Jump to content
The Education Forum

Moorman-in-the-street? The logic of the paper Pt. I


Recommended Posts

Jack White and Professor Fetzer have replied but their replies have stayed far distant from the logic of the paper. White has simply declared that he won’t discuss anything having to do with the “gap.” Since the size of the gap measures the size of his mistake in reading the Moorman photo, his response means he won’t discuss anything substantial in the paper. Fetzer, for his part, has chosen to characterize me as “a disinfo op... a dunce...mentally bewildered” while deliberately ignoring the substantial logic of the paper. In short, they have chosen not to reply at all. The basic logic of the paper has been ignored.

I have started a new thread to highlight that logic and ask for responses about it. Thus far, besides Fetzer and White, only two members put forward their opinions. Duncan Macrae said of our paper, “the case... put forward is, in my opinion, indisputable.” David Healy remarked, “Next to the WCR SBT, the Moorman/Street issue is a farce, pure shuck-and-jive.” Since we mean our paper to be definitive, we would like to hear from a cross-section of members. We are looking for both criticism and understanding of the basic claims in the paper. I am writing this summary to aid any readers in responding.

The logical joints in the paper might be summarized as follows:

(1) What did Fetzer and White believe about the Moorman LOS?

It’s essential that we first nail down just what Fetzer and White have been claiming. This is especially important since both Fetzer and White have claimed in the past that their claim is not being accurately portrayed. We make sure we have their claim stated properly by quoting Fetzer’s and White’s own descriptions of their claim in MIDP and TGZFH.

In MIDP, White wrote: “I discovered a point within the photo that aligned two widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight.” In TGZFH, Fetzer pointed out that certain features in the Moorman photo “create two points in space that are located 35 feet apart, generating an imaginary line to the lens of her camera about 100 feet away.” What are those “widely disparate points,” those “two points in space that are located about 35 feet apart?” The simplest way to describe them is to say they are the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal and the bottom right corner of the lowest pergola window some 35 feet behind the pedestal. Fetzer says the features that have to be aligned are “the left-hand side and the top of the pedestal... and the bottom and right hand side of the window behind.” In MIDP, White uses a graphic image to explain the points:

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 B) 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.

White’s verbal description may become clearer if look at the graphic image he refers us to:

MIDPPhoto.jpg

Since White says that the coincidence of the two angles forms the cross (A, B, C, D) indicated, we can say with confidence that the two points he referred to are the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal and the right bottom corner of the pergola window beyond. Alternatively, but more awkwardly, one could say that the LOS is formed by the lining up of lines B and C, of lines A and D, and the cross formed by their intersection. However, we put it the important thing is that we are talking about two points in the photo lining up. If they do, then the camera lens has to be on the extension of a line through those two points. The camera lens and the two points therefore constitute a line-of-sight (LOS) which we will call the “White LOS.”. White and Fetzer claim that the LOS through those two points places the Moorman’s camera much lower than it appears in the Zapruder film. Hence, they argue, this is unequivocal evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered. Their logic is unassailable. If the “White LOS” is actually found in the Moorman photo they are right. Their claim is justified.

(2) Is the White LOS found in the Moorman photo?

Recall that the Moorman photo enlargement placed in MIDP by White and Fetzer had a wide, red cross superimposed on the enlargement. The cross, however, covered up precisely what it was meant to illustrate... the alignment of the two points. The copy of the Moorman photo used by Fetzer and White in this illustration is easily recognizable; hence, the “cross” can be removed and we can see what is underneath it. Do the two points align exactly or not?

Redlinesandwithout.jpg

No, they don’t. The top of the pedestal is significantly below the bottom of the pergola window and to the right of the bottom of the pergola window. The left side of the pedestal is to the right (or east) of the side of the pergola window. Or to put it another way, White’s “angle” formed by the lines A-B is above and to the left of his angle formed by the lines C-D. Indisputably, the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal does not line up with the bottom right corner of the pergola window beyond. There is a significant “gap” between the two. What Fetzer and White have claimed is simply untrue.

So what does this mean?

It means that there are actually two relevant lines-of-sight. There is the “White LOS” formed by the alignment of the two points (or two angles or four lines, depending on how you want to describe it). This LOS is not to be found in the Moorman photo. The actual “Moorman LOS” is quite different. This can be seen in a comparison of various Moorman copies with a White photo that shows the “White LOS.”

WhiteLOSvsFBIZippoDSSmith.jpg

(3) What do the various Moorman copies show?

Since the core issue of the dispute is whether the White LOS is or is not found in the Moorman photo, the various copies of the Moorman photo soon took center stage. With no evidence, Professor Fetzer asserted that I had altered one particular copy of the Moorman photo, the socalled “drum scan.” When it became apparent that all copies showed the same thing, Fetzer raised his sights and declared all copies of the Moorman photo had been altered especially in the region of the pedestal and the pergola. Given such an extravagant increase in the Fetzer/White claim, it became important to do exhaustive research on the actual provenance of the various copies of the Moorman photo. That research took up many pages of our a paper and showed the silliness of the alteration claim. The following GIF put together by Bill Miller shows dramatically that all copies of the Moorman show the same thing and that the White LOS is not in the Moorman photo:

LOSshiftshort.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

At least one LOS, either Fetzer/White or Thompson/Mack, has to be incorrect.

Over the course of discussions in the last few months, we alternately heard from Fetzer, that they made no mistake and their LOS was correct or that even if they were incorrect about Moorman being in the street, there was plenty of other proof that the Z film was altered, so it didn't really matter ... then it would be back to 'we didn't make any error.' The Z-film was never the issue in the discussion, just the Moorman in the street claim.

Once the essay was posted, and it became obvious that their LOS and other "reasoning" was faulty, there has been refusal to even discuss it, which is an odd stance in a quest for truth, imo.

But perhaps more perplexing is the rather new wrinkle that, despite nearly a decade of saying ... and publishing ... that the Moorman photo is UNaltered, now the possibility of it being altered has been raised. Fetzer wrote what would appear to be two opposing things on the yahoo group - both on March 6th.

QUOTING FETZER

It is very simple, really. (1) Jack and I do not believe that we

have made any mistakes.

END QUOTE

AND ...

QUOTING FETZER

Certainly, if the photo is faked, then those responsible

would have made changes that "tidied things up". That includes the

use of a point of reference, such as a LOS, that would support the

claim that it was taken on the grass.

END QUOTE

Either their LOS is correct or it is not. Fetzer seems to be saying that if the Moorman

photo has been faked, then it stands to reason that the alterers would make sure the

LOS looked like she took the photo from the grass.

IF that is the case ... then they missed it, and their LOS is still wrong.

But is this a wiggly way of acknowledging that their from the street LOS IS in error ...

and that the Thompson/Mack LOS is correct ... but that is because the alterers somehow

put in a LOS so it would look like it was taken from the grass?

Is this an "even if we are wrong and you are right, we are still right and you are

still wrong" ... uh ... logic?

Is this really the new stance? And does Jack agree with it?

I hope Jack and Jim will each respond to whether or not they now acknowledge that

their LOS is incorrect.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Jack White and Professor Fetzer have replied but their replies have stayed far distant from the logic of the paper. White has simply declared that he won’t discuss anything having to do with the “gap.” Since the size of the gap measures the size of his mistake in reading the Moorman photo, his response means he won’t discuss anything substantial in the paper. Fetzer, for his part, has chosen to characterize me as “a disinfo op... a dunce...mentally bewildered” while deliberately ignoring the substantial logic of the paper. In short, they have chosen not to reply at all. The basic logic of the paper has been ignored.

I have started a new thread to highlight that logic and ask for responses about it. Thus far, besides Fetzer and White, only two members put forward their opinions. Duncan Macrae said of our paper, “the case... put forward is, in my opinion, indisputable.” David Healy remarked, “Next to the WCR SBT, the Moorman/Street issue is a farce, pure shuck-and-jive.” Since we mean our paper to be definitive, we would like to hear from a cross-section of members. We are looking for both criticism and understanding of the basic claims in the paper. I am writing this summary to aid any readers in responding.

The logical joints in the paper might be summarized as follows:

(1) What did Fetzer and White believe about the Moorman LOS?

It’s essential that we first nail down just what Fetzer and White have been claiming. This is especially important since both Fetzer and White have claimed in the past that their claim is not being accurately portrayed. We make sure we have their claim stated properly by quoting Fetzer’s and White’s own descriptions of their claim in MIDP and TGZFH.

In MIDP, White wrote: “I discovered a point within the photo that aligned two widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight.” In TGZFH, Fetzer pointed out that certain features in the Moorman photo “create two points in space that are located 35 feet apart, generating an imaginary line to the lens of her camera about 100 feet away.” What are those “widely disparate points,” those “two points in space that are located about 35 feet apart?” The simplest way to describe them is to say they are the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal and the bottom right corner of the lowest pergola window some 35 feet behind the pedestal. Fetzer says the features that have to be aligned are “the left-hand side and the top of the pedestal... and the bottom and right hand side of the window behind.” In MIDP, White uses a graphic image to explain the points:

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 B) 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.

