing to do with the probative value of a photo. The probative value is largely left up to the good sense of a jury with instructions from the judge. Any lawyer could have explained this to Fetzer but he keeps on falsely claiming the opposite.

Another post explains how wrong-headed is Fetzer’s attempt to explain the defection from Moorman-in-the-street of John Costella, now one of Fetzer’s most vociferous opponents on this point. Fetzer wants to channel David Mantik in this discussion but we have heard nothing from Mantik.

Fetzer claims that Moorman “has been saying the same thing since her first interview only three hours after the assassination in 1963 through a subsequent interview in 1997.” Our quotation of her interviews in extenso have shown just the opposite. Moorman has uttered confusing and contradictory statements about where she took her photo from the beginning. All Fetzer had to do was to read the interviews to know he was wrong. But he never reads. He just writes and writes and writes...

He writes as if Moorman’s memory was perfect. It is not, nor is anyone’s. The photo she took that day still exists. Its basic contents are the same as they were on NBC less than thirty minutes after the assassination. The lines of sight over and through many objects line up in real life in Dealey Plaza today just like they did in 1963….and they show she stood on the grass when taking that picture.

Fetzer cites me as saying, “So the choice is really simple. Either believe Moorman’s statement or believe the rest of the evidence.” Given what we’ve learned about what Moorman actually said, this should be revised to say, “So the choice is really simple. Either believe some of the things Moorman said and disbelieve the other things she said or believe the rest of the evidence.” The rest of the evidence includes the fact that internal evidence to the photo shows definitively that it was taken from the grass plus the fact that all photos and films show her taking photo from the grass and no witness among the several hundred there reported seeing her jump into the street.

There is really not much else to say about Fetzer’s reply. He channels David Lifton who has nothing of interest to say about the factual claim but, of course, is interested to buttress his claim of Zapruder film fakery since the Z film contradicts his notion that all shots came from the front and that the body itself was altered on the way to Bethesda. What is interesting, of course, is what Fetzer does not say. He used to claim that the drum scan copy of the film had been altered by me. You will no longer hear this nonsense after we showed that all copies of the film indicated exactly the same “gap.” Nor will you hear anything about our proof of the existence of the “gap” and the fact that it means that White simply misread the Moorman photo. All of this proof, which is at the center of the dispute is simply ignored by Fetzer just as White takes the amazing position that it is beneath him to even discuss it.

All in all, it was a welcome event to have Fetzer arrive (even if channeled by Jack White). We all can take a look at what he produced in his fifteen pages of prose and wonder why he bothered.

Josiah Thompson

From Dr. Fetzer:

.............

All,

The method of selection and elimination is on display in this latest attack

from Josiah Thompson, "Moorman-in-the-Street?", which seems to be a

desperate attempt to preserve the illusion that the assassination

films--the Zapruder, the Muchmore and the Nix--are authentic, lest the

public become concerned that it has been deceived and recognize

deception of this kind had to have involved elements at the highest

levels of government, in this case including agents of the Secret

Service, medical officers of the US Navy and even LIFE magazine, which

was also used to promote a false depiction of the death of JFK. There

are many forms of lying, of course, some of which involve photographs

and films when they are subject to alteration or recreation. That is

why the debate over the Moorman photo has been so extensive and so

intense, even though it is but one of many proofs that the films

cannot possibly be genuine. Thus, the key paragraph to understand his

objective is this one:

Because of the persistent but failing efforts of Fetzer, White and others, I can say with considerable confidence that the photo record from Dealey Plaza forms a seamless tapestry of what happened on November 22nd. If you want to know what happened there, then study the photo record. It is a self-authenticating whole that can stand as bedrock in the case. It can be used to evaluate both eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. Only by the sheerest luck did Abraham Zapruder climb up on that pedestal with his camera and Mary Moorman take her Polaroid along that day. Zapruder's film and Moorman?s Polaroid (plus many other films and photos) give us the raw material to reconstruct the event insofar as it is possible. Without them, we in the research community would have gotten nowhere.

