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

[Josiah Thompson]

In reading your last post, Professor, a quote from you kept running through my mind. You will remember writing at. About a week ago you were berating some guy you disagreed with over on the JFK-research board. You told him:"Presumably, unlike Zachary Luing, I am qualified to make an assessment of this kind. If Zachary wants scholarly credentials, then he can study mine at length, and swoon." Yeah right. And you even provided a link where Luing could find those credentials to swoon over!

You’ve just been forced to admit that Bill Miller’s proof concerning the motorcycles is correct. Yet for the last six years you have been berating Bill Miller for being “unqualified.” His proof, of rather dazzling simplicity, shows that having a Ph.D. like yours only prepares someone to be a blowhard. Miller’s proof has been around since 2002 and John Costella even vouched for it on JFK-research a couple of months ago. And you are just catching up!

Your post also demonstrates a second point. Since you do no original research, you really don’t know your ass from your elbow about any of the claims you make. Your whole post is filled up with going back to Costella or White to find out what to believe about any particular point in argument. In short, what your post demonstrates is that you are simply the flack for other people’s theories or claims.

There is no reason even to mention the irrelevance of the Tina Towner photo – a last gasp on Jack White’s part to come up with something. So what is there to deal with in your latest post? The only thing I can think of is your use of John Costella’s opinion. Since you have no particular understanding, I guess of anything, you keep referring back to his opinion. Cool. Let’s look at exactly what his opinion is. He wrote on December 21, 2008:

“My position on Moorman has not changed since May 2002. The extant Polaroid could not have been taken from the street by Mary. If she really did step onto the street when taking it, then the extant photo cannot be genuine. But since we have no corroborating evidence for Mary being on the street, other than her own say-so, then I don’t tie myself down to either conclusion. Her photo may well be genuine – most of it, anyway. I have said that my gut is that I lean more towards seeing her step into the street, if we ever see a genuine film, than not – but this is just gut feeling. The issue is open.”

So on the one hand we have Costella’s understanding that internal evidence in the photo shows that it was taken from the grass. This is the opposite of what you and White have been claiming. That's why, back in December, you were ready to throw Costella under the bus. It is also the case that there is “no corroborating evidence for Mary being on the street.” However, says Costella, the extant Moorman photo may have been falsified. If so, then it may have been taken from the street. Costella goes on to say that he has “just a gut feeling” that it was taken from the street. So on the one hand we have overwhelming evidence from the photo itself, from other films and photos, from eyewitness reports. On the other hand, we have Costella’s “gut feeling.” This would be like saying of the Michelson-Morley experiment: On the one hand we have these observations which seem to confirm Einstein’s theory of relativity and the lack of an “ether.” On the other hand, this physicist John Costella has “a gut feeling” that there really is an “ether” and Einstein was wrong.

Is it your position now, Professor Fetzer, that the Moorman photo has been falsified by persons unknown to falsely indicate it was taken from the grass? Is that what your whole argument now comes down to?

Bill Miller has advanced an argument about the Moorman which, I have belatedly discovered,

I have never addressed. I had formed the impression that John Costella had explained that

it was "inconclusive" in the past and, for that reason, I set it to one side. I have now learned

from John that, in fact, he likes the argument and even endorses it. Here is a post from him

when I wrote to ask him if he believes the windshield argument supports the inference that

the photo was taken from the grass, which is not the same as MARY taking if from the grass:

Jim,

It does. It relies on the height of the windshield, of course, but

let's assume that they are correct that if you put Mary on a

basketball court next to one of those motorcycles, her lens would be

below the top of the windshield. That seems to be highly likely to be

true.

If that's the case, and if the two motorcycles are essentially the

same, then if she was on the street, the near cycle's windshield would

extend higher in her photo than the far cycle. The only way for her

lens to "see the far one over the top of the near one" would be to

elevate her lens above the height of the windshield tops. The only way

to do that is to put her up on the grass.

It is an ingenious argument, and doesn't rely on much.

John

So the weight of John's expertise falls on the side of Miller's argument, which is important

especially since he has done so much excellent work demonstrating that the Zapruder is a

recreation. Sometimes it astounds me how Tink wants to "pick and choose" between John's

support for the photo having internal features that show it was taken from the grass and his

belief that Mary was actually in the street, which implies that the photo, like the film, must

be a fake. Since I have given John's response to Gary Mack's confirmation that Mary had

said, "I stepped into the street", about three hours after the event in "Moorman/Zapruder

Revisited" and in "Tink rolls the dice", as well as in posts on this and other fora, I assume

I do not have to repeat it here. But John's position is subtle on this point, which I accent:

(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;

(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;

(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.

In relation to the internal features of the photograph itself, Jack has observed the following:

It is notable that it IS SEEN ONLY IN THE ZIPPO PRINT. The thumbprint

obscures it in all other Moorman prints.

Tentative observations.

1. No other part of the Hargis motorcycle is seen...no handlebars, gas tank,

rider, arms, hands anything...only the windshield.

2. The windshield is extremely blurry.

3. The Moorman photo shows Hargis lagging behind Martin. I am not sure

other films and photos do.

4. I need to redo my studies of the cop helmets. Two styles are seen in

Moorman, and they may not be correct.

John, in fact, agrees with these points by Jack and adds that, in his view, the photographic

record, which is a shambles of alteration and fabrication, serves as a great distraction:

> > He's right on that - and in general, of the things I have looked at

> > there is nothing in the Moorman Polaroid that supports it being

> > taken from the street. And I did discuss the windshield argument in

> > the forum.

> >

> > As to what really happened, you know that my take is that the

> > photographic evidence is a crock. But while attention is fixated on

> > the Moorman Polaroid showing her to be in the street, the truth will

> > recede ever further into the background.

Thus, his study of the eyewitness accounts, which has been published in the latest issue

of assassinationresearch.com, in John's view, provides a far more reliable foundation for

drawing inferences about what actually happened in Dealey Plaza than does the photos

and films, where his and other studies by David Mantik, David Lifton, Jack White, and

others--especially those collected together in HOAX--illustrate the problem of relying on

photos and films, the vast majority of which have been proved to be altered or faked.

Jack turned up a photo taken by Tina Towner, while she was standing in the street:

Jim...as luck would have it, Tina Towner, STANDING IN THE STREET, shota frame

almost identical to the Moorman view of the windshield and limo. The two images are

so close, I conclude that the matter is INCONCLUSIVE without knowing the following:

TINA

1. How close was Hargis to Tina?

2. How close was the limo to her?

3. What was the distance between limo and Hargis' windshield?

4. What was the windshield height above the street?

5. How tall was Tina?

6. Was the street flat in that area?

7. Did the street slope downhill in that area?

8. How did the focal length of the lens affect the image?

MARY

1. How close was Hargis to Mary?

2. How close was the limo to her?

3. What was the distance between limo and Hargis' windshield?

4. What was the windshield height given the camber and slope of Elm?

5. How tall was Mary compared to Tina?

6. How much was the camber of the street in each lane?

7. Did the street slope downhill in that area? (known, 3 degrees)

8. How did the focal length of the lens affect the image?

Since most of these VARIABLE factors are UNKNOWN, it is impossible to make any

definite conclusions. Therefore I say that the windshield issue is unknowable and

immaterial.

John replied that, while Jack was right, the fact that there are two windshields in

the photograph--actually, as many as three!--eliminates many of the variables:

By itself, what you say is correct. But the point is that we are comparing

two windshields, not just one. That eliminates many variables.

The key question is: if the motorcycle cops were sitting (rolling), and Mary

were standing (ready to take a photo), on a basketball court, whether the

top of the windshields would have been above or below her lens. If there

is substantial evidence to say that they would have been below her lens,

then the issue is reopened. If they are above her lens, then there is no

way around it, in my opinion.

Jack's discovery of the Tina Towner photograph, I believe, makes the matter far more complex to resolve. Indeed, the following conclusions appear to me to be the case:

(4) Towner's photo is highly comparable to the Moorman in many respects.

(5) Arguments about being run over in the street thus have no foundation.

(6) The camber in the street may be the most important of the variables.

I am therefore inclined to agree with Jack that the argument is inconclusive. But notice that, if it is taken as further evidence of internal features that show the Moorman was taken from the grass, this does not change (1), (2), or (3). Indeed, while they support one argument,

(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;

(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;

(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street;

we now appear to have yet another. David, Jack, and I conducted our experiment on the LOS properly. It has been confirmed many times. I therefore make yet another argument:

(7) The Mantik/Fetzer experiment established internal evidence it was taken on the street;

(8) The Miller/Costella argument establishes internal evidence it was taken on the grass;

(9) The Moorman photograph displays internal properties that are physically incompatible.

In his earlier study of frame 232 published in LIFE, Costella observed that there were at least two physically incompatible features of the frame, one in the foreground and one in the background. On that basis, he rejected the frame as a fake. In these studies of the photo, I observe that there are at least two physically incompatible features of the Moorman, one in the foreground and one in the background. If premises (8) is accepted--that is, if Miller's argument is adopted--then, given premise (7), the photo should be rejected as a fake (9).