White’s verbal description may become clearer if look at the graphic image he refers us to:

MIDPPhoto.jpg

Since White says that the coincidence of the two angles forms the cross (A, B, C, D) indicated, we can say with confidence that the two points he referred to are the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal and the right bottom corner of the pergola window beyond. Alternatively, but more awkwardly, one could say that the LOS is formed by the lining up of lines B and C, of lines A and D, and the cross formed by their intersection. However, we put it the important thing is that we are talking about two points in the photo lining up. If they do, then the camera lens has to be on the extension of a line through those two points. The camera lens and the two points therefore constitute a line-of-sight (LOS) which we will call the “White LOS.”. White and Fetzer claim that the LOS through those two points places the Moorman’s camera much lower than it appears in the Zapruder film. Hence, they argue, this is unequivocal evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered. Their logic is unassailable. If the “White LOS” is actually found in the Moorman photo they are right. Their claim is justified.

(2) Is the White LOS found in the Moorman photo?

Recall that the Moorman photo enlargement placed in MIDP by White and Fetzer had a wide, red cross superimposed on the enlargement. The cross, however, covered up precisely what it was meant to illustrate... the alignment of the two points. The copy of the Moorman photo used by Fetzer and White in this illustration is easily recognizable; hence, the “cross” can be removed and we can see what is underneath it. Do the two points align exactly or not?

Redlinesandwithout.jpg

No, they don’t. The top of the pedestal is significantly below the bottom of the pergola window and to the right of the bottom of the pergola window. The left side of the pedestal is to the right (or east) of the side of the pergola window. Or to put it another way, White’s “angle” formed by the lines A-B is above and to the left of his angle formed by the lines C-D. Indisputably, the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal does not line up with the bottom right corner of the pergola window beyond. There is a significant “gap” between the two. What Fetzer and White have claimed is simply untrue.

So what does this mean?

It means that there are actually two relevant lines-of-sight. There is the “White LOS” formed by the alignment of the two points (or two angles or four lines, depending on how you want to describe it). This LOS is not to be found in the Moorman photo. The actual “Moorman LOS” is quite different. This can be seen in a comparison of various Moorman copies with a White photo that shows the “White LOS.”

WhiteLOSvsFBIZippoDSSmith.jpg

(3) What do the various Moorman copies show?

Since the core issue of the dispute is whether the White LOS is or is not found in the Moorman photo, the various copies of the Moorman photo soon took center stage. With no evidence, Professor Fetzer asserted that I had altered one particular copy of the Moorman photo, the socalled “drum scan.” When it became apparent that all copies showed the same thing, Fetzer raised his sights and declared all copies of the Moorman photo had been altered especially in the region of the pedestal and the pergola. Given such an extravagant increase in the Fetzer/White claim, it became important to do exhaustive research on the actual provenance of the various copies of the Moorman photo. That research took up many pages of our a paper and showed the silliness of the alteration claim. The following GIF put together by Bill Miller shows dramatically that all copies of the Moorman show the same thing and that the White LOS is not in the Moorman photo:

LOSshiftshort.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josiah, for me your simple explanations say what IMO needs to be said most eloquently and am glad to have a topic to refer to with regards to this matter which quite frankly IMO is nonsensical, but educational also. I don't know if much more needs saying. It would be good if the imagery could stay embedded on topic permanently. Just one thing, at this part of the photos corner the distortions are greatest straight lines are not correct to use, the gap as such may in fact be greater than it might look' in the photo as the lines being lined up should be done so with different non-circular arcs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly agree that I don't need to say anything else. I am disappointed but not surprised that Professor Fetzer saw fit to not comment on any of the salient evidentiary points made. Perhaps, however, his silence is more instructive than any comment.

Josiah, for me your simple explanations say what IMO needs to be said most eloquently and am glad to have a topic to refer to with regards to this matter which quite frankly IMO is nonsensical, but educational also. I don't know if much more needs saying. It would be good if the imagery could stay embedded on topic permanently. Just one thing, at this part of the photos corner the distortions are greatest straight lines are not correct to use, the gap as such may in fact be greater than it might look' in the photo as the lines being lined up should be done so with different non-circular arcs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shadow comparison of people "standing on the Curb" in Altgens and in a Betzner ( Mirror Image )

Looking at the Betzner 3 image and comparing the lenth of the shadows against the " Curb Line ".

It appears to me that the people in Altgens were not "standing in the street" or "standing on the curb" but were actually standing further back on the grass.

I would have to agree with Josiah on that point, and (24") from the curb to the back of Moorman's heel appears to be around the mark.

Especially when compared to the Z-FRAMES of Moorman and Hill.

14587.jpg

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, Tink, the essay says it all. And their silence speaks the proverbial volumes ... for, bottomline, if Jack White or Jim Fetzer had found any innacuracies, ANYthing they could counter in it at all ... they would have gleefully been shouting it from the forum rooftops. They know it, we know it ... and they know we know it.

Bests,

Barb :-)

I certainly agree that I don't need to say anything else. I am disappointed but not surprised that Professor Fetzer saw fit to not comment on any of the salient evidentiary points made. Perhaps, however, his silence is more instructive than any comment.
Josiah, for me your simple explanations say what IMO needs to be said most eloquently and am glad to have a topic to refer to with regards to this matter which quite frankly IMO is nonsensical, but educational also. I don't know if much more needs saying. It would be good if the imagery could stay embedded on topic permanently. Just one thing, at this part of the photos corner the distortions are greatest straight lines are not correct to use, the gap as such may in fact be greater than it might look' in the photo as the lines being lined up should be done so with different non-circular arcs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

This guy is shameless. He is blatantly misrepresenting our position. Notice he does not actually offer pages or posts for citations so anyone could check our actual positions. While there is a "lower right corner" of the window thirty five feet behind the pedestal, there is no "upper left corner" of the pedestal, because there is a one-inch indentation around the top of the pedestal. The proper alignment of the cross "+" requires using the left side of the pedestal and the top of the pedestal as parts of two lines that intersect in space. What this means is that, in order to make the alignment required by the line of sight, a "gap" will be created by necessity, since aligning them properly allows for the one-inch indentation (or "knotch"). I have explained this in Parts I and II of "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", JFKresearch.com/Moorman/, which was composed after weeks of discussion and debate on jfk-research@yahoogroups.com. Everyone who participated in this knows that Josiah Thompson is distorting the most basic aspect of our proof. The matter of the "red cross" is also a charade, since the same features exist with or without the red lines, which Jack used to highlight the location of the cross. If you take a look at "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", you will find an extensive and, in my opinion, decisive refutation of the claims made in this ridiculous post. If David Healy has actually posted the reply attributed to him here, then he has been taken in. No one should fall for this stunt, which is one of the most dishonest distortions possible. No doubt Josiah wanted to shift the discussion to this forum from the other because it would be virtually impossible to dupe members there, who have been living through this for months. I therefore urge Healy and others who are being played for suckers to read our study, which is supported by no less than fifteen photographic attachments, which were prepared by Jack for this purpose.

The existence of a modest distance between the pedestal top and the bottom inside of the window has also been a subject of extensive discussion. You will find the key paragraph below Attachment 7 as follows:

The second alleged "gap" is one of vertical displacement. Tink has insisted that we missed a difference of close to 2" at the pergola, which would have translated into as much as a 7" difference over the grass. Such a modest gap is almost too small to be seen on a small, blurry copy of the Moorman. Jack has candidly acknowledged that there may be a 1" gap at the pedestal, which Joe Durnavich measured (using a method John first proposed of counting pixels) to be 1.88". I do not know if he did this correctly by using an image consistent with our 41.5" estimate, but let us assume that he did. Since even a 2" difference only adds 8" to the line of sight over the grass, adding it to our figure of 41.5" would yield 49.5". Since Mary was 5'2" (5'3" with shoes) and the camera at lens should have been about 5" lower, the line of sight should have been closer to 57" (or 58"). This is still far too low by 8" (or 9") for Mary to be standing on the grass. So even Tink's strongest argument is still unavailing.

Indeed, anyone who studied the exchange between us would be struck by the duplicity of his side during the debate, where a private investigator, familiar with court procedures, is not even willing to acknowledge that eyewitness verification of photos and films is required for their admissibility as evidence in courts of law, which means that witnesss testimony takes precedence as has the greater weight, contrary to his position, in a desperate but corrupt attempt to blunt the evidential impact of Mary's testimony about taking her Polaroid.

Let me highlight some of the measures they have employed in arguing their case against us. Mary Moorman herself has, from her first recorded interview three hours after the event, consistently maintained that she stepped into the street to take her famous photograph. Sometimes she is more detailed about stepping into the street, taking her photo, stepping back onto the grass and "getting down" while tugging at the leg of her friend, Jean Hill, so she would get down, too, and they would avoid being shot. One astute member of the forum even noticed there is a YouTube video, "Moorman in the Street",

, where you can watch Mary speak for herself. Indeed, when Gary Mack confirmed that, in her first interview, she stated, "I stepped into the street", it confirmed for him that Mary had indeed been in the street, even though he disagrees with Jack and me about the internal features of the video, which in his opinion support that it was taken from the grass. If Mary was in the street, yet the photo has features that indicate it was taken from the grass, then it can't be the photo that Mary took or, at the very least, it must have been subject to alteration. Josiah insists that John is on his side about Mary having been on the grass when the photo was taken, suffering from some apparent intellectual incapacity to separate the photo that Mary is alleged to have taken from where the photo she actually took and where she was standing. I don't know how to account for his unwillingness to acknowledge John's position, which he continues to distort.