He creates the IMPRESSION of having made his case by the highly creative

use of evidence, selecting that which agrees with a predetermined

conclusion and eliminating the rest. One of the first obligations of

responsible scholarship, for example, is to offer relevant citations to

relevant work by the subjects of your critique, which, in this case, are

Jack and me. But the study that he is attacking, "Moorman/Zapruder

Revisited", is never mentioned, much less cited. Search through Josiah's http://www.jfklancer.com/moorman_essay.html and you will find no link to http://JFKresearch.com/Moorman/ where our study can be found. The obvious explanation, of course, is that the author does not want the members of

his target audience to have their own opportunities to even read the work

he is attacking. It is in fact a very careful and nuanced study of the

major arguments advanced on both sides and does not even remotely satisfy

his description of it as 'tabloid journalism'. On the contrary, it

clearly refutes it. Not only that, but it is chock full of logic and

evidence contradicting his claim the photographic record of work

alleged to have been taken in Dealey Plaza

forms a seamless tapestry of what happened on November 22nd. If you

want to know what happened there, then study the photo record. It is a self-authenticating whole that can stand as bedrock in the case. It can be used to evaluate both eyewitness testimony and physical evidence.

No only does eyewitness testimony take precedence over photographs and

films in courts of law?as this private investigator has to be aware?but the

extensive research on this subject demonstrates this claim is an outrageous

misrepresentation, which must be deliberate. Indeed, 'Moorman/Zapruder

Revisited' quotes from McCORMICK ON LAW, 3rd edition (1984), Section

214, for example, concerning photographs, movies, and sound recordings:

________________

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

has been the opposite, where photographs and films, including the

X-rays, have been used to discount the testimony of eyewitnesses, which

is the better legal evidence. Since Josiah has to know better, what

he is saying here appears to qualify as a hoax.

Moreover, 'Moorman/Zapruder Revisited' includes multiple proofs that

the films of the assassination have been altered, changed, and even

recreated, where his position acquires such specious plausibility as

it may have only by ignoring everything we know about the films:

Jack's studies, Mantik's research, Lifton's investigations, and

Costella's proofs! I would have thought that he would be more

reasonable, but he is in a corner and has to find a way out or

confront the ignominy of acknowledging that, for more than a decade,

he has been fighting for a losing cause. I admired his chutzpah

during our debate when he concluded claiming, "So the choice is really

simple. Either believe Moorman's statement or believe the rest of the

evidence." Astounding! As though Mantik had not proven the Muchmore

cannot be authentic; as though Jack had not shown that Zapruder might

not have even taken the film; as though John had not adduced

compelling scientific proof that the Zapruder is a recreation; as

though Lifton had not even documented the history of the alteration of

the film; as though I had never edited and published THE GREAT

ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)!

Remember, the assassination films are authentic only if the events

which they depict corresponds to what actually happened at that time

and in that place. It is not enough for the Zapruder, Muchmore,

and Nix to be consistent with one another, since Muchmore and Nix,

as we believe to be the case, could have been altered to conform to

the Zapruder. What happened to the unresponsive spectators? the

Greer head turns? the "blob" and the blood spray painted in? the

absence of brains and debris being blown out the back of his head?

the absence of brains and debris on the trunk of the limo? the

publication of 232 in LIFE with physically impossible features? the

rapid dissipation of the blood spray? mistakes made inserting the

Simmons Freeway sign into the film? mistakes in introducing the

lamppost into the film? the removal of Connally?s turn to his left?

Irwin Schwartz? report of seeing JFK's brains blown out to the left

rear? the visible blow-out to the back of his head seen in frames

around 374? Homer McMahon's report of observing 6-8 impacts on

bodies? reports from William Reymond, Rich DellaRosa and others of

having seen viewed the film with features that we had predicted based

on medical evidence and eyewitness accounts? the absence of witnesses

reporting the back-and-to-the-left motion that is the most conspicuous

feature of the extant film? the missing limo stop? the absence of

Chaney's motoring forward to notify Chief Curry JFK had been shot?

Each of these impeaches the Zapruder. You can even see the blow-out

to the back of his head in frame 374!