Based upon this line of argument, therefore, I conclude that, if the Miller/Costella argument is accepted, then it follows that there is internal evidence of the photo having been taken from the grass. The Tina Towner photograph, however, in my judgment, throws that claim into serious doubt. I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH JACK THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. But, if it were to be accepted, then it confirms that the photo is a fake.

The other observation that appears to follow from this discussion is that, since the photo of Mary with Jim Featherson probably represents the time at which his thumb print was made on the film, where the acid generally ate away at the image, especially of the motorcycles, as Jack has explained to me, the Zippo copies are our best evidence about the content of the photograph. It therefore appears to me that arguments attacking Jack, David and me for using the Zippo are misplaced and unwarranted, one more example of the assortment of weak arguments that have been advanced to defeat our confirmation of Jack's discovery, which, of course, should come as no surprise.

[Craig Lamson]

I don't want to strain your brain, but we had no camera to attach to the transit.

Un fricking believable! Two PhD's and a "photo expert" and you can't figure out a simple process called afocal projection? Or it was impossible to replace the transit with a camera at the same height? "Photo expert" LMAO! "PhD's" roflmao!

You clowns are a laughing stock!

[Bill Miller]

Our alignment was verified by Jack White, Stewart Galanor, and even Todd Vaughan. It was properly done.

Mr. Fetzer ... are you telling me that these men agreed that the line of site from Moorman's position all matched the photo in your book that carries the caption that says 'replication of sightline'?

Bill Miller

[Josiah Thompson]

Fetzer writes: "Josiah has continued to attack me on personal grounds that would be irrelevant even if they were true. These are classic ad hominem attacks that commit additional fallacies, including the "straw man", which occurs when you present an exaggerated version of a position in order to make it easier to attack. I post this in an effort to bring these attacks to an end. As though more proof were needed, Josiah Thompson continues to demonstrate his petty, childish and very small-minded character. He tells you (1) that my academic career has been "pedestrian", (2) that I was denied tenure at the University of Kentucky, and (3) that I am a "womanizer" who committed some offense at UMD that "screw(ed) up some students' lives and schedules"."

Fetzer is simply reposting what he posted on another site. Why? Who knows? As we've seen again and again, he tries to use his CV as a guarantor of his opinions and pronouncements. What he's claiming never happened here so it is somewhat bewildering why Fetzer wants to call attention here to himself. He actually wrote on this other site the following (you can read it below in his own post):

"The man [that's me, Thompson] is pea-green with envy--which you can actually see when the light is just right! --- because I am more intelligent, more accomplished, and better looking. He is small in every way--physically, mentally, and emotionally. Rumor has it his brain is so minute the most powerful microscopes have been unable to detect it. And I have also been more successful with women. I had (what my wife regards as) an inappropriate relationship with a member of the staff, who was also married, the Chancellor's best friend. When she turned on me (for reasons I do not remotely understand), the Chancellor hung me out to dry--and he is even envious of that! Everyone knows this about him. It is sad. Pathetic."

If I wrote something like this, I would hope no one would ever find it. Fetzer... he puts it up on another site for people to see. I find it just weird. However, one move of his does require a reply.

Professor Fetzer has an unerring ability to try to punch someone out with his chin. His latest excursion onto the internet to find something to smear me with is an example of this. Fetzer tries to draw some parallel between him getting fired from the University of Kentucky and me talking with the President of Yale, Kingman Brewster, about an experimental course I was teaching.

I can’t conceive why anyone on this board would care about this. However, since Fetzer mistakenly believes this somehow damages me as a critic, here goes.

Gaddis Smith is a distinguished historian. He is and has been for many years Sterling Professor of History at Yale. He is writing a history of Yale from the World War II to the present. One chapter of that history is entitled, “Yale and the Vietnam War.” On October 19, 1999, he delivered a paper entitled, “Yale and Vietnam War,” at a Columbia University seminar called , “University Seminar on the History of Columbia University.” The text of that lecture is what Fetzer found. I can be located on the internet at http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/cuhistory/yale.htm.

Early on, President Kingman Brewster was opposed to anti-war activities on the part of his faculty. Later on, he turned around and said in June 1970 that a particular Black Panther defendant could not get a fair trial. Professor Smith’s chapter charts this turnaround in President Brewster’s view of the anti-war movement and the left in general. Professor Smith writes:

"In May 1965 he [President Kingman Brewster] dismissed some of the anti-war protests and teach-ins around the country as "ludicrous mockeries, on the level of stuffing telephone booths and other expressions of egoism."

But the response to the war of three people at Yale – far more mature and serious than stuffers of telephone booths-was about to test his presidential skills. One, Chaplain William Sloane Coffin, Jr., was already famous for his participation in the civil rights movement; the second, Assistant Professor of History Staughton Lynd would soon be famous; the third, a Philosophy Instructor named Josiah Thompson, did not seek the limelight.

We begin with Thompson, a lowly Instructor in Philosophy. Thompson graduated from Yale College In 1957 and the next year as a Navy ensign in command of an underwater demolition team during the U.S. landings in Lebanon he acquired "a deep distrust of the the public justification for U.S. military action .... When Vietnam cranked up in the early 1960s, it was a case of deja vu.”

After writing a Yale dissertation on Soren Kierkegaard, Thompson started teaching. At an anti-war meeting led by Staughton Lynd he picked up a document entitled "Declaration of Conscience Against the War in Vietnam" drafted and circulated by a coalition of radical anti-war groups. To sign the declaration was to oneself to active civil disobedience- refusal to serve in the armed forces, encouragement to others to do the same, actions to block the shipment of men and munitions to the war. Thompson decided to use the declaration as the basis for a term paper assignment in his Philosophy 12b, Problems of Value.”

Why Professor Fetzer choose to use this chapter/paper against me is bewildering. I think I end up looking pretty good. Professor Smith wrote a section on Brewster’s relationship to William Sloane Coffin on Brewster’s relationship to Staughton Lynd and on Brewster’s relationship to me.

Staughton Lynd ended up getting fired. Nothing much happened to William Sloane Coffin. And nothing at all happened to me.

In January of that year, I took a job for the next year as Assistant Professor at Haverford. I taught the course and in June was invited to meet with the president in his office. President Brewster said he’d gotten a letter from a rich alumnus whose son was in my class. He wanted to write back to the alumnus and disabuse him of the idea that communists had infiltrated the Yale faculty. I agreed to gather evidence about the course and provide it to Brewster. Since I was done with Yale, Brewster had no lever on me at all. I agreed to do this only if Brewster would give me a blind copy of the letter he sent back to the alumnus. He did so. The first page laid out the facts about the course and stressed what a promising teacher I was. The second page summarized this and then told the alumnus “although Dr. Thompson will not be with us next year he is a promising teacher and scholar.” "Yeah," I thought, "so you handed up my head to the screaming alumnus when I’d taken another job six months before."

What still bewilders me is why Fetzer thinks this casts me in some sort of negative light. I think I come off looking pretty good.... not just good but one of Yale's anti-war advocates in its earliest stage! What’s more, nothing happened to me. Kingman Brewster had a perfect right to ask me what happened in my course and I obliged him. Whereas when Fetzer got fired from the University of Kentucky he ended up in the academic wilderness where no one would hire him permanently for over a decade.

So go figure... I guess it's just this thing Fetzer has about his CV that the rest of us are supposed to "swoon" over.

Josiah Thompson

Every time I think that Miller might be more reasonable than Tink, he proves

me wrong. This little post is a sad commentary on his commitment to truth,

even in matters personal. Certainly, that O'Reilly cannot distinguish between

my devotion to my country and my disdain for an administration that has so

grossly perverted its values is no excuse for Miller to commit the same fallacy.

Of course, he offers it as a personal attack in a long Tink Thompson tradition.

There is a lot about 9/11 on the web site for Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which

is a society that I founded. Our members include physicists, engineers of

many kinds (structural, mechanical, aerodynamic), pilots and others. Today

there is a proliferation of societies dedicated to exposing falsehoods and

revealing truths about 9/11. Visit 911scholars.org and click on the icon

for patriotsquestion911.com for more than 1,400 professional opinions.

Miller claims not to be Tink's stooge, but he continues to act as if he is.

Josiah has continued to attack me on personal grounds that would be

irrelevant even if they were true. These are classic ad hominem attacks

that commit additional fallacies, including the "straw man", which occurs

when you present an exaggerated version of a position in order to make

it easier to attack. I post this in an effort to bring these attacks to an end.

_________________________

As though more proof were needed, Josiah Thompson continues to demonstrate

his petty, childish and very small-minded character. He tells you (1) that

my academic career has been "pedestrian", (2) that I was denied tenure at

the University of Kentucky, and (3) that I am a "womanizer" who committed

some offense at UMD that "screw(ed) up some students' lives and schedules".

