John Dolva Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 (edited) Josiah, I stand by the posting that in your first topic: 'enough said'. You posted it all there. It's degenerated into a mudslinging match where I doubt there are many who can outlast fetzer in such a game. The persistent ego, the arrogance, by a trained manipulator/propagandist/'philosopher', when it comes to these technical matters seeks to draw the discussion to his level and then having planted all this garbage takes a high road where conveniently the pertinent points are lost in the xxxx fight. He's irrelevant. Why fall for it. There's absolutely no need to. He's so busy digging his own grave, for Gods sake, take pity on him , he doesn't need any help. edit:typo Edited March 9, 2009 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Josiah, I stand by the posting that in your first topic: 'enough said'. You posted it all there. It's degenerated into a mudslinging match where I doubt there are many who can outlast fetzer in such a game. The persistent ego, the arrogance, by a trained manipulator/propagandist/'philosopher', when it comes to these technical matters seeks to draw the discussion to his level and then having planted all this garbage takes a high road where conveniently the pertinent points are lost in the xxxx fight. He's irrelevant. Why fall for it. There's absolutely no need to. He's so busy digging his own grave, for Gods sake, take pity on him , he doesn't need any help.edit:typo Josiah Thompson's glee club is big enough for Gawds sake, let him be! His ego is in check (for the time being) tsk-tsk. No bid contracts are over...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 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? frankly, a case can be made the lines could actually meet. Perhaps Craig was a bit 'conservative' with his lines... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Josiah, I stand by the posting that in your first topic: 'enough said'. You posted it all there. It's degenerated into a mudslinging match where I doubt there are many who can outlast fetzer in such a game. The persistent ego, the arrogance, by a trained manipulator/propagandist/'philosopher', when it comes to these technical matters seeks to draw the discussion to his level and then having planted all this garbage takes a high road where conveniently the pertinent points are lost in the xxxx fight. He's irrelevant. Why fall for it. There's absolutely no need to. He's so busy digging his own grave, for Gods sake, take pity on him , he doesn't need any help.edit:typo Josiah Thompson's glee club is big enough for Gawds sake, let him be! His ego is in check (for the time being) tsk-tsk. No bid contracts are over...... David, please don't take offence but once again your style has me laughing(not at you, you're just natuarally funny in how you put things). As far as Josiah goes, he's no god and I'll rip into him with gusto should the occasion arise. I doubt it would though. But still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share Posted March 9, 2009 Unlike White, Craig Lamson bent over backward to make the lines truly "conservative" from our point of view. Just looking at the photo, shows you this. Josiah Thompson 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? frankly, a case can be made the lines could actually meet. Perhaps Craig was a bit 'conservative' with his lines... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 Thank you, John Dolva. I appreciate the point. Whenever one gets into a debate with Fetzer, it degenerates quickly into trading insults. On the other hand, I'm committed with my friends here to not letting Fetzer get away with what he's gotten away with in the past. Like you say, he "seeks to draw the discussion to his level and then having planted all this garbage takes a high road where conveniently the pertinent points are lost in the xxxx fight." Just for once we committed ourselves to not let him get away with it. So, basically, we are knocking down every point that Fetzer puts up. Wait a little bit and you'll see our job on his latest claims re Towner vs. Moorman. But it's tough to figure out just how to handle him and I'd welcome any advice either publicly or by private email. Thanks for the post. I wasn't sure anyone else had noticed. Josiah Thompson Josiah, I stand by the posting that in your first topic: 'enough said'. You posted it all there. It's degenerated into a mudslinging match where I doubt there are many who can outlast fetzer in such a game. The persistent ego, the arrogance, by a trained manipulator/propagandist/'philosopher', when it comes to these technical matters seeks to draw the discussion to his level and then having planted all this garbage takes a high road where conveniently the pertinent points are lost in the xxxx fight. He's irrelevant. Why fall for it. There's absolutely no need to. He's so busy digging his own grave, for Gods sake, take pity on him , he doesn't need any help.edit:typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Unlike White, Craig Lamson bent over backward to make the lines truly "conservative" from our point of view. Just looking at the photo, shows you this.Josiah Thompson conservative is as conservative was, its all in the eyes of the beholder... see the attached Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Thank you, John Dolva. I appreciate the point. Whenever one gets into a debate with Fetzer, it degenerates quickly into trading insults. On