Moorman-in-the-street?

March 13, 2009

Reading David Healy's remark about the debate turing into a "farce", I see that, in the context, he is exactly right. The gang has been using it as a psychological distraction from the massive evidence that the Zapruder has been faked. And if the Zapruder is fake, so, too, are the Muchmore and Nix films, which puts the lie to Josiah's posturing about the authenticity of the films. Indeed, three lines of proof--which are important enough to deserve repeating--demonstrate that he has not been on the up-and-up with us throughout this exchange.

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.

Even Bill Miller has understood the absurdity of Tink's position in relation to (1), because defeating one proof of fakery is not defeating all, but that is how Tink has been playing it. 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.

Josiah also claims he was recruited to join the CIA, an incident he widely publicized, contending that I must be unaware of this humorous episode:

__________________

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.

___________________

I'm not so sure. Certainly, it would be easy to feign having declined recruitment. Indeed, isn't that exactly what we would expect if he had in fact joined the agency? But here is another point of view from David Lifton, who does not believe he is an op:

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:47:35 -0700 [03:47:35 AM CDT]

From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>

To: james Fetzer <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Subject: Questions for Thompson, about his non-response to Best Evidence

Jim,

About a month ago, I had a few email exchanges with Josiah Thompson.

Below is a copy of an email I wrote him, challenging him to explain his

behavior, in certain areas, over the past few decades.

He has not replied.

I have snipped out a few things that were unnecessarily personal.

DSL

------ Forwarded Message

From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:18:10 -0700

To: Josiah Thompson <gum226@sbcglobal.net>

Subject: Re: Query about an email

> Tink,

>

> Thanks for your prompt reply. . . . [snip] . . . I wish you would instead

> address the following questions:

>

> 1. When Best Evidence was published (Jan 1981) how much time elapsed from the

> date of publication to the time you first read the book?

2. What was your first reaction, upon seeing my analysis of the

head wounds in Chapter 13, with specific reference to the error that YOU

made (in Six Seconds, and in combining descriptions instead of contrasting

them) when you realized that the McClelland drawing of the head wound was

not the way the President¹ body looked at Bethesda Naval Hospital?

Did that register with you? What did you think?

3. When did you first realize, on reading my Chapter 13 on the

head wounds, and which cited YOUR OWN INCORRECT ANALYSIS (but in the

gentlest way possible, so as not to offend) that you had combined‹rather

than contrasted‹the Parkland and Bethesda views of the head wounds?

This was a major error you made, and it is clear that you had

not the foggiest notion‹when you wrote Six Seconds-that the parameter of

time‹i.e., six hours separating these observations‹played a major role in

this affair. Specifically, you had failed to take cognizance of that major

fact.

FYI: Wesley Liebeler thought it was amazing that you made such

an error. You were a professor, for God¹s sake! (And, FYI: Paul Hoch said

to me, at the time, ³Tink has ignored the parameter of time.²)

4. When you saw this bifurcated situation laid out in Best

Evidence, and the fact that I explicitly closed out my Chapter 13 on the

head wounds, by citing this error of yours, how come you made no attempt, at

the time, to communicate with me? Did you think people just wouldn¹t

notice? That it would go away? As you know, it didn¹t. My book was a Book

of the Month Selection, was published by four publishers and stayed in print

for 17 years.

Did you have an explanation to offer for your non-response over

that 17 year period?

5. When you read Best Evidence‹again, now back in 1981‹and saw

that Chapter 11, on the throat wound, presented an entirely analogous

situation (i.e., a small horizontal slit, at Parkland, becoming a ³7 ‹ 8 cm²

gash as Bethesda, did you not think that perhaps something important and

noteworthy happened to the body, between Dallas and Bethesda?

6. When you read Best Evidence, and saw that there was clear

evidence of a covert intercept between Dallas and Bethesda, (body bag, and

shpping casket; versus sheets and full ceremonial coffin) did you not see

the implications?

7. In 1989, the Best Evidence Research video was released‹with

filmed interviews of five key witnesses whose accounts make clear the body

was intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda. In the O¹Connor (and other)

interviews, it was clear that the head wound at Bethesda was huge‹and bore

no relationship to the McClelland drawing.

Again, no response on your part. Were you just too busy with

other matters?