And this is far from the only misrepresentation at the heart of Josiah's position. In the crucial paragraph of his "Moorman-in-the-street?", he commits logical blunders that I would not expect a freshman to commit:

> 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

Notice how he pretends that, if Jack and I are wrong about the Moorman, then that permits him to assert--"with considrable confidence"--that the photo record from the plaza "forms a seamless tapestry", which can "stand as bedrock in the case", as though other indications of alteration do not even exist! Indeed, I have offered several inventories of them in "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited" and in "Tink rolls the dice", not to mention John's new discovery, which I reported in "New Proof of JFK Video Fakery" (OpEdNews, February 5, 2008) and those presented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). He asserts again and again that the consistency of the Zapruder, Muchmore, and Nix films establishes their authenticity, when consistency is necessary but not sufficient for truth. Motion pictures are almost always consistent, but very seldom are the events they portrayed true and accurate representations of events that actually occurred in the world, as endless action films, romances and comedies, and science fiction thrillers attest. If Tink were right, then the events portrayed in the "Star Wars" sequence and in the Indiana Jones series must have actually occurred! His position here is so absurd that it has to be a charade. No American, immersed in the cinema, could not appreciate the difference between the consistency of a film and its true. Not all films are documentaries!

Josiah has adopted the pose that there is a simple choice between accepting Mary's testimony that she was really in the street as though we did not already have massive proof that the Zapruder has been altered. In his enthusiasm over Costella's agreement that the photo was taken from the grass, he seems to forget that Costella has proven the Zapruder is a fake. It is as though he had never read, "A Scientist's Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication"! And he simply ignores the obvious consequence, namely: that if the assassination films are consistent with one another, when one of them is a fake, the others must--in relevant respects--have been altered, too. He is unwilling to acknowledge any proof of fakery. 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, (B) 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’slittle boat has sprung a leak. It has sunk like a sieve into the ocean of truth!

I have composed a second study, briefer than the first, discussing Thompson's methodology in pursuing this here, which is entitled "Tink rolls the dice: 'Moorman-in-the-street?'" I really had no expected that he would be so daring as to perform such fakery in this forum. But then I should not underestimate him. He has been lying and cheating on forums in attacking me and Jack about the Moorman for years. He has gone far out of his way to distort and mislead audiences, so I suppose it should come as no surprise that he would continue, true to form, here on this forum. Having been defeated "fair and square" over months of excruciating and meticulous debate, he had no other choice but to look for an new audience to contaminate my manipulating the evidence. For a Ph.D. from Yale, his indulgence in fallacies is astounding. It has to be deliberate, which is why I have been forced to the conclusion that his objective is to obfuscate new discoveries that advance our understanding of the true causes of the death of JFK. And that, of course, includes using every trick of the trade when the going gets tough. He has tried to take advantage of the fact that Jack and I are simply worn out by the massive, ongoing, and deceitful attacks that have come, not just from him but from others who are allied with him, including Lamson, Miller, and Junk. Leonard and Shackelford occasions make their debuts, but the burden has been carried by Josiah, Lamson, and Miller. This appears to be a psychological mechanism with several purposes, including (a) social reinforcement of misleading claims, (B) attempting to make it appear that everyone agrees that we are wrong, and © tacitly substituting popularity for truth. But then again, when logic and the evidence are against you, desperate situations require desperate measures.

Jack White and Professor Fetzer have replied but their replies have stayed far distant from the logic of the paper. White has simply declared that he won’t discuss anything having to do with the “gap.” Since the size of the gap measures the size of his mistake in reading the Moorman photo, his response means he won’t discuss anything substantial in the paper. Fetzer, for his part, has chosen to characterize me as “a disinfo op... a dunce...mentally bewildered” while deliberately ignoring the substantial logic of the paper. In short, they have chosen not to reply at all. The basic logic of the paper has been ignored.

I have started a new thread to highlight that logic and ask for responses about it. Thus far, besides Fetzer and White, only two members put forward their opinions. Duncan Macrae said of our paper, “the case... put forward is, in my opinion, indisputable.” David Healy remarked, “Next to the WCR SBT, the Moorman/Street issue is a farce, pure shuck-and-jive.” Since we mean our paper to be definitive, we would like to hear from a cross-section of members. We are looking for both criticism and understanding of the basic claims in the paper. I am writing this summary to aid any readers in responding.

The logical joints in the paper might be summarized as follows:

(1) What did Fetzer and White believe about the Moorman LOS?

It’s essential that we first nail down just what Fetzer and White have been claiming. This is especially important since both Fetzer and White have claimed in the past that their claim is not being accurately portrayed. We make sure we have their claim stated properly by quoting Fetzer’s and White’s own descriptions of their claim in MIDP and TGZFH.

In MIDP, White wrote: “I discovered a point within the photo that aligned two widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight.” In TGZFH, Fetzer pointed out that certain features in the Moorman photo “create two points in space that are located 35 feet apart, generating an imaginary line to the lens of her camera about 100 feet away.” What are those “widely disparate points,” those “two points in space that are located about 35 feet apart?” The simplest way to describe them is to say they are the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal and the bottom right corner of the lowest pergola window some 35 feet behind the pedestal. Fetzer says the features that have to be aligned are “the left-hand side and the top of the pedestal... and the bottom and right hand side of the window behind.” In MIDP, White uses a graphic image to explain the points:

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 B) 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.

White’s verbal description may become clearer if look at the graphic image he refers us to:

MIDPPhoto.jpg

Since White says that the coincidence of the two angles forms the cross (A, B, C, D) indicated, we can say with confidence that the two points he referred to are the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal and the right bottom corner of the pergola window beyond. Alternatively, but more awkwardly, one could say that the LOS is formed by the lining up of lines B and C, of lines A and D, and the cross formed by their intersection. However, we put it the important thing is that we are talking about two points in the photo lining up. If they do, then the camera lens has to be on the extension of a line through those two points. The camera lens and the two points therefore constitute a line-of-sight (LOS) which we will call the “White LOS.”. White and Fetzer claim that the LOS through those two points places the Moorman’s camera much lower than it appears in the Zapruder film. Hence, they argue, this is unequivocal evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered. Their logic is unassailable. If the “White LOS” is actually found in the Moorman photo they are right. Their claim is justified.

(2) Is the White LOS found in the Moorman photo?

Recall that the Moorman photo enlargement placed in MIDP by White and Fetzer had a wide, red cross superimposed on the enlargement. The cross, however, covered up precisely what it was meant to illustrate... the alignment of the two points. The copy of the Moorman photo used by Fetzer and White in this illustration is easily recognizable; hence, the “cross” can be removed and we can see what is underneath it. Do the two points align exactly or not?

Redlinesandwithout.jpg

No, they don’t. The top of the pedestal is significantly below the bottom of the pergola window and to the right of the bottom of the pergola window. The left side of the pedestal is to the right (or east) of the side of the pergola window. Or to put it another way, White’s “angle” formed by the lines A-B is above and to the left of his angle formed by the lines C-D. Indisputably, the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal does not line up with the bottom right corner of the pergola window beyond. There is a significant “gap” between the two. What Fetzer and White have claimed is simply untrue.

So what does this mean?

It means that there are actually two relevant lines-of-sight. There is the “White LOS” formed by the alignment of the two points (or two angles or four lines, depending on how you want to describe it). This LOS is not to be found in the Moorman photo. The actual “Moorman LOS” is quite different. This can be seen in a comparison of various Moorman copies with a White photo that shows the “White LOS.”

WhiteLOSvsFBIZippoDSSmith.jpg

(3) What do the various Moorman copies show?

Since the core issue of the dispute is whether the White LOS is or is not found in the Moorman photo, the various copies of the Moorman photo soon took center stage. With no evidence, Professor Fetzer asserted that I had altered one particular copy of the Moorman photo, the socalled “drum scan.” When it became apparent that all copies showed the same thing, Fetzer raised his sights and declared all copies of the Moorman photo had been altered especially in the region of the pedestal and the pergola. Given such an extravagant increase in the Fetzer/White claim, it became important to do exhaustive research on the actual provenance of the various copies of the Moorman photo. That research took up many pages of our a paper and showed the silliness of the alteration claim. The following GIF put together by Bill Miller shows dramatically that all copies of the Moorman show the same thing and that the White LOS is not in the Moorman photo:

LOSshiftshort.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

The selective use of quotation, especially when I am discussing various

possibilities, can be highly misleading. I hate to suggest that someone

like Barb would stoop to this level of deceit and deception, so I instead

offer my whole response, from which she has so artfully selected here.

_____________________

Well, there is no evidence I have seen that convinces me that we made

any mistakes. Don't forget: I was there when David Mantik and I con-

ducted our experiment. It was not complicated and it confirmed Jack's

observation about the LOS. What I can't abide is the endless fakery

from Tink, Miller, Lamson, and others to create phony arguments that

have no foundation in order to advance false reasons to reject what

we discovered. You are of course right that, in the beginning, we

thought the Moorman was "pristine". But it is hardly surprising in

the course of extensive research we might have to reconsider some of

our initial opinions. What's surprising about that? It is only to

be expected of those who have a sincere interest in discovering the

truth and are responsive to logic and argument. The gang does not.