(1) My "pedestrian career"

I would not be pursuing this but Josiah won't let it go. So I conducted a

google search, and it turns out that he appears to be the one who has had a

pedestrian academic career and who has done more than his share of screwing.

In "Books of The Times; A Shamus Comes Clean in a Collection of Reflections,"

by John Gross (The New York Times, July 5, 1988), we learn the following:

> It was not until he was 40 years old, in 1976, that Mr. Thompson

> decided that a detective was what he wanted to be. At the time he

> was a professor of philosophy at Haverford College in Pennsylvania;

> he had previously taught at Yale, and three years earlier he had

> published a study of Kierkegaard.

. . .

> ''Gumshoe'' is primarily the story of some of the cases on which he

> has worked, but it also contains a certain amount about his life

> before he became a detective. There are glimpses of his schooldays

> at Andover, his undergraduate years at Yale, his time in the Navy,

> his involvement in the antiwar movement during the 1960's. We learn

> about his marriage and his two children, and his growing sense, amid

> the civilized comfort of Haverford, that ''the edge of experience lay

> elsewhere.''

>

> By his mid-30's, he thought of himself as ''superfluous.'' He began

> to have extramarital affairs that gradually turned into what he

> calls, philosophically, ''a Hegelian 'bad infinite' of endlessly

> repeating cycles.'' With Kierkegaard behind him, he started work on

> a book about Nietzsche, but got bogged down.

>

> When he gave up his professorship, he was plainly in the throes of a

> personal crisis. It is less clear what initially prompted him to

> seek salvation in the life of a private eye; but as the book

> progresses, you get a good idea of at least some of the

> satisfactions that the job has brought him.

No doubt, he thought of himself as "superfluous" because he was not making

his mark as an academic and scholar. He began working on a new book, "but

got bogged down." These are the signs of a meaningless, pedestrian career,

strikingly different from mine. Just look at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

and you will find distinguished professorships, 28 books, honors extending

back to my undergraduate at Princeton, which was #1 in the world in math,

physics, and philosophy while I was earning high honors and winning prizes!

Subsequently, I would earn an NSF Fellowship, found an international journal,

MINDS AND MACHINES, an international library, STUDIES IN COGNITIVE SYSTEMS,

and an international organization, The Society for Machines and Mentality.

I was not suffering from some kind of "personal crisis" that "prompted (me)

to seek salvation in the life of a private eye"! I loved the academic life

as a teach and a scholar. No one could have pursued positions as long as I

though thick and thin absent a profound commitment to the life of a scholar.

(2) My denial of tenure

He has also made much of the fact I was denied tenure at the University of

Kentucky, where I held my first academic appointment, which is true. Alas,

I was too outspoken for my own good and had no sense of university politics.

I embarrassed one senior faculty member by making symbolic logic one of the

most popular courses on the UK campus, something he had been unable to do,

for which I received the first distinguished teaching award presented to 1

of 135 assistant professors. I gave 14 talks to 8 departments in 5 years.

I also spoke up at faculty meetings and opposed the department head's plan

to move from an M.A. program to a Ph.D. The head had a degree in religion,

not philosophy, and wanted a different kind of philosopher of science, one

who shared his preoccupation with "death and dying" in a ministerial vein.

I had more articles and had presented more papers--both on and off campus--

than any previous candidate for promotion to associate when I was denied.

The university attorney argued the case on behalf of the administration by

contending that, while the denial might be wrong on its merits, the depart-

ment had the right to decide who it wanted as its member, which other deans

and provosts have advised me was a gross form of administrative abuse, which

would have been impossible on their campuses or in their systems. After my

research on Josiah, I would have thought he would be sympathetic to me about

this, since he himself is not unfamiliar with forms of administrative abuse.

An article entitled "Yale and the Vietnam War" by Gaddis Smith (October 19,

1999) recounts how some of the faculty were abused by the administration:

> We begin with Thompson, a lowly Instructor in Philosophy. Thompson graduated

> from Yale College In 1957 and the next year as a Navy ensign in

> command of an underwater demolition team during the U.S. landings in

> Lebanon he acquired "a deep distrust of the the public

> justification for U.S. military action ....

> When Vietnam cranked up in the early 1960s, it was a case of deja vu." After

> writing a Yale dissertation on Soren Kierkegaard, Thompson started teaching.

> At an anti-war meeting led by Staughton Lynd he picked up a document entitled

> "Declaration of Conscience Against the War in Vietnam" drafted and circulated

> by a coalition of radical anti-war groups. To sign the declaration was to

> oneself to active civil disobedience--refusal to serve in the armed forces,

> encouragement to others to do the same, actions to block the shipment of men

> and munitions to the war. Thompson decided to use the declaration as

> the basis

> for a term paper assignment in his Philosophy 12b, Problems of Value. He

> instructed the students to make a considered ethical choice-sign or not sign

> --and to write a 10-page paper explaining the decision by grappling with the

> question of when "is civil disobedience justified? Are there limits to an

> individual's obligation to the state? If an individual believes the state to

> be acting unjustly may he terminate his allegiance to it, or is he duty-bound

> to continue his allegiance?" The closing instruction read: "You are

> reminded ... that true ethical reflection terminates in action.

> Unsigned

> declarations may be discarded or returned to me; signed declarations may be

> forwarded to any of the listed addresses."

>

> Thompson told the Yale Daily News that he was not recommending that students

> either sign or not sign, but that they confront the connection

> between ethical

> discussion and ethical action. He said it would be "an abuse of the privilege

> of a teacher to use the petition for political purposes, rather than as an

> instructional aid in the course."6 One of the students in the course told his

> father, Arthur L. Stern, about the project. The father-Yale alumnus, lawyer,

> and himself chairman of the board of trustees of the Rochester Institute of

> Technology-wrote President Brewster and quoted Thompson's

> injudicious marginal

> comments on the son's paper. For example, when the son wrote that signing the

> Declaration meant accepting Communist propaganda and believing that President

> Johnson was lying, Thompson jotted: "No responsible opinion believes the

> stated reason to be our principal reason for being in Vietnam." The

> elder Stern said he was aware of the danger of interfering with "the

> freedom of members of the faculty to teach in their own fashion"

> but in this case

> freedom might place "the future well-being of the students" in jeopardy.

>

> As we all know, sophomores are an impressionable group. More than that, they

> are at the age where military service in Vietnam may seem particularly

> abhorrent and anything may seem appealing which might lessen the chances of

> being called for such duty.

>

> [President Kingman] Brewster took the almost unprecedented step of calling

> Thompson to his office, asking for an explanation, and a written "brief" in

> self defense. The academic year was now almost over and Thompson had accepted

> a tenure-track position at Haverford College for the following year, but he

> never forgave Brewster for on the one hand saying to Stern he had

> not intended to abuse his position as a teacher but that on the

> other hand he would not be at Yale next year. Thompson believed that

> was an implicit suggestion that he had been terminated.

Personally, I consider Josiah's service in the Navy as admirable and certainly

not inferior to my own service as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps.

I also applaud his use of the "Declaration of Conscience Against the Vietnam

War" in his course. During my own career, I frequently introduced issues from

real life into the classroom, including questions about the government's basis

for going to war in Iraq, its possible involvement in the events of 9/11, and

similar issues. What I do not understand is why, after his abuse at the hands

of Kingman Brewster, he would not appreciate the abuse to which I was subject

by Dallas High, my head, and the administration of the University of Kentucky.

Both were objectionable, both were wrong, and neither of us deserved our fate.

(3) My "misconduct"

More than anything else, Josiah wants to tar and feather me for having had an

indiscretion during the later stages of my academic career. I have explained

the circumstances on this forum many times, since he cannot wait for chances

to bring it up again and again, no matter how many times I have dealt with it.

I had (what my wife regards as) an inappropriate relationship with a member of

the staff, who was also married and who was the Chancellor's best friend. She

turned on me--long after our relationship had ended and for reasons I do not

fathom--and the Chancellor, who was also a woman, hung me out to dry. It was

grossly unjustifiable, especially since she had initiated it, but her husband

was also on the faculty and the Chancellor probably wanted to make a

statement.

This is not unlike Kingman Brewster's wanting to make his own

"statement" about

the young philosophy professor, but I was older and should have known better.

I have not tried to apologize for this misjudgment other than to my wife, who

has stood by me through my vicissitudes. But Josiah has adopted a moralizing

attitude about this, making it out to be both more mysterious and more ominous

than circumstances warrant. I appealed the six-week suspension through the

established process, but the Chancellor's influence was too pervasive and was

not something I could overcome. She even contacted the affirmative action

official on campus about it repeatedly and told the Vice Chancellor that he

"could take her word for it", which hobbled my efforts to straighten it out.