Josiah has adopted the pose that there is a simple choice between

accepting Mary's testimony that she was really in the street?which

?Moorman/Zapruder Revisited? documents, but which this new piece

misrepresents; indeed, a new find is a video of Mary explaining

how she stepped into the street to take her photograph,

"Moorman In The Street - JFK Assassination", on YouTube

and the alleged consistency of all of the films and photographs,

when consistency is not enough to establish authenticity. He

writes as though Costella were on his side, when he is actually

Tink's greatest nightmare. It is as though he has never read

"New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" (OpEdNews), presenting John's latest

proof, much less THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. Indeed, none of what

I have said here even reaches to the mutually reinforcing deceptions

of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, (

the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and ©

the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that

the right-front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten

after twice breaking the plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the

deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that night (HOAX, page 435)! In fact, none of it

is true. Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just

fine but that she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains

together at the back of his head. Not one of the witnesses or doctors

reported it. Not even the mortician! It's not just that Tink's little

boat has sprung a leak. It has sunk like a sieve into the ocean of truth!

Since he doesn't offer a link to 'Moorman/Zapruder Revisited', based upon what

he presents here, you would never know. He shows his hand early on,

with an assault on ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), where I brought

together contributions by eleven experts on different aspects of the

case. While it would not be surprising if he were to take exception

to some of their work, he instead trashes them all regardless of their

quality and independent of their authorship:

No longer was there a small community wherein opinions and theories could be vetted before publication. With a penchant for the tabloid style, Fetzer gave voice over the years to a number of researchers who competed with each other to produce dramatic (often outlandish) claims.

Such a depiction, however, does not appear to fit the extremely careful and

meticulous work of David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who published the studies

of the autopsy X-rays that shattered the cover-up and exposed the charade

that had passed for serious research on the medical evidence. Nor does it

fit the observations of Robert B. Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the

human brain, who concluded, on the basis of his review of the reports

from multiple competent physicians at Parkland Hospital that two kinds

of brain tissue--cerebral and cerebellar--tissue extruding from a massive

wound to the back of the head that a brain shown in diagrams at photographs

at the National Archives cannot possibly be that of JKF. Nor my exchanges

with the Department of Justice to bring their new findings to the attention

of the authorities in the department with responsibility related to investigations of his death. Even apart from the other excellent

contributions to this book, these were historic developments that

shattered the back of the cover-up.

Indeed, his depiction of "tabloid style" journalism does not fit any of

the contributions to this book at all, which Josiah reviewed for amazon.com

without actually reading it! Most scholars would find that practice to be a

violation of the most basic principles of scholarship, but it appears to be

par for the course for Thompson. Indeed, Vincent Bugliosi, RECLAIMING

HISTORY (2007), describes the books I have edited as the only exclusively

scientific books (three) on the assassination (p. 947). Indeed, the ?tabloid

style? that he would force upon the contributions to my book appears to be

the approach that he himself adopts. For example, Josiah offers a grossly

exaggerated assault on MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) as follows:

___________________

For some thirty-seven years, we all thought of Mary Moorman as the

young woman seen in the Zapruder film snapping her Polaroid photo of

JFK with the knoll in the background. Fetzer?s second book, "Murder in

Dealey Plaza," made the astounding claim that she had actually taken

her photo from the street. In tabloid style, Fetzer?s book proclaimed

in headlines:

?MOORMAN POLAROID CONTAINS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF ZAPRUDER FILM

TAMPERING.... MARY AND JEAN WERE NOT ON THE GRASS; THEREFORE, THE

ZAPRUDER FILM IS FAKED?

Unchecked by anyone before publication, the claim was immediately

challenged and shown to be simply another example of Jack White?s

careless analyses.

____________________

For all the hype, you would think this heading was emblazoned on the

cover of the book. In fact, you have to search carefully to find it,

where it appears as the somewhat obscure--you have to turn the book on

its side to even read it--heading of one eight sections in Jack's color

photo section entitled, 'The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Indeed, the

second part of the title Josiah quotes is actually on another page than

the first. Precisely why this should be an astounding' claim, given that

Mary has been saying the same thing since her first interview only three

hours after the assassination in 1963 through a subsequent interview in

1997 and has been captured saying the same thing in a video, "Moorman In

The Street - JFK Assassination", which is available on YouTube, is the

question. If you only listen to Mary, she was standing in the street,

where the fact that she is shown on the grass is simply one more proof

that the Zapruder film was altered.