The fact of the matter is that none of you ever gives us the time of

day. I did a little test of Lamson's sincerity by advancing several

theses that are fundamental to the arguments we are engaged in. One

is that, even though John believes the photo is consistent with the

Zapruder, that does not mean he believes Mary was on the grass; that

if he is right and Mary was in the street but features of the photo

show it was taken from the grass, then it has to have been altered;

that even if Jack and I are wrong and Mary's Polaroid is consistent

with Zapruder, that does not show that Zapruder is authentic; that

the consistency of the films does not prove that they are authentic;

and that there is conclusive evidence the Zapruder is not authentic.

I could see him disputing the last, but instead he rejected all five!

Since they are all true, it should be apparent that Lamson is not a

seeker after truth. This post from you raises similar questions in

my mind about you. Let me ask you a few simple questions. Surely

you know that Tink has claimed I had a pedestrian career for years;

that Kentucky denied me tenure for good reasons; and that there was

something "mysterious" about my indiscretion at UMD. Yet it turns

out that it was his career, not mine, that was pedestrian; that he,

too, had been subjected to abuse by administrators; and that he has

committed far more objectionable conduct with his endless string of

affairs with undergraduates than my inappropriate relationship with

with a member of the staff, who was a mature and a married woman.

Will you admit that, by attacking me on these grounds, year after

year, Tink was engaging in a mind-boggling form of hypocrisy? Yet

I have never heard any complaint from you that he was over the line

in his massive, persistent, and completely unjustifiable personal

attacks upon me. Indeed, the kind of line that comes from people

like you, when I rebut his attacks on my career by pointing out

that it is ANYTHING BUT "pedestrian" is a Reaganesque, "There he

goes again!", as though I could defend myself against assaults of

this kind WITHOUT citing my academic accomplishments! I did not

initiate these attacks. They all came from him. When I finally

did some research on his background, it was stunning! But this

kind of deceit and deception has never drawn a complaint from you.

So give it some thought. I am struck by how well your language

fits you, Tink, Lamson, Miller and the others to a "t", namely:

> Do you ever actually THINK about any of this ridiculous pap before

> you pounce upon your keyboard! Or are you just a two faced double

> talking blowhard who only cares about bellowing he's right ...

> regardless of the assinine shenanigamns it takes. And you expect

> people to BELIEVE this crap?

Because that captures almost exactly how I feel about you and

the rest of the gang, including those, like Lamson and Miller,

who pounce on the keyboard with instant replies no matter how

thoughtless and unresponsive to logic and evidence they may be.

So I think you really need to clean up you act before you take

such umbrage over my alleged offenses when those near and dear

to you have been so much more blatant and objectionable. I'm

sorry to have to say, Barb, but your own hypocrisy is showing.

Quoting Barb Junkkarinen <barbjfk@comcast.net>:

[Hide Quoted Text]

> All of us are astounded to the lengths you will go to try and

> wreiggle out from under simply having made an error. Albeit it was a

> doozy because you published it without ever having it checked by an

> objective expert ... a real expert.

>

> For years, it's been the Moorman photo was prisitne, legit .... and

> the LOS proved the photo had been taken from the street ... which in

> turn "proved" the Zfilm was fake.

>

> NOW, your LOS is shown to be crap, even Costella agrees the photo

> itself indicates it was taken from the grass ... so now the worms

> turn and...

>

> Now the photo has been faked, including faking a LOS that made it

> look like it came from the grass....

>

> and remember, you have spent YEARS promoting, and publishing, and

> basjing people over the heads, claiming the Moorman photo was NOT

> faked and its LOS proved it had been taken from the street.

>

> Do you ever actually THINK about any of this ridiculous pap before

> you pounce upon your keyboard! Or are you just a two faced double

> talking blowhard who only cares about bellowing he's right ...

> regardless of the assinine shenanigamns it takes. And you expect

> people to BELIEVE this crap?

>

> You demonstrate a total lack of respect for research, for truth ...

> and for other people ... not to mention you vastly underestimate

> their intelligence.

>

> Why don't you make like a big boy and go to the Ed Forum and discuss

> the issues/points raised like someone who really is a scholar and

> critical thinker ... and who is more interested in the truth and

> accuracy of our history than he is his own ego.

>

At least one LOS, either Fetzer/White or Thompson/Mack, has to be incorrect.

Over the course of discussions in the last few months, we alternately heard from Fetzer, that they made no mistake and their LOS was correct or that even if they were incorrect about Moorman being in the street, there was plenty of other proof that the Z film was altered, so it didn't really matter ... then it would be back to 'we didn't make any error.' The Z-film was never the issue in the discussion, just the Moorman in the street claim.

Once the essay was posted, and it became obvious that their LOS and other "reasoning" was faulty, there has been refusal to even discuss it, which is an odd stance in a quest for truth, imo.

But perhaps more perplexing is the rather new wrinkle that, despite nearly a decade of saying ... and publishing ... that the Moorman photo is UNaltered, now the possibility of it being altered has been raised. Fetzer wrote what would appear to be two opposing things on the yahoo group - both on March 6th.

QUOTING FETZER

It is very simple, really. (1) Jack and I do not believe that we

have made any mistakes.

END QUOTE

AND ...

QUOTING FETZER

Certainly, if the photo is faked, then those responsible

would have made changes that "tidied things up". That includes the

use of a point of reference, such as a LOS, that would support the

claim that it was taken on the grass.

END QUOTE

Either their LOS is correct or it is not. Fetzer seems to be saying that if the Moorman

photo has been faked, then it stands to reason that the alterers would make sure the

LOS looked like she took the photo from the grass.

IF that is the case ... then they missed it, and their LOS is still wrong.

But is this a wiggly way of acknowledging that their from the street LOS IS in error ...

and that the Thompson/Mack LOS is correct ... but that is because the alterers somehow

put in a LOS so it would look like it was taken from the grass?

Is this an "even if we are wrong and you are right, we are still right and you are

still wrong" ... uh ... logic?

Is this really the new stance? And does Jack agree with it?

I hope Jack and Jim will each respond to whether or not they now acknowledge that

their LOS is incorrect.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Jack White and Professor Fetzer have replied but their replies have stayed far distant from the logic of the paper. White has simply declared that he won’t discuss anything having to do with the “gap.” Since the size of the gap measures the size of his mistake in reading the Moorman photo, his response means he won’t discuss anything substantial in the paper. Fetzer, for his part, has chosen to characterize me as “a disinfo op... a dunce...mentally bewildered” while deliberately ignoring the substantial logic of the paper. In short, they have chosen not to reply at all. The basic logic of the paper has been ignored.

I have started a new thread to highlight that logic and ask for responses about it. Thus far, besides Fetzer and White, only two members put forward their opinions. Duncan Macrae said of our paper, “the case... put forward is, in my opinion, indisputable.” David Healy remarked, “Next to the WCR SBT, the Moorman/Street issue is a farce, pure shuck-and-jive.” Since we mean our paper to be definitive, we would like to hear from a cross-section of members. We are looking for both criticism and understanding of the basic claims in the paper. I am writing this summary to aid any readers in responding.

The logical joints in the paper might be summarized as follows:

(1) What did Fetzer and White believe about the Moorman LOS?

It’s essential that we first nail down just what Fetzer and White have been claiming. This is especially important since both Fetzer and White have claimed in the past that their claim is not being accurately portrayed. We make sure we have their claim stated properly by quoting Fetzer’s and White’s own descriptions of their claim in MIDP and TGZFH.

In MIDP, White wrote: “I discovered a point within the photo that aligned two widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight.” In TGZFH, Fetzer pointed out that certain features in the Moorman photo “create two points in space that are located 35 feet apart, generating an imaginary line to the lens of her camera about 100 feet away.” What are those “widely disparate points,” those “two points in space that are located about 35 feet apart?” The simplest way to describe them is to say they are the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal and the bottom right corner of the lowest pergola window some 35 feet behind the pedestal. Fetzer says the features that have to be aligned are “the left-hand side and the top of the pedestal... and the bottom and right hand side of the window behind.” In MIDP, White uses a graphic image to explain the points:

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 B) 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.

White’s verbal description may become clearer if look at the graphic image he refers us to:

MIDPPhoto.jpg

Since White says that the coincidence of the two angles forms the cross (A, B, C, D) indicated, we can say with confidence that the two points he referred to are the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal and the right bottom corner of the pergola window beyond. Alternatively, but more awkwardly, one could say that the LOS is formed by the lining up of lines B and C, of lines A and D, and the cross formed by their intersection. However, we put it the important thing is that we are talking about two points in the photo lining up. If they do, then the camera lens has to be on the extension of a line through those two points. The camera lens and the two points therefore constitute a line-of-sight (LOS) which we will call the “White LOS.”. White and Fetzer claim that the LOS through those two points places the Moorman’s camera much lower than it appears in the Zapruder film. Hence, they argue, this is unequivocal evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered. Their logic is unassailable. If the “White LOS” is actually found in the Moorman photo they are right. Their claim is justified.