Nevertheless, I was wrong to have a relationship of this kind, even though she

was a mature woman less than ten years younger, a member of the staff who was

not under my supervision, and the one who had initiated the relationship. I

have never approved of relationships with undergraduates, because the power

disparity is so great that "informed consent" is virtually impossible. But I

take it Josiah has not always been so scrupulous, as this passage suggests:

> By his mid-30's, he thought of himself as ''superfluous.'' He began

> to have extramarital affairs that gradually turned into what he

> calls, philosophically, ''a Hegelian 'bad infinite' of endlessly

> repeating cycles.'' With Kierkegaard behind him, he started work on

> a book about Nietzsche, but got bogged down.

He actually claims that I "screwed up some students' lives and schedules",

but that was the Chancellor's doing, not mine. Subsequent testimony during

my appeals revealed that this was a highly unusual action and that faculty

who had committed far more grievous offenses had been disciplined in far

more private fashion, typically serving their discipline during the summer.

As it happened, I had just returned from presenting a lecture on the death

of JFK at Harvard as a guest speaker for Jesse Ventura, who had a fellow-

ship at the Kennedy School of Government. Since I had just given the 2nd

of 3 course exams, I calculated everyone's grade and the course ended at

that point, very much over my objection, because it was poor policy. No

matter how much the Chancellor had been offended, she should have acted on

behalf of the best interests of the students and not from personal pique.

Josiah claims that I was "screwing up some students schedules and lives" in

the figurative sense, while he was apparently screwing some--possibly many--

undergraduates in "endlessly rerepeating cycles". Which is more appalling

I shall leave for the reader to judge, but the hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

It turns out he has even been the subject of a study about mid-life crises,

where he makes a debut in the book, ADULT PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT: THEORIES

AND CONCEPTS (1994), by Lawrence S. Wrightsman, which includes the following:

> In 1976 Josiah Thompson was a professor of philosophy with tenure at

> Haverford College in Pennsylvania. But while on sabbatical leave in

> the San Francisco Bay area--with no progress on the scholarly book

> he was to write and his marriage deteriorating--he decided, "almost

> capriously", to apply for a job with a detective agency. With this

> sudden shift, from a job with security and prestige to one with

> less salary and more peril, he became a $10-an-hour private

> investigator.

Now I don't begrudge Josiah his "mid-life crisis", which is an all-too-common

phenomenon. Changing careers may very well have been the right choice

for him.

But it would not have been the right choice for me--and the fact that I perse-

vered in the face of adversity and came out standing my feet is something he

ought to applaud, just as I applaud his efforts as an instructor at Yale. He

has gone far overboard in exaggerating my shortcomings--which are quite real--

and minimizing my accomplishments. After my denial at Kentucky, for example,

I was hired as Visiting Associate at Virginia, which was then and may still

be the leading public university in America, which is inexplicable if there

had been anything wrong with me as a teacher or as a scholar. Indeed, years

later, I would be brought back to Virginia as a Visiting (Full) Professor.

My best guess about his failed academic career is that he took a position at

a small college with no graduate program. Places like Haverford do not place

the same value and importance upon research as do leading universities. It

was for that reason that I chose the University of Kentucky over a private

university in the San Francisco area. And small colleges have few faculty in

areas like philosophy. It was greatly to my benefit that the universities I

served had strong departments of philosophy, including Virginia, Cincinnati,

and Chapel Hill. New College in Sarasota was my experience with a college

like Haverford and, while I liked a great deal about it, it was not the best

setting for conducting research. When I came to Minnesota, it was the result

of a national search that was "area open", where the Dean of the College of

Liberal Arts wanted the department to hire the best person they could find.

I was glad to be hired there and I did what I could to contribute to making

it better while pursuing my teaching and research until I retired in 2006,

which was at the time of my own choosing and for my own personal reasons.

I have always been willing to be judged by the truth. So should Josiah.

_______________________

Quoting Josiah Thompson <gum226@sbcglobal.net>:

> Well, this little post certainly tells us who we

> are dealing with. Lo and behold, the roue of Duluth!

>

> The problem is we don't know whether to believe

> you. All we know is that you were suspended for

> several months without pay and that your

> suspension certainly screwed up some students'

> lives and schedules. Then, rather quickly, the

> University of Minnesota (Duluth) paid you a bunch

> of money to leave. You were suspended for

> misconduct of a sexual sort but beyond that we

> have only your self-serving puffery. We can

> easily check that you got bounced from the

> University of Kentucky and that no institution

> would hire you permanently for over a

> decade. That's all part of the historical

> record. But your final misconduct, that's all

> kind of a mystery. Some faculty board agreed

> with the President in punishing you, we know

> that. But the evidence against you and the

> particular charges... that remains a

> mystery. What isn't a mystery is that your

> pedestrian academic career was capped by being

> suspended without pay for months. By this you

> join that elite set of perhaps 1/10 of 1% of

> teaching professors who crown their career with

> public dishonor. But you're a real catch. You're a real womanizer,

> aren't you? Congratulations!

>

> Why anyone... let alone me... would ever envy you

> boggles the imagination!! You're just weird!

>

> Josiah Thompson

>

>

> At 10:31 AM 3/2/2009, jfetzer@d.umn.edu wrote:

>> The man is pea-green with envy--which you can actually

>> see when the light is just right!--because I am more

>> intelligent, more accomplished, and better looking.

>> He is small in every way--physically, mentally, and

>> emotionally. Rumor has it his brain is so minute the

>> most powerful microscopes have been unable to detect it.

>>

>> And I have also been more successful with women. I had

>> (what my wife regards as) an inappropriate relationship

>> with a member of the staff, who was also married, the

>> Chancellor's best friend. When she turned on me (for

>> reasons I do not remotely understand), the Chancellor

>> hung me out to dry--and he is even envious of that!

>>

>> Everyone knows this about him. It is sad. Pathetic.

>>

>> Quoting Josiah Thompson <gum226@sbcglobal.net>:

>>

>>> Professor Fetzer wrote: "Presumably, unlike

>>> Zachary Luing, I am qualified to make an

>>> assessment of this kind. If Zachary wants scholarly credentials,

>>> then he can study mine at length, http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/,

>>> and swoon."

>>>

>>> Of, Professor, forgive us if we don't

>>> swoon! And spare us another hit from your

>>> CV. In reality, your "scholarly credentials" are

>>> not impressive. Your scholarly history is that

>>> of a pedestrian academic who was disgraced in his

>>> last years of teaching and just can't stand it.

>>>

>>> Josiah Thompson

>>>

I think Bill O'Reilly had Fetzer nailed to the letter ....

Edited March 9, 2009 by Josiah Thompson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Egad! Do you really have no sense of humor AT ALL? I knew you would leap out of your chair if I made that remark. But I did not expect you to frazzle your brain over it. Worse than your incapacity to appreciate tongue-in-cheek humor, however, is your lack of appreciation for the elements of conditional logic.

The argument is CONDITIONAL: It has an "IF ... THEN ___" structure, if that is not too difficult for a Yale Ph.D. to understand. What I conclude is that, IF the Miller/Costella argument is accepted, THEN it follows that there is internal evidence of the photo having been taken from the grass. Consider the following:

(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;

(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;

(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.

These are John's premises, which you have never understood. He agrees with you on (1), but he agrees with me on (2). It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one Mary took (3). Those are John's premises and John's conclusion. Try reading his key post in response to Mack's verification.

(4) Towner's photo is highly comparable to the Moorman in many respects.

(5) Arguments about being run over in the street thus have no foundation.

(6) The camber in the street may be the most important of the variables.

In my opinion, the camber is sufficient that, depending precisely where the motorcycles were situated on the street, relative to the camber, they could have yielded virtually any comparison, with the more distant higher or lower than the less distant. Jack made the crucial point: there are many variables.

(7) The Mantik/Fetzer experiment established internal evidence it was taken on the street;

(8) The Miller/Costella argument establishes internal evidence it was taken on the grass;

(9) The Moorman photograph displays internal properties that are physically incompatible.

This is the CONDITIONAL PART OF THE ARGUMENT. The Tina Towner photograph, in my judgment, throws premise (8) into serious doubt. I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH JACK THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. But, if it were to be accepted, then it confirms that the photo is a fake, which, I presume, is not what you were looking for. Let me repeat that: IF IT WERE TO BE ACCEPTED--which is not my position--THEN IT CONFIRMS THAT THE PHOTO IS A FAKE.

As it happens, I understand Costella's position, but you do not. Why the photo would be faked, I do not profess to know, but my guess would be there was something in the pergola area that had to be obfuscated and, when the alteration was done, it was not done quite right. The astounding part is not that a mistake was made, but that Jack White noticed the line of sight that you have done so much to obscure.

STUDY COSTELLA's post, because what he is telling you is that his position on the photo is what I have offered here as (1), (2), and (3). He does agree with Miller about (8), but I do not, because I regard the evidence especially given the Tina Towner photo, as leaving the matter in an inconclusive state--there are too many variables with missing values. Your enduring misunderstanding is making you look like a mental midget:

____________

Re: FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID ON NOVEMBER 22ND.

Josiah,

I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you. I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source wasn't Gary Mack. But at that time I thought you were going to reveal that she didn't say she stepped into the street at all.

