David G. Healy Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 ...Nonsense, nonsense and nonsense. Jack Jack, They're all going down with the Lone Nut ship, way to much invested..... I wouldn't waste another second on them.... let them "essay" themselves down Elm Street! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson 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? Nonsense, nonsense and nonsense. Jack If only Larry, Curly and Moe could have found the Moorman LOS as it exists in the Moorman polaroid, and not wasted the effort on the replication of the MOE LOS. Just goes to show how worthless those "letters" can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Jack,They're all going down with the Lone Nut ship, way to much invested..... I wouldn't waste another second on them.... let them "essay" themselves down Elm Street! David, you had read this stuff before telling the members of this forum that you had seen 'NO PROOF of alteration ... something you had been saying for years' - RIGHT??? Certainly when you had made that remark ... you had actually read and was aware of the contents within 'HOAX' - CORRECT??? Can we not assume that you noticed that White's photo in 'Hoax' labeled "REPLICAION OF SIGHTLINE" was taken showing the spacing between the corner of the pedestal and the background of the colonnade windows DID NOT match Moorman's. That 'PERSPECTIVE 101' dictates that the two photographers (Moorman and White) COULD NOT be on the same line of sight at the exact same spot to get such a variance of shifting concerning these reference points. Surely this is why you stated years AFTER 'Hoax' was published - 'I HAVE SEEN NO PROOF OF ALTERATION, SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS'. It seems that if any ship is going down, its because you fired the torpedo that sank it and your post that I am referring to was directed at the good ship 'The USS Alteration'. Edited April 22, 2009 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Jack,They're all going down with the Lone Nut ship, way to much invested..... I wouldn't waste another second on them.... let them "essay" themselves down Elm Street! ... David, you had read this stuff before telling the members of this forum that you had seen 'NO PROOF of alteration ... something you had been saying for years' - RIGHT??? Certainly when you had made that remark ... you had actually read and was aware of the contents within 'HOAX' - CORRECT??? ... Son, what amazes me most is your complete lack of understanding (and comprehension of) the English language. Now YOU keep coming back, eventually it does get better -- perhaps Dr. Thompson (or the Craigster when he gets back from a few day's off) can suggest a few correspondence schools... Edited April 22, 2009 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted April 23, 2009 Author Share Posted April 23, 2009 Well, Jack, it is what it is. No matter how many times you say "Nonsense... Nonsense... Nonsense".... no matter how many times you publish the photo of the transit with the corpulent professor holding up a measuring rod.... no matter how many Ph.D.s or "Marine artllery officers" you show performing the experiment.... no matter all these things, the facts are what they are. What you don't show is where you pointed the transit. It is clear from Mantik's notes and from Fetzer's latter-day admission that you pointed the transit to line up exactly the two points (the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the window beyond) that you thought initially lined up. Apparently, you brought the worst copy extant of the Moorman photo (the socalled Zippo copy) to the Plaza to persuade Fetzer and Mantik that you were right. But now, it's all come out. You made a mistake. You thought those two points line up. That is exactly what both you and Fetzer said in MIDP. But sadly for you they don't. We've shown that all extant copies of the Moorman photo including the Zippo snapshot, show that they don't. This was simply an error of observation on your part. That error, and your and Fetzer's crazed obstinacy, have wasted numerous man hours of reserch over the last ten years. So why now, after all this, after the photos have been shown endlessly, after the gap has been demonstrated by digital science and by direct observation, why, Jack, don't you give it up? Can you possibly believe that anyone will be persuaded by photos of the corpulent professor and his assistants? You know what is really the case. You cannot help but know it. Why not, then, give it up? Josiah Thompson 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Jack,They're all going down with the Lone Nut ship, way to much invested..... I wouldn't waste another second on them.... let them "essay" themselves down Elm Street! David, you had read this stuff before telling the members of this forum that you had seen 'NO PROOF of alteration ... something you had been saying for years' - RIGHT??? Certainly when you had made that remark ... you had actually read and was aware of the contents within 'HOAX' - CORRECT??? Can we not assume that you noticed that White's photo in 'Hoax' labeled "REPLICAION OF SIGHTLINE" was taken showing the spacing between the corner of the pedestal and the background of the colonnade windows DID NOT match Moorman's. That 'PERSPECTIVE 101' dictates that the two photographers (Moorman and White) COULD NOT be on the same line of sight at the exact same spot to get such a variance of shifting concerning these reference points. Surely this is why you stated years AFTER 'Hoax' was published - 'I HAVE SEEN NO PROOF OF ALTERATION, SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS'. It seems that if any ship is going down, its because you fired the torpedo that sank it and your post that I am referring to was directed at the good ship 'The USS Alteration'. And yet everybody acknowledged that the Z-film is not pristine. At the least, it was spliced in at least two places. So doesn't the real question become to what extent it was altered and how maliciously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 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? Nonsense, nonsense and nonsense. Jack There is no way to verify where Moorman when she took the photo by using the Z-film, agreed? Is there also any way to determine where she was holding her camera when the shot was taken? Without looking at alternatives, how do you avoid falling prey to the fallacy of false alternatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 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? Nonsense, nonsense and nonsense. Jack There is no way to verify where Moorman when she took the photo by using the Z-film, agreed? Is there also any way to determine where she was holding her camera when the shot was taken? Without looking at alternatives, how do you avoid falling prey to the fallacy of false alternatives? The Z film places Moorman in a false position. The Z film is not reliable as evidence. It cannot be used to determine ANYTHING. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 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 There is no way to verify where Moorman when she took the photo by using the Z-film, agreed? Is there also any way to determine where she was holding her camera when the shot was taken? Without looking at alternatives, how do you avoid falling prey to the fallacy of false alternatives? The Z film places Moorman in a false position. The Z film is not reliable as evidence. It cannot be used to determine ANYTHING. Jack So says MOE. Since the MOE LOS is not found in the Moorman polaroid, any arguments based on the MOE LOS are meningless in regards to the position of Mary Moorman when she took her photo. The MOE LOS is only useful in locating where Larry and Curly stood in the plaza with their transit. Edited April 23, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Thank you for the word 'transit'. It confuses me as having done surveying (as assistant) and in that field transit is both vertical and horizontal. There is another definition that I assume is meant here. ''The passage of a smaller celestial body or its shadow across the disk of a larger celestial body''. > ''across the observer's meridian''. > ''The passage of a celestial body across the celestial meridian > (the great circle on the celestial sphere passing through the celestial poles and an observer's zenith)' For any observer, the object is at its highest in the sky at its transit of the observer's meridian.'' IOW referring to vertical elevation, or vertical angle, IOW in this instance the elevation of the pedestal and the elevation of the opening. These clearly are not in line. So this gives her cameras film frames angle from a horizontal plane, and this cannot be in the street. The horizontal transit of the pedestals edge to the openings inner edge (not the illuminated square) is less. Is it a photograhers term? Am I understanding correctly? I feel I am, but would like a clear definition here, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Son, what amazes me most is your complete lack of understanding (and comprehension of) the English language. Now YOU keep coming back, eventually it does get better -- perhaps Dr. Thompson (or the Craigster when he gets back from a few day's off) can suggest a few correspondence schools... Well David, I have not reached the level yet of having web pages created showing the fact-less vulgarity I bring to the subject .... I don't have the phrase 'Drunky the Clown' attached to my name ... and I don't have anyone pointing out where I say one thing in one place and just the opposite within the same thread like you do. So please educate me on the English Language if you like - this should be good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 And yet everybody acknowledged that the Z-film is not pristine. At the least, it was spliced in at least two places. So doesn't the real question become to what extent it was altered and how maliciously? Oh yes, Pam .... I hand you a photo and you let it get damaged somehow by tearing it and that means that the photo has been internally altered or at least the door opened to such nonsense. Altering Kodachrome II film in 1963/64' and thinking one can do it to where science couldn't catch it is as absurd as someone drawing a mustache on your photo and thinking no one will be able to tell that it was added to the photo at a later time. There are reasons in my view why such assertions are made by a select few and why real experts are not sought to validate such claims. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 There is no way to verify where Moorman when she took the photo by using the Z-film, agreed? Is there also any way to determine where she was holding her camera when the shot was taken? Without looking at alternatives, how do you avoid falling prey to the fallacy of false alternatives? Well according to Moorman - she was holding the camera to her eye. According to the way she was able to keep the President in her photo so nicely - that too would indicate that she had the camera to her eye when she took her photo. According to the films and photographs of her ... the camera was being held up to her eye. So what other option is there but fallacy and false alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 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: Is Moorman visible in the frame of Muchmore that would correspond to Z315-17? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 There is no way to verify where Moorman when she took the photo by using the Z-film, agreed? Is there also any way to determine where she was holding her camera when the shot was taken? Without looking at alternatives, how do you avoid falling prey to the fallacy of false alternatives? Well according to Moorman - she was holding the camera to her eye. According to the way she was able to keep the President in her photo so nicely - that too would indicate that she had the camera to her eye when she took her photo. According to the films and photographs of her ... the camera was being held up to her eye. So what other option is there but fallacy and false alternatives. Moorman's recollections are important, but not necessarily exclusive. She also said she thought she stepped into the street. Did she instead trip? She was not looking down, it would seem. Was her camera then lower than it appears in the Z-frames that include her? 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