(2) Is the White LOS found in the Moorman photo?

Recall that the Moorman photo enlargement placed in MIDP by White and Fetzer had a wide, red cross superimposed on the enlargement. The cross, however, covered up precisely what it was meant to illustrate... the alignment of the two points. The copy of the Moorman photo used by Fetzer and White in this illustration is easily recognizable; hence, the “cross” can be removed and we can see what is underneath it. Do the two points align exactly or not?

Redlinesandwithout.jpg

No, they don’t. The top of the pedestal is significantly below the bottom of the pergola window and to the right of the bottom of the pergola window. The left side of the pedestal is to the right (or east) of the side of the pergola window. Or to put it another way, White’s “angle” formed by the lines A-B is above and to the left of his angle formed by the lines C-D. Indisputably, the left front corner of the Zapruder pedestal does not line up with the bottom right corner of the pergola window beyond. There is a significant “gap” between the two. What Fetzer and White have claimed is simply untrue.

So what does this mean?

It means that there are actually two relevant lines-of-sight. There is the “White LOS” formed by the alignment of the two points (or two angles or four lines, depending on how you want to describe it). This LOS is not to be found in the Moorman photo. The actual “Moorman LOS” is quite different. This can be seen in a comparison of various Moorman copies with a White photo that shows the “White LOS.”

WhiteLOSvsFBIZippoDSSmith.jpg

(3) What do the various Moorman copies show?

Since the core issue of the dispute is whether the White LOS is or is not found in the Moorman photo, the various copies of the Moorman photo soon took center stage. With no evidence, Professor Fetzer asserted that I had altered one particular copy of the Moorman photo, the socalled “drum scan.” When it became apparent that all copies showed the same thing, Fetzer raised his sights and declared all copies of the Moorman photo had been altered especially in the region of the pedestal and the pergola. Given such an extravagant increase in the Fetzer/White claim, it became important to do exhaustive research on the actual provenance of the various copies of the Moorman photo. That research took up many pages of our a paper and showed the silliness of the alteration claim. The following GIF put together by Bill Miller shows dramatically that all copies of the Moorman show the same thing and that the White LOS is not in the Moorman photo:

LOSshiftshort.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

John, to the best of my recollection, we have not crossed paths before

on this forum, though I could be mistaken since my memory is not what

it used to be. I am sorry to read your response to Josiah, because he is

playing you and the others on the board for saps. Let me illustrate the

extent to which they will distort the truth for the sake of creating the

APPEARANCE of prevailing in this exchange, even though, given the

evidence, they cannot in fact prevail. I am not inviting you to take a

position on what the internal features of the photo suggest, but only to

take a look at how one of Tink's allies responded to these questions:

(a) Do you understand what I am having to explain to Josiah here?

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.

(B) Do you understand the reasoning that follows from point (a)?

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 him or you to understand?

© Even Miller grasps that Josiah made a blunder here. Do you?

Josiah still insists that, if the Moorman is consistent with the

Zapruder, then the Zapruder is authentic. He maintains this even

knowing that 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"), THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX).

(d) Here is another blunder from Josiah. Do you agree with him?

Josiah continues to repeat the claim the films are authentic BECAUSE

they are CONSISTENT. The films are authentic only if they accurately

represent events that actually occurred in Dealey Plaza correspond

to those they present. EXPLANATION IN CASE YOU DON'T GET THE POINT:

All kind of movies are consistent-- comedies, romances, sci fi)--and

there are series of films that are consistent (Indiana Jones, Star

Wars) but are not authentic. The events they portray did not occur.

(e) How far are you willing to go on this? Do you agree or not?

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.

(f) If the films are consistent, then if one is fake, are they all?

That the other films are consistent with a fabrication means that

they are also fabrications, another case of reinforcing deceptions.

John, I am not asking you to review the voluminous exchanges

that have appeared on jfk-research@yahoogroups.com over the

past four months, but only to give some thought to the arguments

that Josiah has advanced. How can his position be credible when it

is founded on fallacies as blatant as those I am discussing here?

Jim

________________

True to form, the depth of your intellectual corruption knows no bounds.

Quoting Craig Lamson <infocusinc@yahoo.com>:

A: John has a FANTASY that Moorman was actually in the street. He

is correct about tthe internals of the Moorman BECAUSE he has no

choice. The evidence is unimpeachable that the Moorman was taken

from the grass. He is wrong about her actually BEING in

the street..that is a fantasy with no supporting evidence.

EXCEPT, of course, that Mary has been telling us for some forty years

--since her first interview three hours after the fact to her more

recent interview in 1997, not to mention in the video of her talking

about this, "Moorman in the Street", which is available on YouTube

at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO8vnfieuDs--and the devious ways

in which Gary Mack has sought to manipulate her when she wanted to

speak the truth, which Lifton has documents in "Pig on a Leash" in

HOAX, relevant portions of which I have posted here several times.

Describing the situation as "a fantasy" is a gross falsehood of the

very kind that we have all come to expect from a charlatan like you.

B: Faulty logic on your part. There is NO PROOF nor solid evidence

that the Zapruder film is a fabrication. Again its simply a FANTASY

on Costellas part.

REALLY? So it is your contention that all the shots were fired from

behind and that the blow out of brains and gore to the right front

was not "painted in" as Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects,

explained to Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, reported? And the fact

that no one--none of the witnesses, none of the physicians, not

even the mortician--observed any such wound is consistent with its

having occurred as it is presented in the Zapruder film? I think

you have blown your cover here, Lamson. Your position is absurd.

C: There is no blunder. Its really quite simple. Costella HAD to agree that Moorman 5

was taken from the grass because it was and thats what the evidence shows. Only the

intellectually dishonest...like you...would try to dispute this fact. He can BELIEVE

whatever he wants to believe about the Zapruder but that won't make him right. John

lives in a fantasy world when it comes to film alteration and photography.

SO YOU INSIST that if the Moorman is consistent with the Zapruder,

then that PROVES THE ZAPRUDER IS AUTHENTIC? What about all of the

other evidence that impeaches its authenticity? the motionless

spectator? the Greer head turns? the disappearing blood spray? the

absence of brains and gore on the trunk of the car? the report by

Irwin Swartz of seeing his brains blown out the back of his head?

Let me make this clear: If this really is your position, then you

are suffering from cognitive impairments so severe that you ought

to seek professional treatment. No rational mind would endorse an

incoherent position of this kind. The film is authentic only if

every event is records that it should have included is present as

it actually occurred, which would require that none of these kinds

of inconsistencies can be reconciled with its authenticity. NONE!

[Hide Quoted Text]

D: Again Tink is correct and YOU are incorrect. Ther is no proof nor solid evidence

that ANY of the films wer altered. Nor is there any proof that the films DON NOT show

exactly what happened. Your and John's are living in some warped fantasy world where

you BELIEVE the films were altered ( well not only the films the stills as well).

Beliefs are meaningless. Your "evidence" is anything but. You lose again, but sadly

your intellectual dishonesty just wonld let you deal in truth.

How ridiculous can you get? There are all kinds of consistent films

that are not therefore authentic, because they are cinematic creations

that do not represent the actual course of events in the history of the

world. Are you serious? If you really believe this, then do you also

believe that the "Star Wars" films and the Indiana Jones sequences are

actually DOCUMENTARIES? Are you so limited intellectually that you are

unable to distinguish between histories, historical fiction, ordinary

fiction, and the rest? If that is the case, then you surely ought to

be institutionalized, because your cognitive impairments are severe.

E: There is no evidence that Zapruder is altered, just poor science

and sloppy research, all rolled together with a very large dollop of

fantasy and mental illness. Another point lost by Fetzer and his company of loons.

The question was, if the Zapruder, Muchmore, and Nix films are wholly

consistent with one another, then if one of them is faked, doesn't it

mean that the others are faked, too? This is really not a difficult

question to answer, yet you appear to want to evade the obvious. And

that, I suppose, is for the obvious reason that, like the rest of the

questions I have asked, honest answers would impugn your persevering

efforts to obfuscate and obscure the truth of these matters. But by

offering such blatantly false replies, you have thereby impugned your

own honesty and integrity, which comes as no surprise, since you and

your associates in crime--Tink, Miller, Junk, and others--have none.

F: There is no evidence that proves any of the films are fake. The

only fakes we can find here are Fetzer and his company of loons.

The world knows you are a nutjob jimbo, and you keep proving it day

after day...

I'm really sorry, Lamson, but the evidence is all on the other side.

In fact, by your replies here, in this very post, you have betrayed

yourself as a phony and a fraud, who could care less about the truth

in the death of JFK--or any other matter, I suspect. You are corrupt

to the core, just as I supposed, and have demonstrated it here, all on

your own and in spades. It is truly pathetic that you are even here,

but at least you have left no doubts about your actual role in this

forum. Some who have been taken in by your duplicity may now have

scales fall from their eyes. As for the rest of us, we already knew.

[Hide Quoted Text]

--- On Fri, 3/6/09, jfetzer@d.umn.edu <jfetzer@d.umn.edu> wrote:

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Subject: Re: [jfk-research] Re: Tink rolls the dice: "Moorman-in-the-Street?"