He not only contests Mary's own statements, unedited versions of which

can be found in "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", but makes other

misleading allegations, such as, "With respect to

Moorman-in-the-street, earlier believers in the claim, David Mantik

and John Costella, threw in the towel long ago." This, however, is

simply untrue. I called David Mantik and asked him, "Did you throw in

the towel on the Moorman?", explaining that Josiah was asserting that

he had. He told me that Josiah had his latest communication on the

matter and that, if he was saying anything like that, he was being

misquoted. For clarification, I asked David if he had changed his

mind since we conducted our experiment in Dealey Plaza and he told me

that he had not. What this reveals is that Thompson is willing to

make any statement, no matter how distorted or removed from the truth,

if he believes it will advance his cause, especially when making a

public pitch to the unwary.

__________________

Indeed, if more proof that Mary was in the street at the moment she

took the Moorman, consider what she said during an interview with KRLD

in 1997 with a host by the name of Charlie Jones, which David Mantik

included in his study of the Zapruder film in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA

on page 346 as follows:

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 that evidently was the first

shot. You know, I

could hear the sound. And . . .

Jones: Now, when you heard the sound, did you immediately think "rifle

shot?"

Moorman: Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just

immediately following which I still thought was a

firecracker. And

then I stepped back up on to the grassy area. I

guess just, people

were falling around us, you know. Knowing

something was wrong,

I certainly did not know what was wrong.

___________________

As David observes, these are her own words--she stepped into the street

to take her Polaroid picture. As if for emphasis, she also recalls not just

stepping back onto the grass, but precisely when she did so. "In fact,"

David writes, "based on our reenactments and without the additional layers

of blacktop, it is likely that Moorman could have stood erect in the street,

with her camera to her eye, while taking the photo, just as she recalled.

It is unusual in this JFK case to make a prediction, and then later to

have it verified so precisely by a statement directly from the mouth of

the pertinent witness." Moreover, unlike our words, the actions we've

taken are almost impossible to forget.

Under these conditions--when Mantik has consistently held to the position

that the films have been altered and that Mary was in the street--it is

all the more remarkable that Josiah would so grossly misrepresented

him in this forum. He similarly misrepresents John Costella's position,

but in a more subtle fashion.

While Costella does not believe that features internal to the Moorman

photograph place her on the street, he actually believes that she was

in the street when she took it, which means that, if Jack and I are

wrong in our argument that features in the photograph place her in the

street, then Mary's photograph, like so much else of the photographic

record, has to have been altered. But here is what he says:

_____________________

John Costella recently lectured Fetzer on Fetzer's mistakes of

interpretation pointing out on 12/17/08 that "it has been established,

without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been

taken from the street... It is, in fact, completely consistent with

the Zapruder film's location of her lens." [NOTE: Emphasis in original;

see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6147]

_____________________

Those who actually read this post, however, will find a nice example

of Josiah's method of selection and elimination, since John's

conclusions about the films contradict his:

_____________________

Re: FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID ON NOVEMBER 22ND.

Josiah,

I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you.

I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source

wasn't Gary Mack. But at that time I thought you were going to reveal

that she didn't say she stepped into the street at all.

As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the

assassination, she said she stepped into the street. Given that this

is damaging to your case (and his), I now agree that his authority is

impeccable.

Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:

1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman

Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of

Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder

film's location of her lens.

2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has

repeated to this day, that she stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE

QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE PHOTO FROM THE STREET.

3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the

President's or Jackie's attention.

4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like

frozen turkeys:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../jfk/clip_C.mov

5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.

6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.

The net results are:

A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as

presenting a consistent depiction of the assassination.

B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic

evidence is fraudulent.

C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is

impeached as evidence -- its admissibility relies on the testimony of

the photographer.

D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can

see for no one else seeing her step into the street is that she did it

AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.

As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman

Polaroid as telling us anything at all. What surprises me the most is

that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of WHETHER SHE STEPPED

INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from, is the

key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder

film. The Polaroid is irrelevant in all this.

My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and

has tried to make me understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't

read his section in "Pig on a Leash" should do so. (And let me also

say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006,

when he dug out his transcript.)

I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it

as vehemently as Jim, past behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving

us this explosive and unequivocal evidence confirming Lifton's

transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun.

I think we've all learned a lot in the past week.

