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

[Craig Lamson]

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?

No, I was referencing the surveying instrument. It this case Larry, Curly and Moe used the instrument as a small telescope, and not actual as it was intended to be used. It was pseudoscience, as passed off by the 'lettered" Shame on them.

[Frank Agbat]

Is Moorman visible in the frame of Muchmore that would correspond to Z315-17?

Yes she is. I can post the frame that is the most likely to correspond with the Polaroid, but it will have to be later on today -- I don't have access to the images at the moment.

[Jack White]

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?

John...the Home Depot where I rented the instrument had a sign that said TRANSIT, $25 A DAY.

Over the years I have employed several building contractors. They refer to this instrument

as a TRANSIT. According to Wikipedia, it is more properly a BUILDER'S LEVEL. Note that the

definition say it is used TO ESTABLISH A LINE OF SIGHT.

Here is what Wikipedia says:

A theodolite (IPA: /θiːˈɒdəlаɪt/) is an instrument for measuring both horizontal and vertical angles, as used in triangulation networks. It is a key tool in surveying and engineering work, particularly on inaccessible ground, but theodolites have been adapted for other specialized purposes in fields like meteorology and rocket launch technology. A modern theodolite consists of a movable telescope mounted within two perpendicular axes—the horizontal or trunnion axis, and the vertical axis. When the telescope is pointed at a desired object, the angle of each of these axes can be measured with great precision, typically on the scale of arcseconds.

"Transit" refers to a specialized type of theodolite that was developed in the early 19th century. It featured a telescope that could "flop over" ("transit the scope") to allow easy back-sighting and doubling of angles for error reduction. Some transit instruments were capable of reading angles directly to thirty arcseconds. In the middle of the 20th century, "transit" came to refer to a simple form of theodolite with less precision, lacking features such as scale magnification and mechanical meters. The importance of transits is waning since compact, accurate electronic theodolites have become widespread tools, but the transit still finds use as a lightweight tool on construction sites. Some transits do not measure vertical angles.

The builder's level is often mistaken for a transit but is actually a type of inclinometer. It measures neither horizontal nor vertical angles. It simply combines a spirit level and telescope to allow the user to visually establish a line of sight along a level plane.

[David G. Healy]

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?

No, I was referencing the surveying instrument. It this case Larry, Curly and Moe used the instrument as a small telescope, and not actual as it was intended to be used. It was pseudoscience, as passed off by the 'lettered" Shame on them.

its become quite evident -- you really don't know what the hell your talking about when it comes to determining line of sight, do you? to allow the user to visually establish a line of sight along a level plane now what don't you understand about that definition? Wait, I see another "essay" in your future.....

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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?

Pam, you are still missing the boat.

Moorman's photo says it was taken from an elevation higher than street level. Even John Costella, a member of team Fetzer, admits this ... as is quoted in the essay. The scene she captured in her photo, in and of itself, says it was NOT taken from street level. Establishing her actual line of sight proves that. So does the obvious downward angle of the photo ... which clears the 58" high motorcycle windshields.

Moorman had stepped into the street earlier to take a different picture. One can tell it was taken at street level, just like one can tell her famous photo was not taken from street level ... that has nothing to do with anything Moorman says, nothing to do with what the Zfilm shows nor anything do do with any particular frame that she appears in in the Zfilm or any other film or photograph.

Barb :-)

[Josiah Thompson]

Let's see if I can be of some help here, Pamela.

You are replying to Part I of "Moorman-in-the-Street? The logic of the paper." Part II is also on this site although it's difficult to find. No one could have expected you to find it. By entering "Moorman-in-the-street?" in the search function you will be led to it. I think it's on page 2 or 3 of the search.

There you will find that the Muchmore, Nix, Bronson and Zapruder films all show Moorman standing in the grass with the viewfinder glued to her eye. In addition, the famous Altgens photo shows the shadows of Moorman and Hill standing in the grass at Z frame 255. Hence, all the photographic evidence shows exactly the same thing... Moorman standing in the grass taking her famous photograph. In addition, as has been pointed out, her photograph itself shows she was standing in the grass. Both the proper line-of-sight found in her photo and the fact the photo shows it was taken from a position looking down on the 58" high top of the motorcycle windscreens show this.

Jack White simply made an observational error in looking at the Moorman photo and the whole ruckus followed from that initial mistake.

Now with regard to splices in the Zapruder film. When I was working as a consultant to LIFE in 1966 and 1967 I inquired about that. I was told by Herb Orth, head of the LIFE photolab, that the film had broken on the weekend of November 23rd and 24th as LIFE was rushing to get out its issue with the Zapruder film. It really doesn't matter since complete copies of the film were available on the copies made on November 22nd before the original came into LIFE's possession. These show the socalled "missing frames" and there is nothing remarkable about them.

It's nice of you to inquire about this. I hope this may have helped answer any questions you have. If you have others, please raise them and I'll do what I can to answer them.

Josiah Thompson

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?

[Josiah Thompson]

Thanks, Jack, for straightening us out with respect to the transit you rented.

However, the problem is that you could point the transit anywhere. Would you like to reply now to my earlier question as to where you pointed the transit? David Mantik made some very precise measurements that day and is indeed a gentleman. He was kind enough to send me those very precise measurements. They show without any doubt that you pointed the transit to line up the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the window beyond. This, of course, is what both you and Fetzer pointed out was the critical line-of-sight.