To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, "Craig Lamson" <infocusinc@yahoo.com>

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 4:35 PM

Lamson, I knew I could count on you for one of your patented hair-

trigger, hare-brained replies. This one is up to your normal and

disgusting standard. Since you like to play the charlatan, let's

plum the depths of your intellectual corruption, the bottom-most

parts of which, I predict, will prove to be unfathomable. Let's

see if you can answer simple questions without evasion. Here is

the right place to begin, since these points should be familiar:

(a) Do you understand what I am having to explain to Josiah here?

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.

(B) Do you understand the reasoning that follows from point (a)?

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 him or you to understand?

© Even Miller grasps that Josiah made a blunder here. Do you?

Josiah still insists that, if the Moorman is consistent with the

Zapruder, then the Zapruder is authentic. He maintains this even

knowing that 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"), THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX).

(d) Here is another blunder from Josiah. Do you agree with him?

Josiah continues to repeat the claim the films are authentic BECAUSE

they are CONSISTENT. The films are authentic only if they accurately

represent events that actually occurred in Dealey Plaza correspond

to those they present. EXPLANATION IN CASE YOU DON'T GET THE POINT:

All kind of movies are consistent-- comedies, romances, sci fi)--and

there are series of films that are consistent (Indiana Jones, Star

Wars) but are not authentic. The events they portray did not occur.

(e) How far are you willing to go on this? Do you agree or not?

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.

(f) If the films are consistent, then if one is fake, are they all?

That the other films are consistent with a fabrication means that

they are also fabrications, another case of reinforcing deceptions.

These arguments are so simple and straightforward that even you as

his most devoted follower risk demonstrating your degree of mental

corruption if you continue to dispute them. What are your answers?

These are simple questions and their answers are obvious. If you

evade them, as I anticipate, you will have thereby demonstrated to

me and the forum that your intellectual corruption knows no bounds.

Quoting Craig Lamson <infocusinc@yahoo. com>:

You putz, don't you realize tat Costellas "obervations" are

garbage? He hasNO CHOICE but to agree on the internals of the

Moorman since the evidence EXCLUDING his is unimpeachable. However

hiswork on the properties of photogrpahy is pure garbage. For

christs sake, he can't even undersand how perspective wor5ks and

when confronted wiht the fqact that he got it completly wrong he RAN

AWAY! I can't eally blame his continued pimping of his "scientist"

status and the fact that simple empirical evidence that can be

produced by anyone with a camera shows just how ignorant he really

is. You are a fraud, Costell as a coward and ignorant when it comes

to photography.

WHY should Hill be in the photo? Oh wait, its your unmet expectaion

based on NOTHING but your overactive imagination Please show us

the detaile4d study that shows Hill should be in Moorman. Good

luck with that one.

So Costella THINKS Moorman was actually in the street, but his

THINKING is based on his failed position that the zapruder film is a

composite. The only problem with your failed logic is that

Costella has not proved the film is a composite. In fact in the

only attempts to show the film fake using science FAILED when he

screwed up the "science" that is the basis of his claim. This too

is unimpeachable.

You don't know a single thing about honestly jimbo. Thats because

you are just a fraud and a con man.

Josiah, for me your simple explanations say what IMO needs to be said most eloquently and am glad to have a topic to refer to with regards to this matter which quite frankly IMO is nonsensical, but educational also. I don't know if much more needs saying. It would be good if the imagery could stay embedded on topic permanently. Just one thing, at this part of the photos corner the distortions are greatest straight lines are not correct to use, the gap as such may in fact be greater than it might look' in the photo as the lines being lined up should be done so with different non-circular arcs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Robin, I don't recall if we have exchanged posts in the past on this

forum and I appreciate your interest in this debate. But you have to

realize that Tink is using one of the simplest techniques of deception

that sophistry supports by citing only the evidence that supports his

side and ignoring the rest. I am going to assume that, by now, you

are aware that I have responded to his "Moorman-in-the-street?" in

my "Tink rolls the dice", JFKresearch.com/Moorman2/, where he is

gambling that we won't notice. His selective use of the conclusions

of John Costella is a most appropriate illustration. Initially, Costella

had no opinion about Mary where Mary was standing, which some of

his supporters, such as Bill Miller, have emphasized. But he later

CHANGED HIS MIND and concluded that Mary was probably in the

street. Even if you set aside the question of what internal features

of the photograph suggest, Mary's consistent testimony over time,

even including a YouTube video, "Moorman in the Street", where her

report--three hours after the events!--that she said, "I stepped into

the street", has even been verified by Gary Mack, Curator of The

Sixth Floor Museum, affected his thinking about this matter. Let me

therefore recommend that, as you think this matter thorough, take

the Costella example to heart, because you are not being exposed

to both sides of the issue as a deliberated decision by Josiah. Thus,

[Hide Quoted Text]

>

> Costella went on to say, "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." Here Costella is

> saying that he has no opinion either way. For you to tell me that

> Costella is saying otherwise and believes Moorman to have been in

> the street is utter fraud on your part and I say shame on you!

>

But he CHANGED HIS MIND after Gary Mack confirmed that, within three

hours of the events, she had stepped into the street! Did you miss his

response when Josiah, with great fanfare!, announce what Mary Moorman

actually said based upon a review of her interview following the event?

Quoting John Costella jpcostella@hotmail.com

[Hide Quoted Text]

>> 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- Fetzer]

>

> (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

Indeed, not only was this development a crucial turning point in discussing

the Moorman photograph, but John later reaffirmed his take on Mary. When I

asked him what we would see if we actually had an authentic film, he replied:

[Hide Quoted Text]

> 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.

which I accented in "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited" and also in "Tink rolls the

dice: 'Moorman-in-the-Street?'" The issues here are just complex enough

and technical enough that it is easy to manipulate and distort the evidence

on both sides. One side has done its best to be faithful to the arguments on

both sides, while the other has not. I invite you to decide which is which.

Credit: Chris Davidson. (Original Life scan)

Betzner 3 Crop

14588.jpg

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy is shameless. He is blatantly misrepresenting our position. Notice he does not actually offer pages or posts for citations so anyone could check our actual positions. While there is a "lower right corner" of the window thirty five feet behind the pedestal, there is no "upper left corner" of the pedestal, because there is a one-inch indentation around the top of the pedestal. The proper alignment of the cross "+" requires using the left side of the pedestal and the top of the pedestal as parts of two lines that intersect in space. What this means is that, in order to make the alignment required by the line of sight, a "gap" will be created by necessity, since aligning them properly allows for the one-inch indentation (or "knotch"). I have explained this in Parts I and II of "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", JFKresearch.com/Moorman/, which was composed after weeks of discussion and debate on jfk-research@yahoogroups.com. Everyone who participated in this knows that Josiah Thompson is distorting the most basic aspect of our proof. The matter of the "red cross" is also a charade, since the same features exist with or without the red lines, which Jack used to highlight the location of the cross. If you take a look at "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", you will find an extensive and, in my opinion, decisive refutation of the claims made in this ridiculous post. If David Healy has actually posted the reply attributed to him here, then he has been taken in. No one should fall for this stunt, which is one of the most dishonest distortions possible. No doubt Josiah wanted to shift the discussion to this forum from the other because it would be virtually impossible to dupe members there, who have been living through this for months. I therefore urge Healy and others who are being played for suckers to read our study, which is supported by no less than fifteen photographic attachments, which were prepared by Jack for this purpose.

The existence of a modest distance between the pedestal top and the bottom inside of the window has also been a subject of extensive discussion. You will find the key paragraph below Attachment 7 as follows:

The second alleged "gap" is one of vertical displacement. Tink has insisted that we missed a difference of close to 2" at the pergola, which would have translated into as much as a 7" difference over the grass. Such a modest gap is almost too small to be seen on a small, blurry copy of the Moorman. Jack has candidly acknowledged that there may be a 1" gap at the pedestal, which Joe Durnavich measured (using a method John first proposed of counting pixels) to be 1.88". I do not know if he did this correctly by using an image consistent with our 41.5" estimate, but let us assume that he did. Since even a 2" difference only adds 8" to the line of sight over the grass, adding it to our figure of 41.5" would yield 49.5". Since Mary was 5'2" (5'3" with shoes) and the camera at lens should have been about 5" lower, the line of sight should have been closer to 57" (or 58"). This is still far too low by 8" (or 9") for Mary to be standing on the grass. So even Tink's strongest argument is still unavailing.

I see you are as daft as White when it comes to the simple meaning of the word "cross".

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

So where is that "cross" in Moorman?

Wanna try again Jim?

cross.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there is no evidence I have seen that convinces me that we made

any mistakes. Don't forget: I was there when David Mantik and I con-

ducted our experiment. It was not complicated and it confirmed Jack's

observation about the LOS. What I can't abide is the endless fakery

from Tink, Miller, Lamson, and others to create phony arguments that

have no foundation in order to advance false reasons to reject what

we discovered. You are of course right that, in the beginning, we

thought the Moorman was "pristine". But it is hardly surprising in

the course of extensive research we might have to reconsider some of

our initial opinions. What's surprising about that? It is only to

be expected of those who have a sincere interest in discovering the

truth and are responsive to logic and argument. The gang does not.