By now functioning as a real life detective, did you not

appreciate the significance of this evidence that ³the medical

evidence²--i.e., the President¹s own body‹had been altered?

8. When we met in 1990, (perhaps 91) at your home, and spent a

day together, and you led me to believe I had done groundbreaking work

(which in fact I have), were you in fact involved in perpetrating a personal

deception?

9. When we appeared on WLUP in Chicago, in April 1993, you said

(for the first time, as far as I can tell, and I have a tape of the

broadcast) that, well, the Dallas and Bethesda differences were simply the

result of the Dallas doctors being rushed. Innocent error.

Oh really, Tink. . .Is that so?

Well, then: what then happened to the divergent descriptions of

the head wounds, which‹in YOUR OWN BOOK published back in 1967-- were so

integral to your ³double head hit² theory. Or was that divergence simply

something inconvenient to talk about, on that radio show, so suddenly it

disappeared into some memory hole?

10. When we appeared on WLUP in Chicago, in April, 1993, you said a

coverup involving the falsification of evidence to perpetrate a false

solution, was not plausible, or even feasible‹that was ³david¹s

error²--because it couldn¹t be known ³so early,² just what evidence had to

be falsified.

Now wait a minute. . Do you really believe that ³the conspirators²

had to ³wait² until the ³first responders² formulated their ³conclusions² to

know what to falsify?? Are you serious?

If so, then again, we are dealing with your apparent unwillingness

(or inability??) to appreciate the parameter of time.

In other words, do you not understand‹in this case‹that fraud in the

evidence means altering the evidence IN CONJUNCTION WITH the performance of

the crime, to as to perpetrate a deception? That its all part of one

integrated blueprint?

I am framing the questions as I have because I have observed you

over the decades, and conclude that you are too smart to be making these

errors. OTOH: No, I don¹t think you¹re a government agent. So my conclusion

is that ‹for much of the last 4 decades since your stint at Life‹you¹ve gone

on with your career, and then more recently, fallen back into the pattern of

being a ³weekend warrior² on the JFK case. And this is your way of playing

³catch-up.² To pontificate about things you know little about, and attempt

to live off some sort of ³past reputation² (i.e., circa 1967)

My conclusions about you personally, which I know you find

disagreeable, stem not from some theory about you being a government agent,

but from my awareness of your intelligence. A reasonably intelligent person

does not, and cannot, make mistakes of this magnitude. These are not ³sins

of omission².

When you see someone persisting in the idea that 3 + 2 = 6, one looks

for an explanation; and the one I have come up with is [snip] . . .that its

all a big game to you-and that you are more interested in preserving some

³place in the sun² that you believe you had way back in the past, in the

halycon days when the ³first books² came out‹i.e., what I call the ³1967

view² of the case.

[Consider] the PhD you pursued.

Philosophy. . .the Queen of the sciences. . Right?

Perhaps you can start by addressing some of the questions at the top of

this email.

[snip]

David Lifton

. . .
aside: if the Z-film is altered, this mean what, again? So, Tony Marsh? ROTFLMFAO --The Boston bus driver? Now he is a film/photo expert worthy of being quoted? Wake up! And you drag Josiah Thompson into this debacle? Hell, Marsh is the guy who was unearthed as a Lone Nutter acting as a CT a year or so ago.... Ben Holmes exposed him in debate on alt.conspiracy.jfk, so bad was the thrashing in fact Marsh retreated to alt.assassination.jfk (.john [John McAdams] home away from from) never to return to acj. Marsh is one of those Barb Junkkarinen... pal's. I see all these LN types are dropping by here these days -- gotta love Jim Fetzer, he keeps all you Lone Nutters (acting as CTer's) on your toes....

btw, that Moorman on the grass issue? That should read the GRASS/street issue is a farce, a complete FARCE.... the Moorman gig is a simple diversion cause you guys can't handle nor debate the possibility of an altered Z-film.... pure-n-simple.... oh, and that's Dr. Fetzer to you, and your right you damn sure don't have a Ph.D.

Jack White · March 13, 2009

You have it wrong Bill,
The resolution a camera can produce is just more than the lens. Its the product of stability ( tripod, handheld, panning etc), lens resolving power, film resolving power, f/stop used (was the lens diffraction limited by being stopped down too far) and shutter speed ( action stopping power.)