As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the assassination, she said she stepped into the street. Given that this is damaging to your case (and his), I now agree that his authority is impeccable.

Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:

1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens.

2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has repeated to this day, that she stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE PHOTO FROM THE STREET.

3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the President's or Jackie's attention.

4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like frozen turkeys:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../jfk/clip_C.mov

5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.

6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.

The net results are:

A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as presenting a consistent depiction of the assassination.

B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic evidence is fraudulent.

C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is impeached as evidence -- its admissibility relies on the testimony of the photographer.

D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can see for no one else seeing her step into the street is that she did it AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.

As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman Polaroid as telling us anything at all. What surprises me the most is that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of WHETHER SHE STEPPED INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from, is the key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder film. The Polaroid is irrelevant in all this.

My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and has tried to make me understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't read his section in "Pig on a Leash" should do so. (And let me also say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006, when he dug out his transcript.)

I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it as vehemently as Jim, past behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving us this explosive and unequivocal evidence confirming Lifton's transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun. I think we've all learned a lot in the past week.

John

_________________

So it is simply false that I have been "forced to admit that Bill Miller's proof concerning the motorcycles is correct". And this lapse, on your part, I take it, is because you never read anything I have written carefully, probably because it makes it easier for you to misrepresent. We also find that your argument about being run over if she were in the street has no basis and that the Zippos are our "best evidence". Fraud and fakery, alas!, are still your middle name.

In reading your last post, Professor, a quote from you kept running through my mind. You will remember writing at. About a week ago you were berating some guy you disagreed with over on the JFK-research board. You told him:"Presumably, unlike Zachary Luing, I am qualified to make an assessment of this kind. If Zachary wants scholarly credentials, then he can study mine at length, and swoon." Yeah right. And you even provided a link where Luing could find those credentials to swoon over!

You’ve just been forced to admit that Bill Miller’s proof concerning the motorcycles is correct. Yet for the last six years you have been berating Bill Miller for being “unqualified.” His proof, of rather dazzling simplicity, shows that having a Ph.D. like yours only prepares someone to be a blowhard. Miller’s proof has been around since 2002 and John Costella even vouched for it on JFK-research a couple of months ago. And you are just catching up!

Your post also demonstrates a second point. Since you do no original research, you really don’t know your ass from your elbow about any of the claims you make. Your whole post is filled up with going back to Costella or White to find out what to believe about any particular point in argument. In short, what your post demonstrates is that you are simply the flack for other people’s theories or claims.

There is no reason even to mention the irrelevance of the Tina Towner photo – a last gasp on Jack White’s part to come up with something. So what is there to deal with in your latest post? The only thing I can think of is your use of John Costella’s opinion. Since you have no particular understanding, I guess of anything, you keep referring back to his opinion. Cool. Let’s look at exactly what his opinion is. He wrote on December 21, 2008:

“My position on Moorman has not changed since May 2002. The extant Polaroid could not have been taken from the street by Mary. If she really did step onto the street when taking it, then the extant photo cannot be genuine. But since we have no corroborating evidence for Mary being on the street, other than her own say-so, then I don’t tie myself down to either conclusion. Her photo may well be genuine – most of it, anyway. I have said that my gut is that I lean more towards seeing her step into the street, if we ever see a genuine film, than not – but this is just gut feeling. The issue is open.”

So on the one hand we have Costella’s understanding that internal evidence in the photo shows that it was taken from the grass. This is the opposite of what you and White have been claiming. That's why, back in December, you were ready to throw Costella under the bus. It is also the case that there is “no corroborating evidence for Mary being on the street.” However, says Costella, the extant Moorman photo may have been falsified. If so, then it may have been taken from the street. Costella goes on to say that he has “just a gut feeling” that it was taken from the street. So on the one hand we have overwhelming evidence from the photo itself, from other films and photos, from eyewitness reports. On the other hand, we have Costella’s “gut feeling.” This would be like saying of the Michelson-Morley experiment: On the one hand we have these observations which seem to confirm Einstein’s theory of relativity and the lack of an “ether.” On the other hand, this physicist John Costella has “a gut feeling” that there really is an “ether” and Einstein was wrong.

Is it your position now, Professor Fetzer, that the Moorman photo has been falsified by persons unknown to falsely indicate it was taken from the grass? Is that what your whole argument now comes down to?

Bill Miller has advanced an argument about the Moorman which, I have belatedly discovered,

I have never addressed. I had formed the impression that John Costella had explained that

it was "inconclusive" in the past and, for that reason, I set it to one side. I have now learned

from John that, in fact, he likes the argument and even endorses it. Here is a post from him

when I wrote to ask him if he believes the windshield argument supports the inference that

the photo was taken from the grass, which is not the same as MARY taking if from the grass:

Jim,

It does. It relies on the height of the windshield, of course, but

let's assume that they are correct that if you put Mary on a

basketball court next to one of those motorcycles, her lens would be

below the top of the windshield. That seems to be highly likely to be

true.

If that's the case, and if the two motorcycles are essentially the

same, then if she was on the street, the near cycle's windshield would

extend higher in her photo than the far cycle. The only way for her

lens to "see the far one over the top of the near one" would be to

elevate her lens above the height of the windshield tops. The only way

to do that is to put her up on the grass.

It is an ingenious argument, and doesn't rely on much.

John

So the weight of John's expertise falls on the side of Miller's argument, which is important

especially since he has done so much excellent work demonstrating that the Zapruder is a

recreation. Sometimes it astounds me how Tink wants to "pick and choose" between John's

support for the photo having internal features that show it was taken from the grass and his

belief that Mary was actually in the street, which implies that the photo, like the film, must

be a fake. Since I have given John's response to Gary Mack's confirmation that Mary had

said, "I stepped into the street", about three hours after the event in "Moorman/Zapruder

Revisited" and in "Tink rolls the dice", as well as in posts on this and other fora, I assume

I do not have to repeat it here. But John's position is subtle on this point, which I accent:

(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;

(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;

(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.

In relation to the internal features of the photograph itself, Jack has observed the following:

It is notable that it IS SEEN ONLY IN THE ZIPPO PRINT. The thumbprint

obscures it in all other Moorman prints.

Tentative observations.

1. No other part of the Hargis motorcycle is seen...no handlebars, gas tank,

rider, arms, hands anything...only the windshield.

2. The windshield is extremely blurry.

3. The Moorman photo shows Hargis lagging behind Martin. I am not sure

other films and photos do.

4. I need to redo my studies of the cop helmets. Two styles are seen in

Moorman, and they may not be correct.

John, in fact, agrees with these points by Jack and adds that, in his view, the photographic

record, which is a shambles of alteration and fabrication, serves as a great distraction:

> > He's right on that - and in general, of the things I have looked at

> > there is nothing in the Moorman Polaroid that supports it being

> > taken from the street. And I did discuss the windshield argument in

> > the forum.

> >

> > As to what really happened, you know that my take is that the

> > photographic evidence is a crock. But while attention is fixated on

> > the Moorman Polaroid showing her to be in the street, the truth will

> > recede ever further into the background.

Thus, his study of the eyewitness accounts, which has been published in the latest issue

of assassinationresearch.com, in John's view, provides a far more reliable foundation for

drawing inferences about what actually happened in Dealey Plaza than does the photos

and films, where his and other studies by David Mantik, David Lifton, Jack White, and

others--especially those collected together in HOAX--illustrate the problem of relying on

photos and films, the vast majority of which have been proved to be altered or faked.

Jack turned up a photo taken by Tina Towner, while she was standing in the street:

Jim...as luck would have it, Tina Towner, STANDING IN THE STREET, shota frame

almost identical to the Moorman view of the windshield and limo. The two images are

so close, I conclude that the matter is INCONCLUSIVE without knowing the following:

TINA

1. How close was Hargis to Tina?

2. How close was the limo to her?

3. What was the distance between limo and Hargis' windshield?

4. What was the windshield height above the street?

5. How tall was Tina?

6. Was the street flat in that area?

7. Did the street slope downhill in that area?

8. How did the focal length of the lens affect the image?

MARY

1. How close was Hargis to Mary?

2. How close was the limo to her?

3. What was the distance between limo and Hargis' windshield?

4. What was the windshield height given the camber and slope of Elm?

5. How tall was Mary compared to Tina?

6. How much was the camber of the street in each lane?

7. Did the street slope downhill in that area? (known, 3 degrees)

8. How did the focal length of the lens affect the image?

Since most of these VARIABLE factors are UNKNOWN, it is impossible to make any

definite conclusions. Therefore I say that the windshield issue is unknowable and

immaterial.

John replied that, while Jack was right, the fact that there are two windshields in

the photograph--actually, as many as three!--eliminates many of the variables:

By itself, what you say is correct. But the point is that we are comparing

two windshields, not just one. That eliminates many variables.