John

___________________

When you actually consult the sources cited, however, you will find

that John is expressing his amazement that Gary Mack has just

confirmed that, during her interview three hours after the

assassination, "I stepped into the street", which

he had not expected from this source. Moreover, he skillfully

sidesteps the fact that Costella believes the Zapruder has been

massively altered?where the title of his major chapter in HOAX is

"A Scientist's Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication",

but you would never know from Thompson's selective use of quotation.

Here is another example of his technique, which violates the standards

of scholarship. On page 3, he cites

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6048 ,

giving the impression Costella is entirely on his side, unless you

read to the end:

_____________________

I can't say you've proved that, as I haven't checked it. But it sounds

like a valid argument.

Now wait on a minute: here's something I just thought of. (Research on

the fly -- dangerous. What the hell ...) The Moorman was taken after

the head shot -- around Z-315 or so, from memory. That means that the

blood and brain matter that was blasted out the back of the

President's head must be somewhere. If it's not already splattered

over Hargis, then where is it? I don't see it in mid-air, half-way to

Hargis ...

John

______________________

Ironically, although I would ordinarily defer to an expert who

possesses greater competence than I, in this instance, for reasons

that I have explained in the study Josiah does not cite, I believe

that Costella is wrong and Jack is right about the line of sight.

I even observed there that, while Josiah might like to cite John's

Ph.D. in physics with his specialization in electromagnetism,

including the properties of light and the physics of moving objects,

to make his case against us, that would be to concede that

qualifications make a difference, which he still insists is not

the case in JFK research! If there has ever been a more bizarre

attitude toward expertise--as though competence in investigations were

inversely proportional to qualifications--I have never encountered it.

In the case of this new presentation, in order to conceal John's

complete beliefs, Josiah cites his conclusion that the Moorman puts

Mary on the grass while concealing his belief that Mary was actually

in the street! This is about as duplicitous as it gets.

In his zeal to impeach me over the Moorman, he succumbed to the temptation

to suppose that John was completely on his side, when in fact that was

far from the case. Indeed, when I asked him what we would see if we had an

authentic film, John replied with a vivid description, with which Rich

DellaRos--who has seen (what appears to be) the unaltered film on

three occasions--has agreed:

I've already said here that I'd give better than even money odds that a

genuine film of the assassination would show Mary stepping into the street.

But it would also show her taking a photo of JFK slumping after the FIRST

shot (there being no previous ridiculous "chicken dance" reaction of JFK as

shown in the Z-toon; the throat entry shot most likely occurred later, when

the limo was stopped and there was a barrage of bullets); it would show Jean

Hill reacting more like an excited girl than a frozen turkey; it would show

the limo stopping and the motorcycles scattering, Chaney going forward to the lead car; it would show Clint Hill actually push Jackie back down in the seat and cover her and the President with his body (not get stuck on the back foothold as the limo speeds out of the Plaza, as the Z-toon also

shows); and, most importantly (and gruesomely), it would show the blood and

brain matter of the President flying through the air and over the shiny trunk of the limo, over Hargis?indeed, over everything in its path?-instead of disappearing into nothingness, as the Z-toon shows, leaving Hargis and the limo as pristinely clean as Senator Specter's magic bullet was undamaged.

What then can be said of ?Moorman-in-the-Street??? For those who have

lived through the past four months on the jfk-research.yahoogroups.com

forum where this subject has been dissected in excruciating detail,

it must be very strange to discover that one of the participants

is providing such a lop-sided and completely baised presentation.

Having suffered a humiliating defeat, Josiah Thompson has now

resorted to a massive smear, which distorts the issues and manipulates

the evidence. Indeed, having taught logic, critical thinking, and

scientific reasoning for 35 years, this is an excellent case study to

test their abilities to detect and to misleading arguments and special

pleading, which is the standard designation of the practice of selection

and elimination he so skillfully deploys.

But violations of logic and evidence of this magnitude come at a

certain cost. Anyone familiar with our past debate is unlikely to be

taken in. By pulling out all the stops, he has revealed himself as

a person who is willing to take any measure, no matter how unscrupulous,

to defeat advances in understanding the death of JFK. And those who

may find this surprising really should appreciate that, in this regard,

Gary Mack, the custodian of The Sixth Floor Museum, Josiah Thompson and

their allies are engaged in a systematic and sustained effort to keep

the public from knowing the truth about the death of our 35th president.

This is not new to them and this instance will not be the final

installment in deceit and deception. They appear to be gambling

that no one is going to notice!