Crawley screwed up the test completely.

The ONLY things he got right was the lens and the shutter speed.

What he got wrong:

The film he used has a higher Lp/mm than the Polaroid film Mary used.

He used the wrong f-stop. Moorman 5 was taken with the lens stopped all the way down since it was taken using asa 3000 film in bright daylight. The lens was diffraction limited.

The camera was not panned during exposure.

The long and short of it is that Crawleys experiment is worthless as a test of the resolving power of the Moorman film/lens/fstop/shutterspeed/stability combo.

Craig, with all due respect, isn't Crawley an expert in lenses ... I think I saw somewhere how George Lucas, the Star Wars guy, would consult him on projects.

The film to my understanding was the same film Moorman used, just a different name, but never-the-less the same film.

I also thought that Crawley used the same model camera as Moorman. His camera had a glass lens as Mary's did ... and Mary's camera was said to have not been used since her taking that picture, thus the settings were checked against those on Mary's camera.

Crawley reported that he could get the resolution with that camera to see the details in Jack's work.

Do you know something different?

Bill

Bill's understanding is wrong. The film was Kodak. The camera was Mary's.

Crawley used MARY MOORMAN'S ACTUAL CAMERA. At that time no film was still available

for Mary's camera, so Geoffrey and I figured how to use 120 b/w film, which had the same

width dimension. Using a black "changing bag", he put a roll of Kodak film in place inside

the camera, after first practicing dry runs so he could see how to do it in the bag. We could

only shoot one exposure per roll, since there was no way to advance the film. SITTING ON

THE GRASS near the Moorman position, he twice found the line of sight by looking at a

Moorman print and took an exposure at two different settings. For the third photo, he

handed the camera to me and had me find the line of sight and snap a photo, SITTING ON

THE GRASS. So he ended up with 3 exposures. He furnished us with ONE print, I presume

from the best negative. It was very close to the line of sight, but we were mainly checking

the resolving power of Mary's lens, to counter the notion that the lens was poor quality.

It was a glass lens (I have forgotten the brand). It produced a very good image. When Mary

loaned the camera to Gary Mack, she told him it was the first time it had been out of her

safe deposit box since 1963. Crawley's test was not about the line of sight...it was about

resolving power of the lens. It was not about Polaroid film, because that was not available.

Nigel Turner hired Crawley because of his photographic expertise, not to do any specific

experiment. The experiment was done only because Gary was able to get Mary's camera,

and required considerable expertise for Geoffrey to figure how to jury rig the camera,

film, and correct exposure.

Crawley was a designer of lenses. He designed many lenses for the E. Leitz Company, makers

of Leica. He was also the editor of a prestigious British photography magazine...something

like the Journal of International Photography.

Jack

Edited March 13, 2009 by Jack White

Bill Miller · March 13, 2009

Reading David Healy's remark about the debate turing into a "farce", I see that, in the context, he is exactly right.

Speaking of a lack of reading comprehension skills ... Healy was talking about you and Jack's claim of Moorman standing in the street as being a "farce". It has only been YOU that keeps trying to make it appear that if one doesn't agree that Moorman was in the street when she took her #5 Polaroid, then this somehow means that the rest of the film must be correct and that is not what anyone has said. Even after this has been pointed out to you numerous times, you still misstate it. As much as I do not car for O'Reilly's show ... he had you pegged dead to rights.

I am sure that if you wish to start another thread on how boys turn into girls on the Zapruder film and visa-versa ... Josiah and others will be happy to point out the error in that claim as well. Maybe start a thread on how Mrs. Franzen grew taller which is another claim found in 'Hoax' that was shown to be bogus. This isn't the DellaRosa site where any idiot can make a claim and not have it challenged.

The bottom line is that certain 'laws of nature' show that Moorman could not be in the street when she took her photo. One can only assume that the same asinine critical thinking that would suggest that Zapruder was made of rubber has prevented you from ever being able to see what the rest of the world sees.

Here is your challenge: You and/or Jack can step down into the street and shoot on any LOS that you like. Take your photo and post it and I will overlay it onto Moorman's and I can tell you that those same laws of nature that need no enforcement will expose your mistakes.