The key question is: if the motorcycle cops were sitting (rolling), and Mary

were standing (ready to take a photo), on a basketball court, whether the

top of the windshields would have been above or below her lens. If there

is substantial evidence to say that they would have been below her lens,

then the issue is reopened. If they are above her lens, then there is no

way around it, in my opinion.

Jack's discovery of the Tina Towner photograph, I believe, makes the matter far more complex to resolve. Indeed, the following conclusions appear to me to be the case:

(4) Towner's photo is highly comparable to the Moorman in many respects.

(5) Arguments about being run over in the street thus have no foundation.

(6) The camber in the street may be the most important of the variables.

I am therefore inclined to agree with Jack that the argument is inconclusive. But notice that, if it is taken as further evidence of internal features that show the Moorman was taken from the grass, this does not change (1), (2), or (3). Indeed, while they support one argument,

(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;

(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;

(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street;

we now appear to have yet another. David, Jack, and I conducted our experiment on the LOS properly. It has been confirmed many times. I therefore make yet another argument:

(7) The Mantik/Fetzer experiment established internal evidence it was taken on the street;

(8) The Miller/Costella argument establishes internal evidence it was taken on the grass;

(9) The Moorman photograph displays internal properties that are physically incompatible.

In his earlier study of frame 232 published in LIFE, Costella observed that there were at least two physically incompatible features of the frame, one in the foreground and one in the background. On that basis, he rejected the frame as a fake. In these studies of the photo, I observe that there are at least two physically incompatible features of the Moorman, one in the foreground and one in the background. If premises (8) is accepted--that is, if Miller's argument is adopted--then, given premise (7), the photo should be rejected as a fake (9).

Based upon this line of argument, therefore, I conclude that, if the Miller/Costella argument is accepted, then it follows that there is internal evidence of the photo having been taken from the grass. The Tina Towner photograph, however, in my judgment, throws that claim into serious doubt. I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH JACK THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. But, if it were to be accepted, then it confirms that the photo is a fake.

The other observation that appears to follow from this discussion is that, since the photo of Mary with Jim Featherson probably represents the time at which his thumb print was made on the film, where the acid generally ate away at the image, especially of the motorcycles, as Jack has explained to me, the Zippo copies are our best evidence about the content of the photograph. It therefore appears to me that arguments attacking Jack, David and me for using the Zippo are misplaced and unwarranted, one more example of the assortment of weak arguments that have been advanced to defeat our confirmation of Jack's discovery, which, of course, should come as no surprise.

Edited March 9, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

So let me get this right. You admit writing this and posting it, right? Just to make sure, here it is:

"The man (that's me, Thompson, right?) is pea-green with envy -- which you can actually see when the light is just right! -- because I am more intelligent, more accomplished, and better looking. He is small in every way -- physically, mentally, and emotionally. Rumor has it his brain is so minute the most powerful microscopes have been unable to detect it.

And I have also been more successful with women. I had (what my wife regards as) an inappropriate relationship with a member of the staff, who was also married, the Chancellor's best friend. When she turned on me (for reasons I do not remotely understand), the Chancellor hung me out to dry -- and he is even envious of that!

Everyone knows this about him. It is sad. Pathetic."

So let me get this right. You are saying of what's written above: "Egad! Do you really have no sense of humor AT ALL? I knew you would leap out of your chair if I made that remark. But I did not expect you to frazzle your brain over it." In short, you are saying that your writing of what's above was some sort of weird joke. That's what you're saying, right?

If that is what you're saying, you are one sad puppy. I'm sure your wife enjoys your humor. I can't believe you actually published the above not just on the JFK-research site but resurrected it here for no good reason.

I just wanted to get this straight here. All the rest of the stuff about Moorman-Towner I'm going to take up on a separate thread.

Josiah Thompson

Egad! Do you really have no sense of humor AT ALL? I knew you would leap out of your chair if I made that remark. But I did not expect you to frazzle your brain over it. Worse than your incapacity to appreciate tongue-in-cheek humor, however, is your lack of appreciation for the elements of conditional logic.

The argument is CONDITIONAL: It has an "IF ... THEN ___" structure, if that is not too difficult for a Yale Ph.D. to understand. What I conclude is that, IF the Miller/Costella argument is accepted, THEN it follows that there is internal evidence of the photo having been taken from the grass. Consider the following:

(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;

(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;

(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.

These are John's premises, which you have never understood. He agrees with you on (1), but he agrees with me on (2). It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one Mary took (3). Those are John's premises and John's conclusion. Try reading his key post in response to Mack's verification.

(4) Towner's photo is highly comparable to the Moorman in many respects.

(5) Arguments about being run over in the street thus have no foundation.

(6) The camber in the street may be the most important of the variables.

In my opinion, the camber is sufficient that, depending precisely where the motorcycles were situated on the street, relative to the camber, they could have yielded virtually any comparison, with the more distant higher or lower than the less distant. Jack made the crucial point: there are many variables.

(7) The Mantik/Fetzer experiment established internal evidence it was taken on the street;

(8) The Miller/Costella argument establishes internal evidence it was taken on the grass;

(9) The Moorman photograph displays internal properties that are physically incompatible.

This is the CONDITIONAL PART OF THE ARGUMENT. The Tina Towner photograph, in my judgment, throws premise (8) into serious doubt. I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH JACK THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. But, if it were to be accepted, then it confirms that the photo is a fake, which, I presume, is not what you were looking for. Let me repeat that: IF IT WERE TO BE ACCEPTED--which is not my position--THEN IT CONFIRMS THAT THE PHOTO IS A FAKE.

As it happens, I understand Costella's position, but you do not. Why the photo would be faked, I do not profess to know, but my guess would be there was something in the pergola area that had to be obfuscated and, when the alteration was done, it was not done quite right. The astounding part is not that a mistake was made, but that Jack White noticed the line of sight that you have done so much to obscure.

STUDY COSTELLA's post, because what he is telling you is that his position on the photo is what I have offered here as (1), (2), and (3). He does agree with Miller about (8), but I do not, because I regard the evidence especially given the Tina Towner photo, as leaving the matter in an inconclusive state--there are too many variables with missing values. Your enduring misunderstanding is making you look like a mental midget:

____________

Re: FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID ON NOVEMBER 22ND.

Josiah,

I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you. I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source wasn't Gary Mack. But at that time I thought you were going to reveal that she didn't say she stepped into the street at all.

As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the assassination, she said she stepped into the street. Given that this is damaging to your case (and his), I now agree that his authority is impeccable.

Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:

1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens.

2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has repeated to this day, that she stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE PHOTO FROM THE STREET.

3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the President's or Jackie's attention.

4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like frozen turkeys:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../jfk/clip_C.mov

5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.

6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.

The net results are:

A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as presenting a consistent depiction of the assassination.

B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic evidence is fraudulent.

C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is impeached as evidence -- its admissibility relies on the testimony of the photographer.

D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can see for no one else seeing her step into the street is that she did it AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.

As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman Polaroid as telling us anything at all. What surprises me the most is that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of WHETHER SHE STEPPED INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from, is the key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder film. The Polaroid is irrelevant in all this.

My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and has tried to make me understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't read his section in "Pig on a Leash" should do so. (And let me also say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006, when he dug out his transcript.)

I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it as vehemently as Jim, past behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving us this explosive and unequivocal evidence confirming Lifton's transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun. I think we've all learned a lot in the past week.

John

_________________

So it is simply false that I have been "forced to admit that Bill Miller's proof concerning the motorcycles is correct". And this lapse, on your part, I take it, is because you never read anything I have written carefully, probably because it makes it easier for you to misrepresent. We also find that your argument about being run over if she were in the street has no basis and that the Zippos are our "best evidence". Fraud and fakery, alas!, are still your middle name.

In reading your last post, Professor, a quote from you kept running through my mind. You will remember writing at. About a week ago you were berating some guy you disagreed with over on the JFK-research board. You told him:"Presumably, unlike Zachary Luing, I am qualified to make an assessment of this kind. If Zachary wants scholarly credentials, then he can study mine at length, and swoon." Yeah right. And you even provided a link where Luing could find those credentials to swoon over!

You’ve just been forced to admit that Bill Miller’s proof concerning the motorcycles is correct. Yet for the last six years you have been berating Bill Miller for being “unqualified.” His proof, of rather dazzling simplicity, shows that having a Ph.D. like yours only prepares someone to be a blowhard. Miller’s proof has been around since 2002 and John Costella even vouched for it on JFK-research a couple of months ago. And you are just catching up!

Your post also demonstrates a second point. Since you do no original research, you really don’t know your ass from your elbow about any of the claims you make. Your whole post is filled up with going back to Costella or White to find out what to believe about any particular point in argument. In short, what your post demonstrates is that you are simply the flack for other people’s theories or claims.