The only problem, of course, is that that particular line-of-sight does not exist in the Moorman photo. The true line-of-sight is somewhat higher.... in fact, just higher enough to place the camera at the level we see it in the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and Bronson films.

Would you like to comment? Would like to tell us now where you guys pointed the transit?

Josiah Thompson

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?

John...the Home Depot where I rented the instrument had a sign that said TRANSIT, $25 A DAY.

Over the years I have employed several building contractors. They refer to this instrument

as a TRANSIT. According to Wikipedia, it is more properly a BUILDER'S LEVEL. Note that the

definition say it is used TO ESTABLISH A LINE OF SIGHT.

Here is what Wikipedia says:

A theodolite (IPA: /θiːˈɒdəlаɪt/) is an instrument for measuring both horizontal and vertical angles, as used in triangulation networks. It is a key tool in surveying and engineering work, particularly on inaccessible ground, but theodolites have been adapted for other specialized purposes in fields like meteorology and rocket launch technology. A modern theodolite consists of a movable telescope mounted within two perpendicular axes—the horizontal or trunnion axis, and the vertical axis. When the telescope is pointed at a desired object, the angle of each of these axes can be measured with great precision, typically on the scale of arcseconds.

"Transit" refers to a specialized type of theodolite that was developed in the early 19th century. It featured a telescope that could "flop over" ("transit the scope") to allow easy back-sighting and doubling of angles for error reduction. Some transit instruments were capable of reading angles directly to thirty arcseconds. In the middle of the 20th century, "transit" came to refer to a simple form of theodolite with less precision, lacking features such as scale magnification and mechanical meters. The importance of transits is waning since compact, accurate electronic theodolites have become widespread tools, but the transit still finds use as a lightweight tool on construction sites. Some transits do not measure vertical angles.

The builder's level is often mistaken for a transit but is actually a type of inclinometer. It measures neither horizontal nor vertical angles. It simply combines a spirit level and telescope to allow the user to visually establish a line of sight along a level plane.

[Paul Rigby]

In addition, the famous Altgens photo shows the shadows of Moorman and Hill standing in the grass at Z frame 255. Hence, all the photographic evidence shows exactly the same thing...

Does it really?

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5

Altgens cropped to focus on Chaney…

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg

…who has mysteriously vanished in the alleged corresponding Z-fake frame.

Wonderful things, telephoto lenses – they can make interposed objects and people disappear.

[Frank Agbat]

As promised:

If you subscribe to the Moorman polaroid corresponding with Z317, this is probably the closest Muchmore frame.

According to my calculations, this frame (the 46th frame in the shooting sequence - aka "MS-46") occurred

slightly *before* Z317 (about .02 seconds, give or take):

As you can see, it does contain some blur, likely due to camera movement.

It was followed by this frame (MS-47):

For completeness, the closest Nix frame, in my estimation is this frame - the 27th in the shooting sequence. I believe it to be taken slightly *after* Z317:

[Frank Agbat]

Here is a comparison that was worked-up a while ago when John Dolva and I were working on film-sync and timing. I don't remember exactly who created this, so I can't give (or take) credit for it.

I believe that it cements Z317 as the closest frame. MS46 occurs before Z317, and MS47 after (but, importantly, before Z318).

[Jack White]

This is the approximate area seen through the "transit" scope. While looking at a print

just like this one, Mantik set up the view. Then he asked Jim and me to look at it and

make sure he had it correct. Stewart Galanor was present and asked to look. All of

us looked and agreed that the lineup forming the + was correct. I can assure everyone

that the crosshairs were on edges A,B,C, and D...and not on the corner of the pedestal.

The corner of the pedestal IS IRRELEVANT to my observations! In fact, the crosshairs

in the scope HID the corner of the pedestal.

Jack

[Chris Davidson]

Jack,

This might help with the visuals.

chris

[John Dolva]

Thank you Jack for the clarification re ' transit ' .

[Craig Lamson]

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?

No, I was referencing the surveying instrument. It this case Larry, Curly and Moe used the instrument as a small telescope, and not actual as it was intended to be used. It was pseudoscience, as passed off by the 'lettered" Shame on them.

its become quite evident -- you really don't know what the hell your talking about when it comes to determining line of sight, do you? to allow the user to visually establish a line of sight along a level plane now what don't you understand about that definition? Wait, I see another "essay" in your future.....

So it was a "level plane" from Moorman to the ped and windows? Inquiring minds want to know. Lets get REAL here davie, they used the transit as a telescope, hell, it was just a PROP! It served no real use. In fact a CAMERA, which could have actually recorded the alignment of the ped/window ( Larry, Curly and Moe, were simply too stupid to figure out how to take a photo with the prop tranist...brainy Phd"s and photo experts that they are) would have been a MUCH better tool for the job. Instead we got another episode of the Three Stooges do the Zapruder film....

[Pamela Brown]

In addition, the famous Altgens photo shows the shadows of Moorman and Hill standing in the grass at Z frame 255. Hence, all the photographic evidence shows exactly the same thing...

Does it really?

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5

Altgens cropped to focus on Chaney…

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg

…who has mysteriously vanished in the alleged corresponding Z-fake frame.

Wonderful things, telephoto lenses – they can make interposed objects and people disappear.

It seems both teams are comfortable falling prey to the fallacy of false alternatives. If things were that simple, we might as well just believe the WCR.