There is no way around the laws of nature, Mr. Fetzer. The laws of nature are not there to be accepted only when you believe them to benefit you and ignored other times that they don't. So far it has been only YOU that has ignored them. I think before you do anything else, you have an obligation to address those cycles windscreens and those laws of nature that you like to speak of.

Bill Miller

Edited March 13, 2009 by Bill Miller

David G. Healy · March 13, 2009

Reading David Healy's remark about the debate turing into a "farce", I see that, in the context, he is exactly right.

Speaking of a lack of reading comprehension skills ... Healy was talking about you and Jack's claim of Moorman standing in the street as being a "farce". It has only been YOU that keeps trying to make it appear that if one doesn't agree that Moorman was in the street when she took her #5 Polaroid, then this somehow means that the rest of the film must be correct and that is not what anyone has said. Even after this has been pointed out to you numerous times, you still misstate it. As much as I do not car for O'Reilly's show ... he had you pegged dead to rights.

I am sure that if you wish to start another thread on how boys turn into girls on the Zapruder film and visa-versa ... Josiah and others will be happy to point out the error in that claim as well. Maybe start a thread on how Mrs. Franzen grew taller which is another claim found in 'Hoax' that was shown to be bogus. This isn't the DellaRosa site where any idiot can make a claim and not have it challenged.

The bottom line is that certain 'laws of nature' show that Moorman could not be in the street when she took her photo. One can only assume that the same asinine critical thinking that would suggest that Zapruder was made of rubber has prevented you from ever being able to see what the rest of the world sees.

Here is your challenge: You and/or Jack can step down into the street and shoot on any LOS that you like. Take your photo and post it and I will overlay it onto Moorman's and I can tell you that those same laws of nature that need no enforcement will expose your mistakes.

[image]

There is no way around the laws of nature, Mr. Fetzer. The laws of nature are not to be accepted when you believe them to benefit you and ignored other times that they don't. So far it has been only YOU that has ignored them. I think before you do anything else, you have an obligation to address those cycles windscreens and those lasws of nature that you like to speak of.

Bill Miller

the cycles wind screens? LMAO. Ahh the debate concerning November 1963 events in Dealey Plaza - we're really progressing LMFAO! For the record I doubt you'd be taking on Dr. James Fetzer concerning any subject matter -- methinks you need Josiah and Gary's and the gleeclubs input to hold you up!

So, read my bytes, Nutter.... focus, you have to simply F-O-C-U-S.... I have no time for your inane debate. Gary, OR Josiah's Moorman#5 street/grass debate. On the record saying same! IMHO, a simple fact prevails Wild Bill, you're wrong most when it comes to photo analysis (all the way back to those *a head growing in DP bush days*). This is pure shuck and jive, Lone Nut distraction and disinfo..... Blatant attempt to discredit Jim Fetzer and Jack White.... So, try to sell it to someone else, eh? Frankly, I doubt you even understand why the Moorman #5 photo is debated on ANY JFK assassination board.

When it comes to the facts I'll take Dr. Jim Fetzer in debate over you, Josiah, Gary in any JFK conspiracy related head-to-head debate (in front of an audience w/or w/o cameras) you're way above your station, young man...

Edited March 13, 2009 by David G. Healy

Craig Lamson · March 13, 2009

You have it wrong Bill,
The resolution a camera can produce is just more than the lens. Its the product of stability ( tripod, handheld, panning etc), lens resolving power, film resolving power, f/stop used (was the lens diffraction limited by being stopped down too far) and shutter speed ( action stopping power.)

Crawley screwed up the test completely.

The ONLY things he got right was the lens and the shutter speed.

What he got wrong:

The film he used has a higher Lp/mm than the Polaroid film Mary used.

He used the wrong f-stop. Moorman 5 was taken with the lens stopped all the way down since it was taken using asa 3000 film in bright daylight. The lens was diffraction limited.

The camera was not panned during exposure.

The long and short of it is that Crawleys experiment is worthless as a test of the resolving power of the Moorman film/lens/fstop/shutterspeed/stability combo.

Craig, with all due respect, isn't Crawley an expert in lenses ... I think I saw somewhere how George Lucas, the Star Wars guy, would consult him on projects.

Yes Bill Crawley is an expert and I'm sure he is a fine and honorable man, but his test is useless in finding the resolving power of the Moorman film/lens/fstop/shutterspeed/stability combo.