There is no reason even to mention the irrelevance of the Tina Towner photo – a last gasp on Jack White’s part to come up with something. So what is there to deal with in your latest post? The only thing I can think of is your use of John Costella’s opinion. Since you have no particular understanding, I guess of anything, you keep referring back to his opinion. Cool. Let’s look at exactly what his opinion is. He wrote on December 21, 2008:

“My position on Moorman has not changed since May 2002. The extant Polaroid could not have been taken from the street by Mary. If she really did step onto the street when taking it, then the extant photo cannot be genuine. But since we have no corroborating evidence for Mary being on the street, other than her own say-so, then I don’t tie myself down to either conclusion. Her photo may well be genuine – most of it, anyway. I have said that my gut is that I lean more towards seeing her step into the street, if we ever see a genuine film, than not – but this is just gut feeling. The issue is open.”

So on the one hand we have Costella’s understanding that internal evidence in the photo shows that it was taken from the grass. This is the opposite of what you and White have been claiming. That's why, back in December, you were ready to throw Costella under the bus. It is also the case that there is “no corroborating evidence for Mary being on the street.” However, says Costella, the extant Moorman photo may have been falsified. If so, then it may have been taken from the street. Costella goes on to say that he has “just a gut feeling” that it was taken from the street. So on the one hand we have overwhelming evidence from the photo itself, from other films and photos, from eyewitness reports. On the other hand, we have Costella’s “gut feeling.” This would be like saying of the Michelson-Morley experiment: On the one hand we have these observations which seem to confirm Einstein’s theory of relativity and the lack of an “ether.” On the other hand, this physicist John Costella has “a gut feeling” that there really is an “ether” and Einstein was wrong.

Is it your position now, Professor Fetzer, that the Moorman photo has been falsified by persons unknown to falsely indicate it was taken from the grass? Is that what your whole argument now comes down to?

Bill Miller has advanced an argument about the Moorman which, I have belatedly discovered,

I have never addressed. I had formed the impression that John Costella had explained that

it was "inconclusive" in the past and, for that reason, I set it to one side. I have now learned

from John that, in fact, he likes the argument and even endorses it. Here is a post from him

when I wrote to ask him if he believes the windshield argument supports the inference that

the photo was taken from the grass, which is not the same as MARY taking if from the grass:

Jim,

It does. It relies on the height of the windshield, of course, but

let's assume that they are correct that if you put Mary on a

basketball court next to one of those motorcycles, her lens would be

below the top of the windshield. That seems to be highly likely to be

true.

If that's the case, and if the two motorcycles are essentially the

same, then if she was on the street, the near cycle's windshield would

extend higher in her photo than the far cycle. The only way for her

lens to "see the far one over the top of the near one" would be to

elevate her lens above the height of the windshield tops. The only way

to do that is to put her up on the grass.

It is an ingenious argument, and doesn't rely on much.

John

So the weight of John's expertise falls on the side of Miller's argument, which is important

especially since he has done so much excellent work demonstrating that the Zapruder is a

recreation. Sometimes it astounds me how Tink wants to "pick and choose" between John's

support for the photo having internal features that show it was taken from the grass and his

belief that Mary was actually in the street, which implies that the photo, like the film, must

be a fake. Since I have given John's response to Gary Mack's confirmation that Mary had

said, "I stepped into the street", about three hours after the event in "Moorman/Zapruder

Revisited" and in "Tink rolls the dice", as well as in posts on this and other fora, I assume

I do not have to repeat it here. But John's position is subtle on this point, which I accent:

(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;

(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;

(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.

In relation to the internal features of the photograph itself, Jack has observed the following:

It is notable that it IS SEEN ONLY IN THE ZIPPO PRINT. The thumbprint

obscures it in all other Moorman prints.

Tentative observations.

1. No other part of the Hargis motorcycle is seen...no handlebars, gas tank,

rider, arms, hands anything...only the windshield.

2. The windshield is extremely blurry.

3. The Moorman photo shows Hargis lagging behind Martin. I am not sure

other films and photos do.

4. I need to redo my studies of the cop helmets. Two styles are seen in

Moorman, and they may not be correct.

John, in fact, agrees with these points by Jack and adds that, in his view, the photographic

record, which is a shambles of alteration and fabrication, serves as a great distraction:

> > He's right on that - and in general, of the things I have looked at

> > there is nothing in the Moorman Polaroid that supports it being

> > taken from the street. And I did discuss the windshield argument in

> > the forum.

> >

> > As to what really happened, you know that my take is that the

> > photographic evidence is a crock. But while attention is fixated on

> > the Moorman Polaroid showing her to be in the street, the truth will

> > recede ever further into the background.

Thus, his study of the eyewitness accounts, which has been published in the latest issue

of assassinationresearch.com, in John's view, provides a far more reliable foundation for

drawing inferences about what actually happened in Dealey Plaza than does the photos

and films, where his and other studies by David Mantik, David Lifton, Jack White, and

others--especially those collected together in HOAX--illustrate the problem of relying on

photos and films, the vast majority of which have been proved to be altered or faked.

Jack turned up a photo taken by Tina Towner, while she was standing in the street:

Jim...as luck would have it, Tina Towner, STANDING IN THE STREET, shota frame

almost identical to the Moorman view of the windshield and limo. The two images are

so close, I conclude that the matter is INCONCLUSIVE without knowing the following:

TINA

1. How close was Hargis to Tina?

2. How close was the limo to her?

3. What was the distance between limo and Hargis' windshield?

4. What was the windshield height above the street?

5. How tall was Tina?

6. Was the street flat in that area?

7. Did the street slope downhill in that area?

8. How did the focal length of the lens affect the image?

MARY

1. How close was Hargis to Mary?

2. How close was the limo to her?

3. What was the distance between limo and Hargis' windshield?

4. What was the windshield height given the camber and slope of Elm?

5. How tall was Mary compared to Tina?

6. How much was the camber of the street in each lane?

7. Did the street slope downhill in that area? (known, 3 degrees)

8. How did the focal length of the lens affect the image?

Since most of these VARIABLE factors are UNKNOWN, it is impossible to make any

definite conclusions. Therefore I say that the windshield issue is unknowable and

immaterial.

John replied that, while Jack was right, the fact that there are two windshields in

the photograph--actually, as many as three!--eliminates many of the variables:

By itself, what you say is correct. But the point is that we are comparing

two windshields, not just one. That eliminates many variables.

The key question is: if the motorcycle cops were sitting (rolling), and Mary

were standing (ready to take a photo), on a basketball court, whether the

top of the windshields would have been above or below her lens. If there

is substantial evidence to say that they would have been below her lens,

then the issue is reopened. If they are above her lens, then there is no

way around it, in my opinion.

Jack's discovery of the Tina Towner photograph, I believe, makes the matter far more complex to resolve. Indeed, the following conclusions appear to me to be the case:

(4) Towner's photo is highly comparable to the Moorman in many respects.

(5) Arguments about being run over in the street thus have no foundation.

(6) The camber in the street may be the most important of the variables.

I am therefore inclined to agree with Jack that the argument is inconclusive. But notice that, if it is taken as further evidence of internal features that show the Moorman was taken from the grass, this does not change (1), (2), or (3). Indeed, while they support one argument,

(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;

(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;

(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street;

we now appear to have yet another. David, Jack, and I conducted our experiment on the LOS properly. It has been confirmed many times. I therefore make yet another argument:

(7) The Mantik/Fetzer experiment established internal evidence it was taken on the street;

(8) The Miller/Costella argument establishes internal evidence it was taken on the grass;

(9) The Moorman photograph displays internal properties that are physically incompatible.

In his earlier study of frame 232 published in LIFE, Costella observed that there were at least two physically incompatible features of the frame, one in the foreground and one in the background. On that basis, he rejected the frame as a fake. In these studies of the photo, I observe that there are at least two physically incompatible features of the Moorman, one in the foreground and one in the background. If premises (8) is accepted--that is, if Miller's argument is adopted--then, given premise (7), the photo should be rejected as a fake (9).

Based upon this line of argument, therefore, I conclude that, if the Miller/Costella argument is accepted, then it follows that there is internal evidence of the photo having been taken from the grass. The Tina Towner photograph, however, in my judgment, throws that claim into serious doubt. I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH JACK THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. But, if it were to be accepted, then it confirms that the photo is a fake.

The other observation that appears to follow from this discussion is that, since the photo of Mary with Jim Featherson probably represents the time at which his thumb print was made on the film, where the acid generally ate away at the image, especially of the motorcycles, as Jack has explained to me, the Zippo copies are our best evidence about the content of the photograph. It therefore appears to me that arguments attacking Jack, David and me for using the Zippo are misplaced and unwarranted, one more example of the assortment of weak arguments that have been advanced to defeat our confirmation of Jack's discovery, which, of course, should come as no surprise.

[Chris Davidson]

If someone would like to prove that all films/photos are in sync with each other, please obtain Meyer's " EPIPOLAR GEOMETRIC ANALYSIS"

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

The PDF link is just below the photo and to the right.

Read through it and if you're convinced he has properly completed his synchronization, ask yourself how Tina Towner's camera was capable of shooting at 23/24FPS.

