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

[Craig Lamson]

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

So, if we look at YOUR OWN images taken of the pedestal, from ANY of the camera heights in your study posted upthread, will we see the cambered top or will it be unseen because the pedestal is photographed from BELOW? Inquiring minds want to know if you are blowing smoke once again?

Second, how can the crosshairs be on A.B,C, and D when these edges are not at right angles and your "crosshairs" are?

Finally, where are the photos that you made showing the view through the transit? Surely, given your status as an expert photographer, you made images...correct?

I can't imagine you were so clueless that you did not understand the simple photographic process called Afocal photography, or that you could not perform the very simple research required to find out how the process works. So where are those images again? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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.

Pamela, are you so unfamiliar with the photographs that you do not know that he did not post the Altgen's photo in full ... he posted a tightly cropped version. For heavebn's sake, put on your researcher's hat and look up Altgen's 6 ... pssst ... it's in the essay...

[Pamela Brown]

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?

I am choosing not to focus on the papers of either camp at this point, but simply to focus on asking objective questions. How can anyone claim in the first place an absolute line-of-sight, and then have someone else come in and jump onto the boat and 'debunk' it? Both teams try to claim theirs is the only way, and what they are seeing is the only possibility. That is, of course, simply evidence of the fallacy of false alternatives. Next we have people from both teams lecturing everyone else on how to think. That is an appeal to authority. By everyone's own words, they have opened the door to the question as to whether either argument has merit.

Whatever the photos show of Moorman, for example, they do not show her face at the moment she is taking the shot, do they? How do we know how she was holding her camera? She said she thought she stepped into the street -- what if she stepped into a divot in the grass instead? In one photo her left shoulder is down, for example. Is this when it happened? Is this when she took the shot?

[John Dolva]

Thank you Craig (and everyone) (hey, this must be an Education Forum.... Well, how about that????)

''Afocal Photography''

http://www.barrie-tao.com/afocal.html

"The situation is akin to 35mm photography in the 1930 - 1940's time frame, when camera lenses were not removable. In order to take a picture through a telescope or microscope, the concept of "Afocal Photography" emerged. In this case the user will focus (20 - 20 corrected if required) the telescope to get the image. The camera will be independently set at infinity focus, so that when both the camera and telescope are coupled, one can take a picture. The "Real" image for the camera is the "Virtual" image projected by the telescope eyepiece."

"It seems that most concerns are with vignetting .... Vignetting has many faces, so each camera and eyepiece combination can produce different results. The only way to minimize or eliminate the vignetting is to use an eyepiece where the apparent field of the eyepiece matches that of the camera. If the field is too large or small, or the coupling is mis-matched, vignetting will likely occur."

( ''Vignetting''

Wiki

"In photography and optics, vignetting is a reduction of an image's brightness or saturation at the periphery compared to the image centre.")

[Bill Miller]

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).

I would like to suggest an observation that may help you get the right film frame for Moorman's photo.

In Moorman's photo we can see Zapruder on the pedestal and Martin's body hasn't quite entered Mary's photo. Now go to the head shot in Muchmore and Nix and count forward as you watch the cycles advancement to one another and they to the limo. head shot = Z314, then Z314, then Z315, Z316. By the time you have done this, then you'll probably find that they are advanced one frame too short (Z315) and one frame to far (Z316) in Zapruder's film to match the spacing I previously mentioned between the two riders and the limo as Moorman's photo saw them. The alignment came between the two mentioned Zapruder frames. If you want to be exact, then do a transition frame broken down into 10 segments and bring the segments in over the top of one another. The result should be Z315.6 best represents the alignments in Moorman's photo.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Bill Miller

[John Dolva]

I can't remember the process (Frank, I can't take credit for the image either) but I remember it was meticulous and definitive (IMO) and that you're right re the timing. Still, we may have missed something for sure, it's still a very large work in progress (I'm gathering concepts and have a person to approach in one of the Uni's here who is doing studies in this field of imagery referred to me by a dean in maths in another Uni. Hopefully the synching will continue)

[Jack White]

The uninformed may be misled by the mumbo jumbo non sequitur nonsense above, but

there is no known coupler for coupling my 125mm E.Leitz lens (objective lens about 2.5

inches in diameter) to the 5/8 inch focusing eyepiece of the surveyor's transit, and even

if there were, the closest the lens will focus is about 4 feet, obviously impossible.

Our purpose in using the instrument was to OBSERVE AN ACCURATE LINE OF SIGHT,

not to take a photograph.