During a conversation about this exchange, David Lifton reminded me that he

discussed attempts to "revise history" in relation to Mary Moorman in

his chapter, "Pig on a Leash", in HOAX. And, indeed, on pp. 420-421

he reports on the making of a recent documentary involving The 6th

Floor Museum, which I also discuss in "Distorting the Photographic

Record", pp. 427-435. As Lifton writes,

_______________

Consider what happened on a recent documentary shoot in Dealey Plaza. Here was

an important issue for The Sixth Floor Museum, which controls both the Moorman

copyright as well as the Zapruder. Mary Moorman was being interviewed

for a documentary to be broadcast on national television.

Mary told major media interviewers as recently as a few years ago how

she stepped into the street to take President Kennedy's picture and then,

after the shots were fired, stepped back on the grass. She was most

specific about these two events: the step into the street, the step

back onto the grass. Here are her exact words:

Moorman: Uh, just immediately before the presidential car came into

view, we were,

you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my

friend 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 that

evidently was the first shot. You know, I could hear the

sound. And ...

Jones: Now when you heard the sound, did you immediately think,

"rifle shot"?

Moorman: Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just

immediately

following which I still thought was a firecracker. And

then I stepped

back up on the grassy area. I guess just, people were

falling around

us, you know. Knowing something was wrong. I certainly

didn't know what was wrong.

The trouble is the Zapruder film shows no such thing. And if this

actually happened, then Mary's account is further evidence, just like

the car stop, that the film was altered through professional optical

editing, where Mary was put up on the grass.

But now, some years later, at a time when The Sixth Floor Museum

controls Mary's copyright, she is being interviewed by the Museum's

Gary Mack. Mack has learned she should not say she stepped into the

street, but she still says she stepped forward. And she says so again

and again, on each successive take. The problem is: Mary doesn't

even do that on the Zapruder film. She just stands there.

And Mary apparently remembers something else?how slowly the car was

moving. Just the way she told me when I visited her back in November

1971 and she told me that it stopped. Now she simply says it

"wasn't going that fast."

The film shoot stops.

Mack cuts in. HE turns to the cameraman and says, "That's it",

indicating the camera should be turned off.

Someone says "going that fast". Gary Mack looks down at the grass and

fidgets at Mary's blooper. HE turns to Mary and says, "They will or

will not use that. That's OK."

A senior producer walks over, in a casual manner: "Wasn't going that

fast"? he says, mimicking her. Then he continues, "Mary, you're so

cute!" The implication is clear. She should be careful about what

she says and stick to the script.

Mary Ann puts her head in her hands, like a child who has made a

mistake. Mack says, "We're going to do one more take. We'll have

it go 'slowly'."

Meanwhile, before the shoot resumes, Mary keeps saying that she

"stepped forward". This is clearly a troublesome phrase, because

if Mary "stepped forward" that raises all sorts of problems, one being

that she must then "step back" when the Zapruder film shows neither.

During one take, the one actually broadcast, Mary tells it this way

and uses the troublesome phrase:

I just stepped to the, uh, to the edge here, and Jean is

hollering, "Look Mr.

President, look our way!" and then I snapped the picture, which was at the

same instant, evidently, as the bullet hit him, not realizing that's what

had happened. But I did hear a noise.

[And then I stepped back, and then, two more noises,] and then I could see

people around me falling to the ground, or running, and doing--and that

let me to know that something was happening.

I put the ten words in brackets above because--as actually broadcast--these particular words were deleted. As actually broadcast, Mary's account was as follows:

But I did hear a noise, and then I could see people around me

falling to the ground, or running, and doing--and that let me

know that something was happening.

By the deletion of the words ("and then I stepped back, and then, [i

heard] two more noises"), two critical matters were omitted from Mary's

account, namely: (1) the implication that she had stepped forward, very

possibly into the street, especially if she was already standing at the

edge; and (2) the fact that Mary Moorman believes that she heard three

shots--the first as she took her picture and then two more!

This is quite different than the official version, but it is the one

Mary has always given as her version of this event. Mary always says that

in her various interviews--both during this filming and elsewhere--and

it's plain as day that what she calls the "first shot" occurred the

instant she took her picture, and then there were two more. But

that raises complications and contradicts the official version, so the

problem was dealt with by making a silent edit (omitting the bracketed

words above). Obviously, when the witness' account came up against

the official version, there was no contest--it was the official version

that prevailed.

