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

[Craig Lamson]

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

And I made an addition to my original post when I saw your image...its right there...notice the words "added on edit"

[David G. Healy]

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

And I made an addition to my original post when I saw your image...its right there...notice the words "added on edit"

Hell, I'm still trying to find Zapruder & Sitzman in this cropped recreation.... Soooooooo a horizontial pixel here, a vertical pixel there, sigh! In the 72dpi world no less, way to go.... LMAO! Hardly convincing, Craig (for neophytes perhaps, but not the pro's) --

But, many suspect this has gone way beyond photo (e)valuation. Appears it's is all about personalities, isn't it? If that's the case, you're debating from a position of weakness, so much for "professional" opinion. Your side simply can't convince anyone with case photo-film knowledge .... So, let's continue posting more piss-poor quality images, perhaps that will lend more to the Z-film anti-alteration position.... ROTFLMFAO!

btw, Zapruder and Stizman? I'd recognize them anywhere.......

Edited March 13, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

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

And I made an addition to my original post when I saw your image...its right there...notice the words "added on edit"

Hell, I'm still trying to find Zapruder & Sitzman in this cropped recreation.... Soooooooo a horizontial pixel here, a vertical pixel there, sigh! In the 72dpi world no less, way to go.... LMAO! Hardly convincing, Craig (for neophytes perhaps, but not the pro's) --

But, many suspect this has gone way beyond photo (e)valuation. Appears it's is all about personalities, isn't it? If that's the case, you're debating from a position of weakness, so much for "professional" opinion. Your side simply can't convince anyone with case photo-film knowledge .... So, let's continue posting more piss-poor quality images, perhaps that will lend more to the Z-film anti-alteration position.... ROTFLMFAO!

btw, Zapruder and Stizman? I'd recognize them anywhere.......

As I mentioned David, this is way over your head. Of course this is a poor image but it served a very important use. Sadly that too over your head. Since its one of your pal White's QUALITY images, I suggest you jump him if the quality if below your standards. We spent the time to provide a very high quality drum scan... have the members of your horde done the same? Of course not.

And please don't talk to us about photo-film knowlege, hell the "scientists" on your side can't even get parallax correct and your resident "photo expert" can't figure out how a simple shadow works...and then there is you, you can't even produce a convincing "zapruder" fabrication wiht a compute rand god knows about using film because you can't offer a single example of your expertise in that medium. Now cribbing the work of others to publish ...you are top notch at that.

[John Dolva]

???

???

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 )

The flawed interpretation(mine) of the pedestal at least illustrates how one cannot derive zaps height from the photo as he's standing on the pedestal and from Moormans perspective you can't see his feet and he's bending his knees and twisting to follow the limo as well as wearing a hat.

[Pamela Brown]

At what frame of the Zapruder film are any of you positing the Moorman photo was taken?

[Bill Miller]

At what frame of the Zapruder film are any of you positing the Moorman photo was taken?

Between exposures Z315 and Z316

[Pamela Brown]

At what frame of the Zapruder film are any of you positing the Moorman photo was taken?

Between exposures Z315 and Z316

Thanks. The point is though where those making claims for either side will posit which Z-frame they think corresponds to the Moorman photo. In Z315-6 for example, Moorman is not visible and there is no way to determine where her feet are. So, how can anyone make up a case that involves such a determination and try to base it on the Z-film? That would appear to be specious, don't you think?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

At what frame of the Zapruder film are any of you positing the Moorman photo was taken?

Between exposures Z315 and Z316

Thanks. The point is though where those making claims for either side will posit which Z-frame they think corresponds to the Moorman photo. In Z315-6 for example, Moorman is not visible and there is no way to determine where her feet are. So, how can anyone make up a case that involves such a determination and try to base it on the Z-film? That would appear to be specious, don't you think?

As has been explained to you on the mod group a couple of times now, Pamela, the claim regards Moorman's LOS (line of sight) ... not Zapruder's. What Z frame the Moorman photo corresponds to is of no consequence for the Moorman-in-the-Street?" issue. Nor is what frames Moorman appears in, per se. Her elbow is seen in the sprocket area of Z315 ... and she can be seen with the camera to her eye looking at the limo, in frames preceding that. What that shows is that she was on the grass taking her photo ... Fetzer et al claim she was moved from the street to the grass as part of some film fakery. They say the LOS of her photo shows she was actually in the street when she took her photo. But the actual LOS of her photo (and other things) says otherwise ... and that is what the essay is about.

You were given the link to the essay which explains both the claim and why the claim fails. Did you read it? Your comments and questions don't make it sound like you have ... or if you did read it, you came away with zero understanding of the claim or the resolution. You do know what a LOS *is* ... right?

