Pamela Brown Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 A theory about Moorman's line of sight for her photo can logically be developed by standing in Dealey Plaza. It can't be verified by the Z-film. If you believe her photo was taken at Z316-17 those frames can logically be compared and contrasted to her photo. Anything more than that seems to be apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 A theory about Moorman's line of sight for her photo can logically be developed by standing in Dealey Plaza. It can't be verified by the Z-film. If you believe her photo was taken at Z316-17 those frames can logically be compared and contrasted to her photo. Anything more than that seems to be apples and oranges. More than standing in Dealey Plaza was done. But since you've got that far, maybe you are catching on. Play some serious catch up, Pamela. Why not actually read the essay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 A theory about Moorman's line of sight for her photo can logically be developed by standing in Dealey Plaza. It can't be verified by the Z-film. If you believe her photo was taken at Z316-17 those frames can logically be compared and contrasted to her photo. Anything more than that seems to be apples and oranges. More than standing in Dealey Plaza was done. But since you've got that far, maybe you are catching on. Play some serious catch up, Pamela. Why not actually read the essay? LMFAO! Sorry..... so says the Oregonian rain goddess.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 A theory about Moorman's line of sight for her photo can logically be developed by standing in Dealey Plaza. It can't be verified by the Z-film. If you believe her photo was taken at Z316-17 those frames can logically be compared and contrasted to her photo. Anything more than that seems to be apples and oranges. More than standing in Dealey Plaza was done. But since you've got that far, maybe you are catching on. Play some serious catch up, Pamela. Why not actually read the essay? LMFAO! Sorry..... so says the Oregonian rain goddess.... Healy as right on as always ... it was 86 freakin' degrees here today. My rain goddess mojo may not be working, but I understand the claim made ... and that it was directly, soundly and definitively addressed ... and that what frame in the Z film the Moorman photo corresponds to has zero, nada, zilch to do with it. Perhaps you can explain that to Pamela, your thought processes just may be more in tune with her thinking. If I wasn't your favorite one to carp about, you'd climb all over her silly remarks and total misunderstanding of the premise of the claim, I expect. :-) Hey, where'd you all run off to on the windshield hole and Fetzer's proclamation about Jack's latest determination that Jackie had neither flowers nor a lambchop ... but a stuffed dog in the limo? LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 Fetzer's claim about Moorman-in-the-street claims that a sight-line in the Moorman photo places Moorman's camera at a location much lower than it appears in the Zapruder film. Obviously then, one cannot use the Zapruder film to prove anything about the Moorman photo since Fetzer's claim concludes that the Zapruder film is discrepant with Moorman and hence altered. Nowhere in the debunking of Fetzer's claim did we use the Zapruder film as proof of anything. If we had, that would have been stupid. We debunked Fetzer's claim about the Moorman photo by debunking directly the particular claims he made about the photo by using internal evidence in the Moorman photo. Josiah Thompson quote name='Pamela McElwain-Brown' date='Apr 21 2009, 02:13 AM' post='166056'] A theory about Moorman's line of sight for her photo can logically be developed by standing in Dealey Plaza. It can't be verified by the Z-film. If you believe her photo was taken at Z316-17 those frames can logically be compared and contrasted to her photo. Anything more than that seems to be apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Precisely and well stated, Tink. From your keyboard to her brain ... Bests, Barb :-) Fetzer's claim about Moorman-in-the-street claims that a sight-line in the Moorman photo places Moorman's camera at a location much lower than it appears in the Zapruder film. Obviously then, one cannot use the Zapruder film to prove anything about the Moorman photo since Fetzer's claim concludes that the Zapruder film is discrepant with Moorman and hence altered. Nowhere in the debunking of Fetzer's claim did we use the Zapruder film as proof of anything. If we had, that would have been stupid. We debunked Fetzer's claim about the Moorman photo by debunking directly the particular claims he made about the photo by using internal evidence in the Moorman photo.Josiah Thompson A theory about Moorman's line of sight for her photo can logically be developed by standing in Dealey Plaza. It can't be verified by the Z-film. If you believe her photo was taken at Z316-17 those frames can logically be compared and contrasted to her photo. Anything more than that seems to be apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 A theory about Moorman's line of sight for her photo can logically be developed by standing in Dealey Plaza. It can't be verified by the Z-film. If you believe her photo was taken at Z316-17 those frames can logically be compared and contrasted to her photo. Anything more than that seems to be apples and oranges. More than standing in Dealey Plaza was done. But since you've got that far, maybe you are catching on. Play some serious catch up, Pamela. Why not actually read the essay? LMFAO! Sorry..... so says the Oregonian rain goddess.... An appeal to authority seems to have more glamour than persuasion through logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 For some more "perspective"... Good. What would the Z-frame equivalent be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 Can you help me out, Pamela? You say, "An appeal to authority seems to have more glamour than persuasion through logic." For the life of me, I can't figure out what "appeal to authority" you are referring to. The consequence of Fetzer's claim about Moorman-in-the-street was that the Zapruder film was altered. Hence, whatever the Zapruder film showed it couldn't be used in either proving or disproving the claim. Other films show her standing in the grass taking her photo and not jumping into the street, so these films are relevant to the proof or disproof of the claim. No witness reported seeing her jump into the street so this clearly relevant evidence. The two motorcyclists (who would have had to swerve to avoid her) said nothing about some crazy woman jumping into the street, so this is clearly relevant evidence. All of this was part of the disproof. But the main thrust of the disproof aligned with the main thrust of the claim. Fetzer claimed there was a line-of-sight in the Moorman photo itself that was consistent with the photo being taken from the street and not from the grass. We showed definitively that the line-of-sight pointed to simply was not present in the Moorman photo. Actually, another line-of-sight was present in the Moorman photo and it indicated the photo was taken from the grass. Finally. the camera in the Moorman photo is looking down on the tops of motorcycle windscreens that are 58" high. Only a photo taken from the grass could plausibly be high enough to do so. None of these elements used in debunking Fetzer's claim have anything to do with "authority." In fact, they refer to evidence not authority. Most importantly, the main thrust of the debunking turns on showing the evidence used in the claim (the alleged line-of-sight) is just not present in the photo. Internal evidence from the Moorman photo itself sunk the claim. So this leaves me scratching my head and wondering what you have in mind by speaking of an "appeal to authority." Could you help me out by explaining further what you have in mind? Thanks. Josiah Thompson A theory about Moorman's line of sight for her photo can logically be developed by standing in Dealey Plaza. It can't be verified by the Z-film. If you believe her photo was taken at Z316-17 those frames can logically be compared and contrasted to her photo. Anything more than that seems to be apples and oranges. More than standing in Dealey Plaza was done. But since you've got that far, maybe you are catching on. Play some serious catch up, Pamela. Why not actually read the essay? LMFAO! Sorry..... so says the Oregonian rain goddess.... An appeal to authority seems to have more glamour than persuasion through logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Fetzer's claim about Moorman-in-the-street claims that a sight-line in the Moorman photo places Moorman's camera at a location much lower than it appears in the Zapruder film. Obviously then, one cannot use the Zapruder film to prove anything about the Moorman photo since Fetzer's claim concludes that the Zapruder film is discrepant with Moorman and hence altered. Nowhere in the debunking of Fetzer's claim did we use the Zapruder film as proof of anything. If we had, that would have been stupid. We debunked Fetzer's claim about the Moorman photo by debunking directly the particular claims he made about the photo by using internal evidence in the Moorman photo.Josiah Thompson There is no issue with the fact that you are presenting an alternative to the Fetzer/White theory about where Moorman was standing. That is all that has been accomplished, though. The argument of whether the Zapruder is altered or not based on where either of you think Moorman was standing is a separate issue and without being grounded does not have merit. quote name='Pamela McElwain-Brown' date='Apr 21 2009, 02:13 AM' post='166056'] A theory about Moorman's line of sight for her photo can logically be developed by standing in Dealey Plaza. It can't be verified by the Z-film. If you believe her photo was taken at Z316-17 those frames can logically be compared and contrasted to her photo. Anything more than that seems to be apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 A theory about Moorman's line of sight for her photo can logically be developed by standing in Dealey Plaza. It can't be verified by the Z-film. If you believe her photo was taken at Z316-17 those frames can logically be compared and contrasted to her photo. Anything more than that seems to be apples and oranges. More than standing in Dealey Plaza was done. But since you've got that far, maybe you are catching on. Play some serious catch up, Pamela. Why not actually read the essay? LMFAO! Sorry..... so says the Oregonian rain goddess.... An appeal to authority seems to have more glamour than persuasion through logic. Appeal to WHAT "authority"? What is your "persuasive logic" for that comment? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Fetzer's claim about Moorman-in-the-street claims that a sight-line in the Moorman photo places Moorman's camera at a location much lower than it appears in the Zapruder film. Obviously then, one cannot use the Zapruder film to prove anything about the Moorman photo since Fetzer's claim concludes that the Zapruder film is discrepant with Moorman and hence altered. Nowhere in the debunking of Fetzer's claim did we use the Zapruder film as proof of anything. If we had, that would have been stupid. We debunked Fetzer's claim about the Moorman photo by debunking directly the particular claims he made about the photo by using internal evidence in the Moorman photo. Josiah Thompson Then you are simply presenting an alternative theory to where you think Moorman was standing when she took the photo, aren't you? On what basis are you then claiming that anything has been debunked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) For some more "perspective"... Good. What would the Z-frame equivalent be? Pamela, This frame (the 36th in the Muchmore assassination sequence) probably was taken ever so slighly (a fractional frame) before Z-307. Edit -- adding Z-307: Edited April 22, 2009 by Frank Agbat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Pamela, below you say: "Then you are simply presenting an alternative theory to where you think Moorman was standing when she took the photo, aren't you?" No. Absolutely not. and you add ... " On what basis are you then claiming that anything has been debunked?" Fetzer/White et al's claim is that the view Mary Moorman captured on film while looking thru her camera could only have been captured by her IF she were standing in the street when she clicked the shutter. Are you with me so far? What we showed is that they are WRONG ... that, in fact, the view that she saw while looking thru her camera, and captured on her film when she clicked her shutter, could only have been captured from a higher elevation ... not from street level. It was proven scientifically, definitively, it is not a claim or a theory. THEIR claim has been debunked. Their claim was based on measurements they did to determine Moorman's LINE OF SIGHT, her SIGHT LINE - that is that view she had with her eye to her camera when she clicked HER shutter. Their measurements were faulty ... and that has been proven, demonstrated. It is MOORMAN'S VIEW THRU HER CAMERA that was assessed. Please note there is NO use, mention, relevance, or anything else as regards the Z film in this. What was relevant was ONLY what Moorman saw thru HER camera when she clicked HER picture and captured that view on HER film. What MOORMAN saw and captured on film is the SOLE BASIS for the claim and the SOLE BASIS for the debunking. If Tink or anyone else can boil it down any simpler than that ... my hat is off to them. :-) Fetzer's claim about Moorman-in-the-street claims that a sight-line in the Moorman photo places Moorman's camera at a location much lower than it appears in the Zapruder film. Obviously then, one cannot use the Zapruder film to prove anything about the Moorman photo since Fetzer's claim concludes that the Zapruder film is discrepant with Moorman and hence altered. Nowhere in the debunking of Fetzer's claim did we use the Zapruder film as proof of anything. If we had, that would have been stupid. We debunked Fetzer's claim about the Moorman photo by debunking directly the particular claims he made about the photo by using internal evidence in the Moorman photo. Josiah Thompson Then you are simply presenting an alternative theory to where you think Moorman was standing when she took the photo, aren't you? On what basis are you then claiming that anything has been debunked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Pamela, below you say:"Then you are simply presenting an alternative theory to where you think Moorman was standing when she took the photo, aren't you?" No. Absolutely not. and you add ... " On what basis are you then claiming that anything has been debunked?" Fetzer/White et al's claim is that the view Mary Moorman captured on film while looking thru her camera could only have been captured by her IF she were standing in the street when she clicked the shutter. Are you with me so far? What we showed is that they are WRONG ... that, in fact, the view that she saw while looking thru her camera, and captured on her film when she clicked her shutter, could only have been captured from a higher elevation ... not from street level. It was proven scientifically, definitively, it is not a claim or a theory. THEIR claim has been debunked. Their claim was based on measurements they did to determine Moorman's LINE OF SIGHT, her SIGHT LINE - that is that view she had with her eye to her camera when she clicked HER shutter. Their measurements were faulty ... and that has been proven, demonstrated. It is MOORMAN'S VIEW THRU HER CAMERA that was assessed. Please note there is NO use, mention, relevance, or anything else as regards the Z film in this. What was relevant was ONLY what Moorman saw thru HER camera when she clicked HER picture and captured that view on HER film. What MOORMAN saw and captured on film is the SOLE BASIS for the claim and the SOLE BASIS for the debunking. If Tink or anyone else can boil it down any simpler than that ... my hat is off to them. :-) Fetzer's claim about Moorman-in-the-street claims that a sight-line in the Moorman photo places Moorman's camera at a location much lower than it appears in the Zapruder film. Obviously then, one cannot use the Zapruder film to prove anything about the Moorman photo since Fetzer's claim concludes that the Zapruder film is discrepant with Moorman and hence altered. Nowhere in the debunking of Fetzer's claim did we use the Zapruder film as proof of anything. If we had, that would have been stupid. We debunked Fetzer's claim about the Moorman photo by debunking directly the particular claims he made about the photo by using internal evidence in the Moorman photo. Josiah Thompson Then you are simply presenting an alternative theory to where you think Moorman was standing when she took the photo, aren't you? On what basis are you then claiming that anything has been debunked? Nonsense, nonsense and nonsense. Jack Edited April 22, 2009 by Jack White 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