Saying we should have taken photos through the tiny eyepiece is suggesting the impossible

in order to confuse the unwary. We did not need photos; they would have been beside the

point. If these people want such a photo, I suggest that they rent a transit, couple it to

a camera, and go to DP and take a picture. Such a photo is of no interest to us.

Here is a photo labeled SURVEYOR LOOKING THROUGH TRANSIT obtained from the

internet. The tiny size of the eyepiece is obvious. The instrument is made to fit the

eye, not a camera. This appears to be the same model we used. The maker chooses

to call it a transit; that is good enough for me.

Beware of snake oil salesmen.

Jack

Edited April 24, 2009 by Jack White

[Craig Lamson]

The uninformed may be misled by the mumbo jumbo non sequitur nonsense above, but

there is no known coupler for coupling my 125mm E.Leitz lens (objective lens about 2.5

inches in diameter) to the 5/8 inch focusing eyepiece of the surveyor's transit, and even

if there were, the closest the lens will focus is about 4 feet, obviously impossible.

Our purpose in using the instrument was to OBSERVE AN ACCURATE LINE OF SIGHT,

not to take a photograph.

Saying we should have taken photos through the tiny eyepiece is suggesting the impossible

in order to confuse the unwary. We did not need photos; they would have been beside the

point. If these people want such a photo, I suggest that they rent a transit, couple it to

a camera, and go to DP and take a picture. Such a photo is of no interest to us.

Here is a photo labeled SURVEYOR LOOKING THROUGH TRANSIT obtained from the

internet. The tiny size of the eyepiece is obvious. The instrument is made to fit the

eye, not a camera. This appears to be the same model we used. The maker chooses

to call it a transit; that is good enough for me.

Beware of snake oil salesmen.

Jack

Yes, lets talk about snake oil salesmen, like Larry, Curly and most importantly MOE. Moe claims status as an expert photographer. Yet MOE tells us there is no way to "couple" his camera to the eyepiece of the transit. Now thats some snake oil! The process of afocal photography simply requires you HOLD the camera to the eyepiece, NO MEANS OF COUPLING REQUIRED. The ignorance of "PHOTO EXPERT MOE" is breathtaking.

Afocal photography is common in astronomy, where very tiny eyepieces are used on a regular basis. Photographers AROUND THE WORLD have used this process to take wonderful photos of the moon for example.

Here are a sampling of links devoted to the subject of afocal photography. I'll let the reader decide if MOE is pushing snake oil.

http://www.astronomyforbeginners.com/astro...aphy/afocal.php

http://www.darkerview.com/darkview/index.p...hotography.html

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/howto/astro...hy/3304336.html

Now that we have shown that "PHOTO EXPERT" MOE is really nothing of the sort, let’s look at the rest of his claims.

MOE:

"The uninformed may be misled by the mumbo jumbo non sequitur nonsense above, but

there is no known coupler for coupling my 125mm E.Leitz lens (objective lens about 2.5

inches in diameter) to the 5/8 inch focusing eyepiece of the surveyor's transit, and even

if there were, the closest the lens will focus is about 4 feet, obviously impossible."

MOES claim about the need to actually couple the lens has been shown false. But in a move crafted to fool the unwary, MOE wants us to believe the only camera lens he has is a 125mm. WOW! An "expert" and only one lens? He has no other lenses or cameras, not even a simple point and shoot or point and shoot digital? I seem to remember this "EXPERT" telling us all about his digital point and shoot Sony camera years ago. Was that camera not available? Did Larry or Curly own a camera?

All of this is interesting but perhaps the most amazing is that this EXPERT tells us his 125mm lens could not focus close enough to work in this application. Since MOE was not aware of the process, and he has not TRIED the process using his camera and lens, how in the world can MOE speak with any authority on the subject? Inquiring minds really want to know. Why don't we do the research MOE failed to do.

Here's a good website that explains the process:

http://www.barrie-tao.com/afocal.html

“The situation is akin to 35mm photography in the 1930 - 1940's time frame, when camera lenses were not removable. In order to take a picture through a telescope or microscope, the concept of "Afocal Photography" emerged. In this case the user will focus (20 - 20 corrected if required) the telescope to get the image. The camera will be independently set at infinity focus, so that when both the camera and telescope are coupled, one can take a picture. The "Real" image for the camera is the "Virtual" image projected by the telescope eyepiece. Results are best confirmed by using the Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) screen at the rear of most digital cameras. The Equivalent Focal Length (EFL) is given by:

EFL = Telescope (microscope) Power x Camera Focal Length

f / ratio = EFL / Aperture of telescope

In order to minimize vignetting, the camera should always be set a full zoom (for the Olympus C2000/C2020/C3040 this is 105mm). The Afocal hookup is rather easy. In fact some users have handheld the camera up to the eyepiece when the shutter speed is rather fast. The Olympus cameras have a remote control, so handholding is feasible."