So Jim. where might we see a photo that shows us the alignment of the window and the pedestal, from your "scientific" transit experiment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take apart Fetzer’s incredibly long and jumbled post piece by piece. His claims will come first in ordinary print followed by my reply in boldface.

(1) “This guy is shameless. He is blatantly misrepresenting our position. Notice he does not actually offer pages or post for citations so anyone could check our actual positions.”

Citations to Fetzer, White, Mantik and Costella’s actual words as printed in MIDP, TGZFH and in various postings were all given with exactitude in the publication of this paper on this board. Their “actual positions” could be confirmed by checking those citations. Why repeat all that in my summary? I didn’t.

(2) “While there is a ‘lower right corner’ of the window thirty five feet behind the pedestal, there is no "upper left corner" of the pedestal, because there is a one-inch indentation around the top of the pedestal. The proper alignment of the cross "+" requires using the left side of the pedestal and the top of the pedestal as parts of two lines that intersect in space. What this means is that, in order to make the alignment required by the line of sight, a "gap" will be created by necessity, since aligning them properly allows for the one-inch indentation (or "knotch")”

This was all handled in the following paragraph from Part I of the paper: *NOTE: Fetzer then adds to his introductory remarks the following caveat: “A minor structural indentation at the top of the pedestal has misled some to think that the intersection of these lines is indeterminate, but that is a mistake.” Fetzer is correct that the left edge of the pedestal has a setback of approximately one inch around its top. Since this setback only affects Moorman’s lateral position by a few inches and not the height of her lens above the ground, no one has been “misled” by its presence. John Costella has called this caveat by Fetzer “irrelevant.”

(3) “The matter of the ‘red cross’ is also a charade, since the same features exist with or without the red lines which Jack used to highlight the location of the cross.”

I couldn’t agree with you more. The features are there no matter how successful the ‘red cross’ is in covering them up. Take a look at them:

Redlinesandwithout.jpg

Fetzer and White have given no explanation whatsoever as to why the photo that they used to illustrate their claim was overlaid with a wide red cross. Had they simply put up the photograph, no one would have ever believed their claim since it was false by inspection.

(4) “The second alleged ‘gap’ is one of vertical displacement. Tink has insisted that we missed a difference of close to 2" at the pergola, which would have translated into as much as a 7" difference over the grass. Such a modest gap is almost too small to be seen on a small, blurry copy of the Moorman. Jack has candidly acknowledged that there may be a 1" gap at the pedestal, which Joe Durnavich measured (using a method John first proposed of counting pixels) to be 1.88". I do not know if he did this correctly by using an image consistent with our 41.5" estimate, but let us assume that he did. Since even a 2" difference only adds 8" to the line of sight over the grass, adding it to our figure of 41.5" would yield 49.5". Since Mary was 5'2" (5'3" with shoes) and the camera at lens should have been about 5" lower, the line of sight should have been closer to 57" (or 58"). This is still far too low by 8" (or 9") for Mary to be standing on the grass. So even Tink's strongest argument is still unavailing.”

At one point, Jack White said his LOS was 44.5" above the turf at Moorman’s position. At another point, White and Fetzer said their LOS was 41.5" above the turf at Moorman’s position. Since they took no photos, these measurements are useless. In addition, the turf is often “squishy” and we know it has been replaced since 1963. As Costella has pointed out, a scientifically preferable place for measurements of the LOS is the top of the south curb along Elm Street. Gary Mack and I made measurements from the center of my Canon camera’s lens to the top of the Elm Street curb. The first, taken 48" above the curb, shows what we have called the “White LOS.” The second, taken at 55.75" above the curb, shows what we have called the “Moorman LOS” — that is, the actual LOS present in the Moorman photo. Note that the difference is a fraction over 7" which is what the Durnavich calculations predicted.

004_44800inabovecurbfromMoormanposi.jpg

015_155575inabovecurbfromMoormanpos.jpg

(5) “Indeed, anyone who studied the exchange between us would be struck by the duplicity of his side during the debate, where a private investigator, familiar with court procedures, is not even willing to acknowledge that eyewitness verification of photos and films is required for their admissibility as evidence in courts of law, which means that witness testimony takes precedence as has the greater weight, contrary to his position, in a desperate but corrupt attempt to blunt the evidential impact of Mary's testimony about taking her Polaroid.”

Fetzer continues to recycle his mistaken 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 probitive value of a photo. The probative value is largely left up to the good sense of a jury with instructions from judge. Any lawyer could have explained this to Fetzer but he keeps on falsely claiming the opposite.

(6) “One astute member of the forum even noticed there is a YouTube video, "Moorman in the Street",

where you can watch Mary speak for herself. Indeed, when Gary Mack confirmed that, in her first interview, she stated, "I stepped into the street," it confirmed for him [John Costella] that Mary had indeed been in the street, even though he disagrees with Jack and me about the internal features of the video, which in his opinion support that it was taken from the grass. If Mary was in the street, yet the photo has features that indicate it was taken from the grass, then it can't be the photo that Mary took or, at the very least, it must have been subject to alteration. Josiah insists that John is on his side about Mary having been on the grass when the photo was taken, suffering from some apparent intellectual incapacity to separate the photo that Mary is alleged to have taken from where the photo she actually took and where she was standing. I don't know how to account for his unwillingness to acknowledge John's position, which he continues to distort.”

Fetzer talks as if the YouTube video was a new discovery of his. On the contrary, in Part V we give the transcript of what Moorman said in that video and provide a link to the video. Way to go, Professor? You’re really on top of things.

As to John Costella’s position on all this... don’t take Fetzer’s word for it, don’t permit me to “distort it” (as Fetzer charges), just look at what Costella says. He 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 is Costella’s; 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 is Costella’s; see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/5999.]

****************************

Fetzer waxes on and on, bloviating at will, on and on... and then finally he sums up with this paragraph:

“I have composed a second study, briefer than the first, discussing Thompson's methodology in pursuing this here, which is entitled "Tink rolls the dice: 'Moorman-in-the-street?'" I really had no expected that he would be so daring as to perform such fakery in this forum. But then I should not underestimate him. He has been lying and cheating on forums in attacking me and Jack about the Moorman for years. He has gone far out of his way to distort and mislead audiences, so I suppose it should come as no surprise that he would continue, true to form, here on this forum. Having been defeated "fair and square" over months of excruciating and meticulous debate, he had no other choice but to look for an new audience to contaminate my manipulating the evidence. For a Ph.D. from Yale, his indulgence in fallacies is astounding. It has to be deliberate, which is why I have been forced to the conclusion that his objective is to obfuscate new discoveries that advance our understanding of the true causes of the death of JFK. And that, of course, includes using every trick of the trade when the going gets tough. He has tried to take advantage of the fact that Jack and I are simply worn out by the massive, ongoing, and deceitful attacks that have come, not just from him but from others who are allied with him, including Lamson, Miller, and Junk. Leonard and Shackelford occasions make their debuts, but the burden has been carried by Josiah, Lamson, and Miller. This appears to be a psychological mechanism with several purposes, including (a) social reinforcement of misleading claims, (B) attempting to make it appear that everyone agrees that we are wrong, and © tacitly substituting popularity for truth. But then again, when logic and the evidence are against you, desperate situations require desperate measures.”

It’s difficult to know what to say with respect to a blast like this. It can’t be refuted because it’s all a product of ego inflation. However, it can be laughed at. And if one starts to laugh at it, surely one’s laughter becomes a broad belly laugh when one considers a recent posting by Fetzer concerning his position in the world and his scholarly credentials. On the JFK-research board last week, Fetzer was berating some poor soul for not being “qualified” to hold an opinion opposed to Fetzer’s. Fetzer ended his peroration with:

"Presumably, unlike Zachary Luing, I am qualified to make an assessment of this kind. If Zachary wants scholarly credentials, then he can study mine at length and swoon."

I’m not making it up. That’s what the man actually said. And just to make sure that Zachary Luing knew where to look he gave him a link Fetzer's to "scholarly credentials": (http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/)

To which I would reply: "Oh, Professor, forgive us if we don't swoon! And spare us another hit from your CV.”

Josiah Thompson

This guy is shameless. He is blatantly misrepresenting our position. Notice he does not actually offer pages or posts for citations so anyone could check our actual positions. While there is a "lower right corner" of the window thirty five feet behind the pedestal, there is no "upper left corner" of the pedestal, because there is a one-inch indentation around the top of the pedestal. The proper alignment of the cross "+" requires using the left side of the pedestal and the top of the pedestal as parts of two lines that intersect in space. What this means is that, in order to make the alignment required by the line of sight, a "gap" will be created by necessity, since aligning them properly allows for the one-inch indentation (or "knotch"). I have explained this in Parts I and II of "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", JFKresearch.com/Moorman/, which was composed after weeks of discussion and debate on jfk-research@yahoogroups.com. Everyone who participated in this knows that Josiah Thompson is distorting the most basic aspect of our proof. The matter of the "red cross" is also a charade, since the same features exist with or without the red lines, which Jack used to highlight the location of the cross. If you take a look at "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", you will find an extensive and, in my opinion, decisive refutation of the claims made in this ridiculous post. If David Healy has actually posted the reply attributed to him here, then he has been taken in. No one should fall for this stunt, which is one of the most dishonest distortions possible. No doubt Josiah wanted to shift the discussion to this forum from the other because it would be virtually impossible to dupe members there, who have been living through this for months. I therefore urge Healy and others who are being played for suckers to read our study, which is supported by no less than fifteen photographic attachments, which were prepared by Jack for this purpose.