The film to my understanding was the same film Moorman used, just a different name, but never-the-less the same film.

No, it was Kodax Tri-x NEGATIVE film.

I also thought that Crawley used the same model camera as Moorman. His camera had a glass lens as Mary's did ... and Mary's camera was said to have not been used since her taking that picture, thus the settings were checked against those on Mary's camera.

He used Marys exact camera but that means nothing without the correct film and the correct settings. The camera had two shutter speeds of 1/25 and 1/100 of a second. He got that one right. The film he used was ASA 400 compared to the Polaroid film which had a ASA speed of 3000. What that means is that the Polaroid film was much more sensitive to lihgt and as such it needed less light for a proper exposure. How much less? The sunny 16 rule says that a proper exposure for 400 speed film in bright sunlight is 1/100 at F32. The proper exposure for 3000 speed film is 1/100 at f64.5 Thats a difference of 2.5 stops. WHy is that important? Because the larger the fstop..number wise...the smaller the hole...and the smaller the hole the more diffraction will soften the image. At f64.5 the Mooran camera was quite diffraction limited.

Crawley reported that he could get the resolution with that camera to see the details in Jack's work.

He may have reported that but his work is quite flawed as I have pointed out in my original post. His biggest error was the choice of film. Published data shows that current 3000 speed polaroid film can resolve 13-17 lp/mm at 1:1000 contrast. Trix x film can resolve 100 lp/mm at 1:1000 contrast. If you donj't understand lp/mm I suggest you look it up. 1:1000 contrast is pure black next to pure white, in laymans terms. In lower contrast situations the resolution of film falls off greatly, to nealy half the 1:1000 And of course this is just the numbers for the film alone, when you add the other properties of the combo into the mix, the resolution numbers fall even more. The long and the short of it is that Crawleys test was worthless.

Do you know something different?

It appears so.

Bill

Craig Lamson · March 13, 2009

You have it wrong Bill,
The resolution a camera can produce is just more than the lens. Its the product of stability ( tripod, handheld, panning etc), lens resolving power, film resolving power, f/stop used (was the lens diffraction limited by being stopped down too far) and shutter speed ( action stopping power.)

Crawley screwed up the test completely.

The ONLY things he got right was the lens and the shutter speed.

What he got wrong:

The film he used has a higher Lp/mm than the Polaroid film Mary used.

He used the wrong f-stop. Moorman 5 was taken with the lens stopped all the way down since it was taken using asa 3000 film in bright daylight. The lens was diffraction limited.

The camera was not panned during exposure.

The long and short of it is that Crawleys experiment is worthless as a test of the resolving power of the Moorman film/lens/fstop/shutterspeed/stability combo.

Craig, with all due respect, isn't Crawley an expert in lenses ... I think I saw somewhere how George Lucas, the Star Wars guy, would consult him on projects.

The film to my understanding was the same film Moorman used, just a different name, but never-the-less the same film.

I also thought that Crawley used the same model camera as Moorman. His camera had a glass lens as Mary's did ... and Mary's camera was said to have not been used since her taking that picture, thus the settings were checked against those on Mary's camera.

Crawley reported that he could get the resolution with that camera to see the details in Jack's work.

Do you know something different?

Bill

Bill's understanding is wrong. The film was Kodak. The camera was Mary's.

Crawley used MARY MOORMAN'S ACTUAL CAMERA. At that time no film was still available

for Mary's camera, so Geoffrey and I figured how to use 120 b/w film, which had the same

width dimension. Using a black "changing bag", he put a roll of Kodak film in place inside

the camera, after first practicing dry runs so he could see how to do it in the bag. We could

only shoot one exposure per roll, since there was no way to advance the film. SITTING ON

THE GRASS near the Moorman position, he twice found the line of sight by looking at a

Moorman print and took an exposure at two different settings. For the third photo, he

handed the camera to me and had me find the line of sight and snap a photo, SITTING ON

THE GRASS. So he ended up with 3 exposures. He furnished us with ONE print, I presume

from the best negative. It was very close to the line of sight, but we were mainly checking

the resolving power of Mary's lens, to counter the notion that the lens was poor quality.