Oh Boy! KEY points, TELEPHOTO lens (like MOES 125mm), Focus of telephoto lens set at infinity. I guess “PHOTO EXPERT” MOE needs to buy a clue!

Moving on, MOE tells us this:

“Our purpose in using the instrument was to OBSERVE AN ACCURATE LINE OF SIGHT, not to take a photograph.”

Really, you are conducting an experiment designed to show others that your theory is correct and your theory relies on the correct alignment of objects as viewed from a distance. You go to the trouble to rent to small telescope, and you don’t offer the viewers of your work any evidence of how you made said alignment? Instead you simply say…oh TRUST US! Amazing. We have two PhD’s and a “PHOTO EXPERT” and they can’t find a way to document the results of their “work” other that to say trust us? The harsh truth is that MOE, the “photo expert” was simply too stupid to figure out how to document the results using afocal photography and/or too lazy to simply replace the transit with a camera. Of course there IS a third alternative, and that is Larry, Curly and Moe really did NOT want anyone to see the exact alignment. I’ll let the readers decide who is selling snake oil.

Finally MOE tells us:

“Saying we should have taken photos through the tiny eyepiece is suggesting the impossible in order to confuse the unwary. We did not need photos; they would have been beside the point. If these people want such a photo, I suggest that they rent a transit, couple it to a camera, and go to DP and take a picture. Such a photo is of no interest to us.”

Clearly, as we have now seen, MOE is not being honest with the readers. What he says is impossible is not impossible, and in fact it is quite possible and quite easy.

It’s amazing that this “expert” and his two PhD cohorts state that a photo of their alignment is of no use in making their case. Larry, Curly and MOE did not go to the trouble of renting a transit to satisfy their own curiosity. They went to the trouble to attempt to prove to others that they were correct about the Moorman LOS. For MOE to say that a photo of the alignment of the window and the pedestal is of no interest, well that statement is simply stunning!

Moe did get one thing correct. YOU SHOULD be aware of snake oil salesmen. However in this case Larry, Curly and MOE used the transit as a prop to foist pseudo science on the unwary. THEY are the snake oil salesmen.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Clark]

( 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....

Dear Mr. Lamson:

You are projecting your feelings onto others

who you should be respectful to.

Please stop the name-calling and the unnecessary sarcasm.

You're obviously very bright

but you're wasting your talents by harassing our good friends

Mr. White and Dr. Fetzer.

There's simply no need here

for such vehemence toward one another.

Respectfully,

Craig Clark

[Craig Lamson]

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....

Dear Mr. Lamson:

You are projecting your feelings onto others

who you should be respectful to.

Please stop the name-calling and the unnecessary sarcasm.

You're obviously very bright

but you're wasting your talents by harassing our good friends

Mr. White and Dr. Fetzer.

There's simply no need here

for such vehemence toward one another.

Respectfully,

Craig Clark

I should be respectful to charlatans like White, Mantik, Fetzer and by extention Costella and Healy? Why? Exactly what have they done to EARN my respect? I submit...NOTHING! In fact, in my opinion they have done the exact opposite. They are not MY good friends. Clearly they do not exhibit intellectual honesty.

I respectfully submit, that if you don't like my postings, DON'T READ THEM!

Edited April 24, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Pamela Brown]

The uninformed may be misled by the mumbo jumbo non sequitur nonsense above, but

there is no known coupler for coupling my 125mm E.Leitz lens (objective lens about 2.5

inches in diameter) to the 5/8 inch focusing eyepiece of the surveyor's transit, and even

if there were, the closest the lens will focus is about 4 feet, obviously impossible.

Our purpose in using the instrument was to OBSERVE AN ACCURATE LINE OF SIGHT,

not to take a photograph.

Saying we should have taken photos through the tiny eyepiece is suggesting the impossible

in order to confuse the unwary. We did not need photos; they would have been beside the

point. If these people want such a photo, I suggest that they rent a transit, couple it to

a camera, and go to DP and take a picture. Such a photo is of no interest to us.

Here is a photo labeled SURVEYOR LOOKING THROUGH TRANSIT obtained from the

internet. The tiny size of the eyepiece is obvious. The instrument is made to fit the

eye, not a camera. This appears to be the same model we used. The maker chooses

to call it a transit; that is good enough for me.

Beware of snake oil salesmen.