Barb :-)

[Jack White]

Nobody here understands the Moorman line of sight UNLESS THEY HAVE

ACTUALLY BEEN TO THE PLAZA with a copy of the photo and FOUND the LOS

for themselves. Speculation without having done so is like the blind men describing

an elephant by feeling of it.

http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1

Jack

Edited April 20, 2009 by Jack White

[Craig Lamson]

Nobody here understands the Moorman line of sight UNLESS THEY HAVE

ACTUALLY BEEN TO THE PLAZA with a copy of the photo and FOUND the LOS

for themselves. Speculation without having done so is like the blind men describing

an elephant by feeling of it.

http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1

Jack

Uh Jack, you produced a "study" were YOU said one can understand the Moorman LOS without being in the plaza. One or the other cannot be true, which is it?

Whats even more interesting is the fact that it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that YOU don't even understand the true Moorman LOS. Fricking amazing.

[Pamela Brown]

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, ( 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, ( 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 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:

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?

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.”

(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:

Regardless of what Moorman may have said or what she believed regarding where she was standing when she took her famous photo, the Z-film cannot be used as confirmation of that fact. If you posit that the Moorman photo was taken at Z315-16, Moorman's legs and feet are not visible. How can the Z-film then be used to prove or disprove where she was standing?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Pamela ... below you say:

"Regardless of what Moorman may have said or what she believed regarding where she was standing when she took her famous photo, the Z-film cannot be used as confirmation of that fact. If you posit that the Moorman photo was taken at Z315-16, Moorman's legs and feet are not visible. How can the Z-film then be used to prove or disprove where she was standing?"

WHERE do you see ANYone saying they are using the Z film "to prove or disprove" where Moorman was standing when she took her photo?

NOWHERE!

Read that again...

NOWHERE.

Fetzer, White, et al did not assert anything about Moorman's position based on any frame of the Z film; Tink, me, Bill, Craig, Bill and Gary did not assert anything about Moorman's position when she took her photo based on the Zfilm.

Read that again.

The claim ... and the resolution ... had to do with Moorman's LINE OF SIGHT when ***she took her photo*** ... what the LINE OF SIGHT in ***HER PHOTO*** shows about whether or not she could have been standing in the street ***when she took that photo***.

Can this really be beyond you? You are far asea in a really dinky rowboat...

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.

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, ( 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, ( 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 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:

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?

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.”

(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:

Regardless of what Moorman may have said or what she believed regarding where she was standing when she took her famous photo, the Z-film cannot be used as confirmation of that fact. If you posit that the Moorman photo was taken at Z315-16, Moorman's legs and feet are not visible. How can the Z-film then be used to prove or disprove where she was standing?

Edited April 20, 2009 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Bill Miller]

Thanks. The point is though where those making claims for either side will posit which Z-frame they think corresponds to the Moorman photo. In Z315-6 for example, Moorman is not visible and there is no way to determine where her feet are. So, how can anyone make up a case that involves such a determination and try to base it on the Z-film? That would appear to be specious, don't you think?

Sure there is a way to determine where Moorman's feet are. Moorman's feet in Z315 for instance are in the same location in raltion to the top of the curb that they were 1/4 of a second earlier in Z310 while her left foot is still visible. Moorman's height in the film did not drop not even a fraction of an inch when compared to Jean Hill or to the limo. Three other movie cameras running at the same moments do not show any walking on Moorman's part or a change in her height in the cameras field of view angainst any witnesses or landmarks within the image.

Personally I do not know of anyone who could have gotten from the grass above the slope and into the street to take her photo in less than 1/4 of a second from a stationary position ... I would even be embarrassed to let people think that I even considered it. But we didn't need any of this to read the data within her Polaroid. I mentioned the things in rebuttal to show that other ways of testing our results could be obtainable - were tested - and found to support what Moorman's photo was saying to us all along.

Bill

Edited April 20, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

name='Jack White' post='166026' date='Apr 20 2009, 03:52 PM']Nobody here understands the Moorman line of sight UNLESS THEY HAVE

ACTUALLY BEEN TO THE PLAZA with a copy of the photo and FOUND the LOS

for themselves. Speculation without having done so is like the blind men describing

an elephant by feeling of it.

http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1

Jack

Uh Jack, you produced a "study" were YOU said one can understand the Moorman LOS without being in the plaza. One or the other cannot be true, which is it?

Whats even more interesting is the fact that it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that YOU don't even understand the true Moorman LOS. Fricking amazing.

Yes Jack .. give it up because each time you or Fetzer attempt to push your alteration crap, you start contradicting things you have previously said. The reason for this is that you are trying to win the moment by saying what ever you think will help you even when it means contradicting yourself.

I mean look what happen with Fetzer when he had to say that the photo in 'Hoax' that bares the description under it 'REPLICATION OF SIGHTLINE' is not the sightline at all. Fetzer claims that you didn't have a camera that could be used to show the view from the transit. Of course we both know that is a joke for the camera could have been handed to Mantik sitting there behind the transit and a photo could have been taken looking down the barrel like it was a gun.

The whole thing is a fiasco.

[Frank Agbat]

For some more "perspective"...