The existence of a modest distance between the pedestal top and the bottom inside of the window has also been a subject of extensive discussion. You will find the key paragraph below Attachment 7 as follows:

The second alleged "gap" is one of vertical displacement. Tink has insisted that we missed a difference of close to 2" at the pergola, which would have translated into as much as a 7" difference over the grass. Such a modest gap is almost too small to be seen on a small, blurry copy of the Moorman. Jack has candidly acknowledged that there may be a 1" gap at the pedestal, which Joe Durnavich measured (using a method John first proposed of counting pixels) to be 1.88". I do not know if he did this correctly by using an image consistent with our 41.5" estimate, but let us assume that he did. Since even a 2" difference only adds 8" to the line of sight over the grass, adding it to our figure of 41.5" would yield 49.5". Since Mary was 5'2" (5'3" with shoes) and the camera at lens should have been about 5" lower, the line of sight should have been closer to 57" (or 58"). This is still far too low by 8" (or 9") for Mary to be standing on the grass. So even Tink's strongest argument is still unavailing.

Indeed, anyone who studied the exchange between us would be struck by the duplicity of his side during the debate, where a private investigator, familiar with court procedures, is not even willing to acknowledge that eyewitness verification of photos and films is required for their admissibility as evidence in courts of law, which means that witnesss testimony takes precedence as has the greater weight, contrary to his position, in a desperate but corrupt attempt to blunt the evidential impact of Mary's testimony about taking her Polaroid.

Let me highlight some of the measures they have employed in arguing their case against us. Mary Moorman herself has, from her first recorded interview three hours after the event, consistently maintained that she stepped into the street to take her famous photograph. Sometimes she is more detailed about stepping into the street, taking her photo, stepping back onto the grass and "getting down" while tugging at the leg of her friend, Jean Hill, so she would get down, too, and they would avoid being shot. One astute member of the forum even noticed there is a YouTube video, "Moorman in the Street",

, where you can watch Mary speak for herself. Indeed, when Gary Mack confirmed that, in her first interview, she stated, "I stepped into the street", it confirmed for him that Mary had indeed been in the street, even though he disagrees with Jack and me about the internal features of the video, which in his opinion support that it was taken from the grass. If Mary was in the street, yet the photo has features that indicate it was taken from the grass, then it can't be the photo that Mary took or, at the very least, it must have been subject to alteration. Josiah insists that John is on his side about Mary having been on the grass when the photo was taken, suffering from some apparent intellectual incapacity to separate the photo that Mary is alleged to have taken from where the photo she actually took and where she was standing. I don't know how to account for his unwillingness to acknowledge John's position, which he continues to distort.

And this is far from the only misrepresentation at the heart of Josiah's position. In the crucial paragraph of his "Moorman-in-the-street?", he commits logical blunders that I would not expect a freshman to commit:

> 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

Notice how he pretends that, if Jack and I are wrong about the Moorman, then that permits him to assert--"with considrable confidence"--that the photo record from the plaza "forms a seamless tapestry", which can "stand as bedrock in the case", as though other indications of alteration do not even exist! Indeed, I have offered several inventories of them in "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited" and in "Tink rolls the dice", not to mention John's new discovery, which I reported in "New Proof of JFK Video Fakery" (OpEdNews, February 5, 2008) and those presented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). He asserts again and again that the consistency of the Zapruder, Muchmore, and Nix films establishes their authenticity, when consistency is necessary but not sufficient for truth. Motion pictures are almost always consistent, but very seldom are the events they portrayed true and accurate representations of events that actually occurred in the world, as endless action films, romances and comedies, and science fiction thrillers attest. If Tink were right, then the events portrayed in the "Star Wars" sequence and in the Indiana Jones series must have actually occurred! His position here is so absurd that it has to be a charade. No American, immersed in the cinema, could not appreciate the difference between the consistency of a film and its true. Not all films are documentaries!

Josiah has adopted the pose that there is a simple choice between accepting Mary's testimony that she was really in the street as though we did not already have massive proof that the Zapruder has been altered. In his enthusiasm over Costella's agreement that the photo was taken from the grass, he seems to forget that Costella has proven the Zapruder is a fake. It is as though he had never read, "A Scientist's Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication"! And he simply ignores the obvious consequence, namely: that if the assassination films are consistent with one another, when one of them is a fake, the others must--in relevant respects--have been altered, too. He is unwilling to acknowledge any proof of fakery. 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, (B) 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’slittle boat has sprung a leak. It has sunk like a sieve into the ocean of truth!

I have composed a second study, briefer than the first, discussing Thompson's methodology in pursuing this here, which is entitled "Tink rolls the dice: 'Moorman-in-the-street?'" I really had no expected that he would be so daring as to perform such fakery in this forum. But then I should not underestimate him. He has been lying and cheating on forums in attacking me and Jack about the Moorman for years. He has gone far out of his way to distort and mislead audiences, so I suppose it should come as no surprise that he would continue, true to form, here on this forum. Having been defeated "fair and square" over months of excruciating and meticulous debate, he had no other choice but to look for an new audience to contaminate my manipulating the evidence. For a Ph.D. from Yale, his indulgence in fallacies is astounding. It has to be deliberate, which is why I have been forced to the conclusion that his objective is to obfuscate new discoveries that advance our understanding of the true causes of the death of JFK. And that, of course, includes using every trick of the trade when the going gets tough. He has tried to take advantage of the fact that Jack and I are simply worn out by the massive, ongoing, and deceitful attacks that have come, not just from him but from others who are allied with him, including Lamson, Miller, and Junk. Leonard and Shackelford occasions make their debuts, but the burden has been carried by Josiah, Lamson, and Miller. This appears to be a psychological mechanism with several purposes, including (a) social reinforcement of misleading claims, (B) attempting to make it appear that everyone agrees that we are wrong, and © tacitly substituting popularity for truth. But then again, when logic and the evidence are against you, desperate situations require desperate measures.

Edited by Josiah Thompson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A picture IS worth a thousand words, now isn't it!

Excellent illustration, Craig. Neither Fetzer nor White will touch it with a 10 ft pole .... although if they have anymore fat red lines handy ...

Bests,

Barb :-)

This guy is shameless. He is blatantly misrepresenting our position. Notice he does not actually offer pages or posts for citations so anyone could check our actual positions. While there is a "lower right corner" of the window thirty five feet behind the pedestal, there is no "upper left corner" of the pedestal, because there is a one-inch indentation around the top of the pedestal. The proper alignment of the cross "+" requires using the left side of the pedestal and the top of the pedestal as parts of two lines that intersect in space. What this means is that, in order to make the alignment required by the line of sight, a "gap" will be created by necessity, since aligning them properly allows for the one-inch indentation (or "knotch"). I have explained this in Parts I and II of "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", JFKresearch.com/Moorman/, which was composed after weeks of discussion and debate on jfk-research@yahoogroups.com. Everyone who participated in this knows that Josiah Thompson is distorting the most basic aspect of our proof. The matter of the "red cross" is also a charade, since the same features exist with or without the red lines, which Jack used to highlight the location of the cross. If you take a look at "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", you will find an extensive and, in my opinion, decisive refutation of the claims made in this ridiculous post. If David Healy has actually posted the reply attributed to him here, then he has been taken in. No one should fall for this stunt, which is one of the most dishonest distortions possible. No doubt Josiah wanted to shift the discussion to this forum from the other because it would be virtually impossible to dupe members there, who have been living through this for months. I therefore urge Healy and others who are being played for suckers to read our study, which is supported by no less than fifteen photographic attachments, which were prepared by Jack for this purpose.

The existence of a modest distance between the pedestal top and the bottom inside of the window has also been a subject of extensive discussion. You will find the key paragraph below Attachment 7 as follows:

The second alleged "gap" is one of vertical displacement. Tink has insisted that we missed a difference of close to 2" at the pergola, which would have translated into as much as a 7" difference over the grass. Such a modest gap is almost too small to be seen on a small, blurry copy of the Moorman. Jack has candidly acknowledged that there may be a 1" gap at the pedestal, which Joe Durnavich measured (using a method John first proposed of counting pixels) to be 1.88". I do not know if he did this correctly by using an image consistent with our 41.5" estimate, but let us assume that he did. Since even a 2" difference only adds 8" to the line of sight over the grass, adding it to our figure of 41.5" would yield 49.5". Since Mary was 5'2" (5'3" with shoes) and the camera at lens should have been about 5" lower, the line of sight should have been closer to 57" (or 58"). This is still far too low by 8" (or 9") for Mary to be standing on the grass. So even Tink's strongest argument is still unavailing.

I see you are as daft as White when it comes to the simple meaning of the word "cross".

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

So where is that "cross" in Moorman?

Wanna try again Jim?

cross.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...