Jack

With all due respect, wouldn't you be obtaining objective corroboration (if successful) for your theory if you were to take a photograph of your own with a Poloroid Land Camera model 80A and compare it with the original? Couldn't you overlay one on top of the other? If they matched, would that not bolster your claim that you had located the spot from which you believe the photo was shot? (This of course makes an assumption that the terrain in DP is the same today as it was on 11.22.63, and that there were no holes in the grass that Moorman might have stumbled into as she was taking the photo, for example).

[Bill Miller]

Saying we should have taken photos through the tiny eyepiece is suggesting the impossible

in order to confuse the unwary. We did not need photos; they would have been beside the

point. If these people want such a photo, I suggest that they rent a transit, couple it to

a camera, and go to DP and take a picture. Such a photo is of no interest to us.

Beware of snake oil salesmen.

Jack

Jack ... you say the stupidest things sometimes. While you feel that you couldn't hold a camera up to the eye of the transit so to get a picture taken through it - You damn well could have taken a photo from directly behind it much like when a person aims down the barrel of a gun. And YOU people are the ones making the claim that a historic photo has been altered and you are going to tell us that you do not have to show your line of sight ... that we are just supposed to be happy to see a picture of Mantik sitting on his tail in a side view and merely take your word for the rest of it. Would you buy that crap if someone was doing that to you ... I think not!

Now before I get off of what could have been done as far as you showing that you achieved the true location for Moorman's line of sight ... let me say that several of us have gone to Mary's location and shot photos that when overlaid onto hers ... the spacing between reference points in both are the same. We took those photos without even the use of a transit, so claiming that you couldn't get a photo through the eye of the transit is just a decoy response to avoid the obvious point that you boobs could have taken a photo from behind the transit and didn't (which I am not sure that I believe).

A reader must ask themselves why if these people want to show that they have found Moorman's true location by way of her line of sight, then the best thing to do is show where they were standing as they took a photo and then take another photo looking in the same direction as Moorman from where you believe her location to have been so the two images can be compared. The only image that appears anywhere in 'Hoax' showing the reader the sight line is the one labeled 'Replication of Sightline'. It wasn't until after the better part of a decade did Fetzer tell us that the 'Replication of Sightline' photo was indeed a fraud. Of course this admission didn't come until after he finally saw that the spacing of several reference points between that image and Moorman's did not match. I say there lies your true reason for not producing a photo showing how the knoll looks from where you believe Moorman to have been.

Those laws of nature make it virtually impossible for you to take the measurements you used and be able to achieve getting a photo of the pedestal against the colonnade from in the street that mathches Moorman's. I personally believe you probably knew this for you could not have looked through that transit and achieved the spacing of the reference points that Moorman did. To further prove you incorrect, if not tainting the truth a tad, photos have been taken from in the street - using your measurements - and obtaining the same spacings that your 'Replication of Sightline' photo shows. How do you people explain that the 'Replication of Sightline' photo was not the true line of sight when someone can go to where you claim Moorman to have been standing and get the same spacing as the 'Replication of Sightline' photo shows.

I think I'd get my damage control team together and come up with another story for the one you's have used isn't working for you.

Bill Miller

Edited April 24, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Saying we should have taken photos through the tiny eyepiece is suggesting the impossible

in order to confuse the unwary. We did not need photos; they would have been beside the

point. If these people want such a photo, I suggest that they rent a transit, couple it to

a camera, and go to DP and take a picture. Such a photo is of no interest to us.

Beware of snake oil salesmen.

Jack

Jack ... you say the stupidest things sometimes. While you feel that you couldn't hold a camera up to the eye of the transit so to get a picture taken through it - You damn well could have taken a photo from directly behind it much like when a person aims down the barrel of a gun. And YOU people are the ones making the claim that a historic photo has been altered and you are going to tell us that you do not have to show your line of sight ... that we are just supposed to be happy to see a picture of Mantik sitting on his tail in a side view and merely take your word for the rest of it. Would you buy that crap if someone was doing that to you ... I think not!

Now before I get off of what could have been done as far as you showing that you achieved the true location for Moorman's line of sight ... let me say that several of us have gone to Mary's location and shot photos that when overlaid onto hers ... the spacing between reference points in both are the same. We took those photos without even the use of a transit, so claiming that you couldn't get a photo through the eye of the transit is just a decoy response to avoid the obvious point that you boobs could have taken a photo from behind the transit and didn't (which I am not sure that I believe).