It was a glass lens (I have forgotten the brand). It produced a very good image. When Mary

loaned the camera to Gary Mack, she told him it was the first time it had been out of her

safe deposit box since 1963. Crawley's test was not about the line of sight...it was about

resolving power of the lens. It was not about Polaroid film, because that was not available.

Nigel Turner hired Crawley because of his photographic expertise, not to do any specific

experiment. The experiment was done only because Gary was able to get Mary's camera,

and required considerable expertise for Geoffrey to figure how to jury rig the camera,

film, and correct exposure.

Crawley was a designer of lenses. He designed many lenses for the E. Leitz Company, makers

of Leica. He was also the editor of a prestigious British photography magazine...something

like the Journal of International Photography.

Jack

Thank you for confirming that Crawleys test was worthless.

Bill Miller · March 14, 2009

When it comes to the facts I'll take Dr. Jim Fetzer in debate over you, Josiah, Gary in any JFK conspiracy related head-to-head debate (in front of an audience w/or w/o cameras) you're way above your station, young man...

I think the last time you danced with me that it was YOU who had to admit that you had seen no proof of alteration ... something you have been saying for years. I think we agree on that one.

The next time we danced it was discovered that while you had been complaining for years how YOU needed to examine the said in-camera Zapruder original film ... you had not bothered to fill out a simple request asking to come to the archives to examine it. That discovery was probably a year ago ... hows that all imporatnt request coming ... can we see what you have written so far?

Bill Miller

Bill Miller · March 14, 2009

name='Jack White' post='164015' date='Mar 13 2009, 07:17 PM'
Bill's understanding is wrong. The film was Kodak. The camera was Mary's.

Crawley used MARY MOORMAN'S ACTUAL CAMERA. At that time no film was still available

for Mary's camera, so Geoffrey and I figured how to use 120 b/w film, which had the same

width dimension. Using a black "changing bag", he put a roll of Kodak film in place inside

the camera, after first practicing dry runs so he could see how to do it in the bag. We could

only shoot one exposure per roll, since there was no way to advance the film. SITTING ON

THE GRASS near the Moorman position, he twice found the line of sight by looking at a

Moorman print and took an exposure at two different settings. For the third photo, he

handed the camera to me and had me find the line of sight and snap a photo, SITTING ON

THE GRASS. So he ended up with 3 exposures. He furnished us with ONE print, I presume

from the best negative. It was very close to the line of sight, but we were mainly checking

the resolving power of Mary's lens, to counter the notion that the lens was poor quality.

It was a glass lens (I have forgotten the brand). It produced a very good image. When Mary

loaned the camera to Gary Mack, she told him it was the first time it had been out of her

safe deposit box since 1963. Crawley's test was not about the line of sight...it was about

resolving power of the lens. It was not about Polaroid film, because that was not available.

Nigel Turner hired Crawley because of his photographic expertise, not to do any specific

experiment. The experiment was done only because Gary was able to get Mary's camera,

and required considerable expertise for Geoffrey to figure how to jury rig the camera,

film, and correct exposure.

Crawley was a designer of lenses. He designed many lenses for the E. Leitz Company, makers

of Leica. He was also the editor of a prestigious British photography magazine...something

like the Journal of International Photography.

Jack

I know how Jack tends to be forgetful and not get the facts straight and while I was not as quick to embrace Jack's take on things as willingly as Craig ... I thought I would double check with someone else who might know the record as well as anyone. Below is the information that I recieved from Gary Mack ...

Hi Bill,

Jack has several details wrong, as explained below.

Gary

Bill's understanding is wrong. The film was Kodak. The camera was Mary's.

Gary: According to a Polaroid scientist with whom I spoke years ago, and confirmed to me by retired Kodak executive Rollie Zavada, Kodak manufactured about 85% of Polaroid film in those days (DuPont made the rest). Kodak didn’t want the public to know of their arrangement.

Crawley used MARY MOORMAN'S ACTUAL CAMERA. At that time no film was still available

for Mary's camera, so Geoffrey and I figured how to use 120 b/w film, which had the same

width dimension.

Gary: Geoff Crawley didn’t need Jack’s help or know-how to load Kodak Tri-X – not 120 - film into Mary’s camera. He already knew what to do and he told producer Nigel Turner before agreeing to participate. That was the reason for my borrowing Mary’s camera.

Using a black "changing bag", he put a roll of Kodak film in place inside