Discovery Channel personnel say, with reasonable self-mocking wit,

that they are not scholars and historians but popularizers, that their

speciality is "history-lite". But I wonder if this even qualifies in that category.

It seems to me it is simply false, and manipulative--and all of it is

happening under the auspices of an interview being conducted by someone

from The Sixth Floor Museum. Is this valid history? I would like to

see a full dress interview of Mary Moorman by an objective investigator

in which no attempt is made to edit or guide her; and the matter of

when it was first pointed out to her that she should be careful about

this issue of whether or not she "stepped forward" is discussed in

detail. Who communicated to her the fact that, her memory notwithstanding,

the Zapruder film showed something else, so perhaps she should tailor her

story accordingly?

At another point, the matter of Mary's medical bills comes up. Something

that costs almost a thousand dollars. In what appears to be innocent

small talk, Mack says that she'll be able to take care of that easily

in view of the payment being made to her that day. Then they all get

down to business.

The whole thing is so unsavory. It's not even that there is a

deliberate effort to promote lies, but certain people have made up

their minds as how what happened has to be presented--how many shots

were fired, whether the car stopped, whether Mary stepped into the street, etcetera--and that provides a criterion for what is acceptable, for what

should or should not be said. For what is and is not correct. Politically correct.

I don't know exactly what to call this, but it is certainly not the

proper way to approach documentary film making in the area of history.

____________________

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

This message was sent using the University of Minnesota Duluth Webmail

[Josiah Thompson]

In MIDP, Jack, you introduce your claim by saying: “I discovered a point within the photo that aligned two widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight. At the left is a graphic image of the two points of reference I aligned, which are easily located in the plaza. Two edges of the window openings in the rear of the paragola (sic) (A and in the photo exactly coincide with the top and south edge of the pedestal (C and D). As you can see, the angles AB and CD form a large cross (+), which is readily perceived across Elm where Moorman stood to take her picture.”

The “graphic image” that you mentioned is right here:

But the problem with your “graphic image,” Jack, is that your wide red lines cover up just what we would want to look at. What’s that? Well, it’s the lining up of the two points you talk about (the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the pergola window) or that the “two edges of the window openings in the rear of the paragola (sic) (A and in the photo exactly coincide with the top and south edge of the pedestal (C and D).”

I have a problem. When you remove the wide red lines and look underneath you can see that what you say is just, bluntly, untrue. The two points don’t line up. Nor do the edges you describe “coincide” as you say they should. This shows what is underneath your red lines:

So help me out here, Jack. It seems to me that underneath your red lines is the “gap” and that’s what this whole dispute is about. Your say, “As long as importance is attached to the ‘gap,’ I will never engage in any further discussion about it.” You say you are not going to acknowledge the “gap” or say anything about it. But isn’t that being like an ostrich and shoving your head in the sand? How about it, Jack?

"What Costella believes is not in doubt no matter how much Fetzer believes it to be. Just ask Costella."

OK. GOOD IDEA. LET'S ASK COSTELLA....

Quoting John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>:

"1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens."

Your yourself quoted this, Jack. Now what about that "gap" that I asked you about?

Josiah Thompson

...........................

The GAP is a distracting ploy INVENTED BY DR. THOMPSON. I have never had reason

to consider HIS GAP as any thing but a distraction. I have never relied on the presence

or absence of a gap in any of my studies. My only comment on his gap is that it is

and always has been and always will be IRRELEVANT to any study of the Moorman LOS.

My studies rely on a CROSS formed by four lines...NOT ON WHETHER OR NOT TWO

POINTS TOUCH. I have stated this dozens of times, but Dr. Thompson is unable to

grasp such a simple concept, and substitute a mistaken one of his own, WHICH HE

FALSELY ATTRIBUTES TO ME. Enough!

And note that he fails to address ANY of Costella's put-downs except ONE WHICH HE

THINKS SUPPORTS HIS POSITION...but he does not understand even the one he chose,

because he failed to understand that the KEY WORDS in Costella's statement are BY

SOMEONE OF MARY'S HEIGHT. Let's see his replies to all of the other Costella points.

Jack