A reader must ask themselves why if these people want to show that they have found Moorman's true location by way of her line of sight, then the best thing to do is show where they were standing as they took a photo and then take another photo looking in the same direction as Moorman from where you believe her location to have been so the two images can be compared. The only image that appears anywhere in 'Hoax' showing the reader the sight line is the one labeled 'Replication of Sightline'. It wasn't until after the better part of a decade did Fetzer tell us that the 'Replication of Sightline' photo was indeed a fraud. Of course this admission didn't come until after he finally saw that the spacing of several reference points between that image and Moorman's did not match. I say there lies your true reason for not producing a photo showing how the knoll looks from where you believe Moorman to have been.

Those laws of nature make it virtually impossible for you to take the measurements you used and be able to achieve getting a photo of the pedestal against the colonnade from in the street that mathches Moorman's. I personally believe you probably knew this for you could not have looked through that transit and achieved the spacing of the reference points that Moorman did. To further prove you incorrect, if not tainting the truth a tad, photos have been taken from in the street - using your measurements - and obtaining the same spacings that your 'Replication of Sightline' photo shows. How do you people explain that the 'Replication of Sightline' photo was not the true line of sight when someone can go to where you claim Moorman to have been standing and get the same spacing as the 'Replication of Sightline' photo shows.

I think I'd get my damage control team together and come up with another story for the one you's have used isn't working for you.

Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

Saying we should have taken photos through the tiny eyepiece is suggesting the impossible

in order to confuse the unwary. We did not need photos; they would have been beside the

point. If these people want such a photo, I suggest that they rent a transit, couple it to

a camera, and go to DP and take a picture. Such a photo is of no interest to us.

Beware of snake oil salesmen.

Jack

Jack ... you say the stupidest things sometimes. While you feel that you couldn't hold a camera up to the eye of the transit so to get a picture taken through it - You damn well could have taken a photo from directly behind it much like when a person aims down the barrel of a gun. And YOU people are the ones making the claim that a historic photo has been altered and you are going to tell us that you do not have to show your line of sight ... that we are just supposed to be happy to see a picture of Mantik sitting on his tail in a side view and merely take your word for the rest of it. Would you buy that crap if someone was doing that to you ... I think not!

Now before I get off of what could have been done as far as you showing that you achieved the true location for Moorman's line of sight ... let me say that several of us have gone to Mary's location and shot photos that when overlaid onto hers ... the spacing between reference points in both are the same. We took those photos without even the use of a transit, so claiming that you couldn't get a photo through the eye of the transit is just a decoy response to avoid the obvious point that you boobs could have taken a photo from behind the transit and didn't (which I am not sure that I believe).

A reader must ask themselves why if these people want to show that they have found Moorman's true location by way of her line of sight, then the best thing to do is show where they were standing as they took a photo and then take another photo looking in the same direction as Moorman from where you believe her location to have been so the two images can be compared. The only image that appears anywhere in 'Hoax' showing the reader the sight line is the one labeled 'Replication of Sightline'. It wasn't until after the better part of a decade did Fetzer tell us that the 'Replication of Sightline' photo was indeed a fraud. Of course this admission didn't come until after he finally saw that the spacing of several reference points between that image and Moorman's did not match. I say there lies your true reason for not producing a photo showing how the knoll looks from where you believe Moorman to have been.

Those laws of nature make it virtually impossible for you to take the measurements you used and be able to achieve getting a photo of the pedestal against the colonnade from in the street that mathches Moorman's. I personally believe you probably knew this for you could not have looked through that transit and achieved the spacing of the reference points that Moorman did. To further prove you incorrect, if not tainting the truth a tad, photos have been taken from in the street - using your measurements - and obtaining the same spacings that your 'Replication of Sightline' photo shows. How do you people explain that the 'Replication of Sightline' photo was not the true line of sight when someone can go to where you claim Moorman to have been standing and get the same spacing as the 'Replication of Sightline' photo shows.

I think I'd get my damage control team together and come up with another story for the one you's have used isn't working for you.

Bill Miller

So where are the photos that show HOW you aligned the reference points? Surely with 2 PhD's and a self proclaimed photo expert on the job, we should expect photographic evidence. So exactly WHERE are the photos of the alignment of the reference points as seen from your transit position? You have some..right? Or is it STILL your claim that it was IMPOSSIBLE to take them?

Edited April 24, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

I suggest that anyone writing anything about the Moorman line of sight

present their own research instead of insulting the work of others.

Lamson, Thompson, Miller, Junklady, anyone...travel to Dealey Plaza

with an enlargement of Moorman. Bring a transit, camera, ANYTHING

that is helpful. Take as many photos as you want. Find the line of sight

and document it in any way you desire. Find the height of the LOS two

feet south of the curb and two feet north of the curb. Inform us of your

findings. Unless you do this, nobody should pay any attention to your

wild imaginings and insults.

Jack