the other hand, I'm committed with my friends here to not letting Fetzer get away with what he's gotten away with in the past. Like you say, he "seeks to draw the discussion to his level and then having planted all this garbage takes a high road where conveniently the pertinent points are lost in the xxxx fight." Just for once we committed ourselves to not let him get away with it. So, basically, we are knocking down every point that Fetzer puts up. Wait a little bit and you'll see our job on his latest claims re Towner vs. Moorman. But it's tough to figure out just how to handle him and I'd welcome any advice either publicly or by private email. Thanks for the post. I wasn't sure anyone else had noticed.Josiah Thompson Josiah, I stand by the posting that in your first topic: 'enough said'. You posted it all there. It's degenerated into a mudslinging match where I doubt there are many who can outlast fetzer in such a game. The persistent ego, the arrogance, by a trained manipulator/propagandist/'philosopher', when it comes to these technical matters seeks to draw the discussion to his level and then having planted all this garbage takes a high road where conveniently the pertinent points are lost in the xxxx fight. He's irrelevant. Why fall for it. There's absolutely no need to. He's so busy digging his own grave, for Gods sake, take pity on him , he doesn't need any help.edit:typo No worries, Josiah, you're welcome. Go for it. I look forward to the rest re Towner vs. Moorman. I guess stick to the point, separate the vitriol from the gist and see if there is anything worth considering, and stay on track with that, it'll force him to spit his dummy, declare us all personas non grata and leave with a huff and with an intact legend in his own mind. Win-win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 frankly, a case can be made the lines could actually meet. Perhaps Craig was a bit 'conservative' with his lines... I think Craig was being generous to Fetzer and White. Here is a little sharper image ... The lines can truly intersect if one uses thick enough red lines. (LOL!!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) 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? frankly, a case can be made the lines could actually meet. Perhaps Craig was a bit 'conservative' with his lines... Why not show us David, instead of your standard meaningless postings. All you need to do is apply a very "liberal" dose of your vaunted photographic skills. added on edit: I see you have tried and failed. Have you been reduced to making things up out of thin air? So much for David Healy and his photographic analysis skills. They are non existant. Perhaps you should move along, you are in way over your head..... Edited March 10, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 ??? ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) ?????? The view is directly into the front face of the pedestal, you dont see eihter side face. Edited March 12, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 ?????? The view is directly into the front face of the pedestal, you dont see eihter side face. Thank you Crag. It must be a slight shadow from a tree that made it look otherwise, so I checked the drommer and , well, I reckon she must have been standing on the grass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 ?????? The view is directly into the front face of the pedestal, you dont see eihter side face. Thank you Crag. It must be a slight shadow from a tree that made it look otherwise, so I checked the drommer and , well, I reckon she must have been standing on the grass. Another way (I hypothesise) (which would tie in with the missing nix topic) is then that the knowable width of the pedestal can provide a benchmark from where using a survey and the inverse square law ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square_law ) one can take another knowable width height and calculate how far Moormans cameras film surface was from the pedestal and from that derive something re the lens's distortion characteristics. As well as calculating the distances between other objects in the film (such as Jackies hat and Kennedys right coat shoulder for example and comparing that with other imagery etc etc etc. (For a moment there I was beginning to think that Dealey Plaza itself doesn't exist, or if it does/did then in a special kind of space time continuum where irdinary laws of physics don't apply like photons travelling in straight lines (apart from the minimal partial and inconsequebtial (micro) diffractions around sharp edges) ( The Complete Idiot's Guide to Physics By Johnnie T. Dennis http://books.google.com.au/books?id=9gC3Yz...1&ct=result ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) 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? frankly, a case can be made the lines could actually meet. Perhaps Craig was a bit 'conservative' with his lines... Why not show us David, instead of your standard meaningless postings. All you need to do is apply a very "liberal" dose of your vaunted photographic skills. added on edit: I see you have tried and failed. Have you been reduced to making things up out of thin air? So much for David Healy and his photographic analysis skills. They are non existant. Perhaps you should move along, you are in way over your head..... I posted the photo, can't you find the meaningless photo?.... few posts above ^ post #22 Edited March 13, 2009 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now