I have that model camera. It shoots at 16-18 FPS on full wind.

There's a long way to go until we arrive at a seamless conclusion.

chris

Edited March 10, 2009 by Chris Davidson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It's called satire, which is grounded in reality. I was playing off your bizarre mind-set. Only you could have misunderstood. Did you really graduate from Yale? After all, everyone should have a chance to get to know "the real you"! Can you really, really, really be this dumb?

So let me get this right. You admit writing this and posting it, right? Just to make sure, here it is:

"The man (that's me, Thompson, right?) is pea-green with envy -- which you can actually see when the light is just right! -- because I am more intelligent, more accomplished, and better looking. He is small in every way -- physically, mentally, and emotionally. Rumor has it his brain is so minute the most powerful microscopes have been unable to detect it.

And I have also been more successful with women. I had (what my wife regards as) an inappropriate relationship with a member of the staff, who was also married, the Chancellor's best friend. When she turned on me (for reasons I do not remotely understand), the Chancellor hung me out to dry -- and he is even envious of that!

Everyone knows this about him. It is sad. Pathetic."

So let me get this right. You are saying of what's written above: "Egad! Do you really have no sense of humor AT ALL? I knew you would leap out of your chair if I made that remark. But I did not expect you to frazzle your brain over it." In short, you are saying that your writing of what's above was some sort of weird joke. That's what you're saying, right?

If that is what you're saying, you are one sad puppy. I'm sure your wife enjoys your humor. I can't believe you actually published the above not just on the JFK-research site but resurrected it here for no good reason.

I just wanted to get this straight here. All the rest of the stuff about Moorman-Towner I'm going to take up on a separate thread.

Josiah Thompson

Egad! Do you really have no sense of humor AT ALL? I knew you would leap out of your chair if I made that remark. But I did not expect you to frazzle your brain over it. Worse than your incapacity to appreciate tongue-in-cheek humor, however, is your lack of appreciation for the elements of conditional logic.

The argument is CONDITIONAL: It has an "IF ... THEN ___" structure, if that is not too difficult for a Yale Ph.D. to understand. What I conclude is that, IF the Miller/Costella argument is accepted, THEN it follows that there is internal evidence of the photo having been taken from the grass. Consider the following:

(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;

(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;

(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.

These are John's premises, which you have never understood. He agrees with you on (1), but he agrees with me on (2). It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one Mary took (3). Those are John's premises and John's conclusion. Try reading his key post in response to Mack's verification.

(4) Towner's photo is highly comparable to the Moorman in many respects.

(5) Arguments about being run over in the street thus have no foundation.

(6) The camber in the street may be the most important of the variables.

In my opinion, the camber is sufficient that, depending precisely where the motorcycles were situated on the street, relative to the camber, they could have yielded virtually any comparison, with the more distant higher or lower than the less distant. Jack made the crucial point: there are many variables.

(7) The Mantik/Fetzer experiment established internal evidence it was taken on the street;

(8) The Miller/Costella argument establishes internal evidence it was taken on the grass;

(9) The Moorman photograph displays internal properties that are physically incompatible.

This is the CONDITIONAL PART OF THE ARGUMENT. The Tina Towner photograph, in my judgment, throws premise (8) into serious doubt. I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH JACK THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. But, if it were to be accepted, then it confirms that the photo is a fake, which, I presume, is not what you were looking for. Let me repeat that: IF IT WERE TO BE ACCEPTED--which is not my position--THEN IT CONFIRMS THAT THE PHOTO IS A FAKE.

As it happens, I understand Costella's position, but you do not. Why the photo would be faked, I do not profess to know, but my guess would be there was something in the pergola area that had to be obfuscated and, when the alteration was done, it was not done quite right. The astounding part is not that a mistake was made, but that Jack White noticed the line of sight that you have done so much to obscure.

STUDY COSTELLA's post, because what he is telling you is that his position on the photo is what I have offered here as (1), (2), and (3). He does agree with Miller about (8), but I do not, because I regard the evidence especially given the Tina Towner photo, as leaving the matter in an inconclusive state--there are too many variables with missing values. Your enduring misunderstanding is making you look like a mental midget:

____________

Re: FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID ON NOVEMBER 22ND.

Josiah,

I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you. I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source wasn't Gary Mack. But at that time I thought you were going to reveal that she didn't say she stepped into the street at all.

As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the assassination, she said she stepped into the street. Given that this is damaging to your case (and his), I now agree that his authority is impeccable.

Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:

1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens.

2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has repeated to this day, that she stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE PHOTO FROM THE STREET.

3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the President's or Jackie's attention.

4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like frozen turkeys:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../jfk/clip_C.mov

5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.

6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.

The net results are:

A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as presenting a consistent depiction of the assassination.

B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic evidence is fraudulent.

C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is impeached as evidence -- its admissibility relies on the testimony of the photographer.

D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can see for no one else seeing her step into the street is that she did it AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.

As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman Polaroid as telling us anything at all. What surprises me the most is that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of WHETHER SHE STEPPED INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from, is the key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder film. The Polaroid is irrelevant in all this.

My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and has tried to make me understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't read his section in "Pig on a Leash" should do so. (And let me also say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006, when he dug out his transcript.)

I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it as vehemently as Jim, past behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving us this explosive and unequivocal evidence confirming Lifton's transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun. I think we've all learned a lot in the past week.

John

_________________

So it is simply false that I have been "forced to admit that Bill Miller's proof concerning the motorcycles is correct". And this lapse, on your part, I take it, is because you never read anything I have written carefully, probably because it makes it easier for you to misrepresent. We also find that your argument about being run over if she were in the street has no basis and that the Zippos are our "best evidence". Fraud and fakery, alas!, are still your middle name.

In reading your last post, Professor, a quote from you kept running through my mind. You will remember writing at. About a week ago you were berating some guy you disagreed with over on the JFK-research board. You told him:"Presumably, unlike Zachary Luing, I am qualified to make an assessment of this kind. If Zachary wants scholarly credentials, then he can study mine at length, and swoon." Yeah right. And you even provided a link where Luing could find those credentials to swoon over!

You’ve just been forced to admit that Bill Miller’s proof concerning the motorcycles is correct. Yet for the last six years you have been berating Bill Miller for being “unqualified.” His proof, of rather dazzling simplicity, shows that having a Ph.D. like yours only prepares someone to be a blowhard. Miller’s proof has been around since 2002 and John Costella even vouched for it on JFK-research a couple of months ago. And you are just catching up!

Your post also demonstrates a second point. Since you do no original research, you really don’t know your ass from your elbow about any of the claims you make. Your whole post is filled up with going back to Costella or White to find out what to believe about any particular point in argument. In short, what your post demonstrates is that you are simply the flack for other people’s theories or claims.

There is no reason even to mention the irrelevance of the Tina Towner photo – a last gasp on Jack White’s part to come up with something. So what is there to deal with in your latest post? The only thing I can think of is your use of John Costella’s opinion. Since you have no particular understanding, I guess of anything, you keep referring back to his opinion. Cool. Let’s look at exactly what his opinion is. He wrote on December 21, 2008:

“My position on Moorman has not changed since May 2002. The extant Polaroid could not have been taken from the street by Mary. If she really did step onto the street when taking it, then the extant photo cannot be genuine. But since we have no corroborating evidence for Mary being on the street, other than her own say-so, then I don’t tie myself down to either conclusion. Her photo may well be genuine – most of it, anyway. I have said that my gut is that I lean more towards seeing her step into the street, if we ever see a genuine film, than not – but this is just gut feeling. The issue is open.”

So on the one hand we have Costella’s understanding that internal evidence in the photo shows that it was taken from the grass. This is the opposite of what you and White have been claiming. That's why, back in December, you were ready to throw Costella under the bus. It is also the case that there is “no corroborating evidence for Mary being on the street.” However, says Costella, the extant Moorman photo may have been falsified. If so, then it may have been taken from the street. Costella goes on to say that he has “just a gut feeling” that it was taken from the street. So on the one hand we have overwhelming evidence from the photo itself, from other films and photos, from eyewitness reports. On the other hand, we have Costella’s “gut feeling.” This would be like saying of the Michelson-Morley experiment: On the one hand we have these observations which seem to confirm Einstein’s theory of relativity and the lack of an “ether.” On the other hand, this physicist John Costella has “a gut feeling” that there really is an “ether” and Einstein was wrong.

Is it your position now, Professor Fetzer, that the Moorman photo has been falsified by persons unknown to falsely indicate it was taken from the grass? Is that what your whole argument now comes down to?

Bill Miller has advanced an argument about the Moorman which, I have belatedly discovered,

I have never addressed. I had formed the impression that John Costella had explained that

it was "inconclusive" in the past and, for that reason, I set it to one side. I have now learned

from John that, in fact, he likes the argument and even endorses it. Here is a post from him

when I wrote to ask him if he believes the windshield argument supports the inference that

the photo was taken from the grass, which is not the same as MARY taking if from the grass:

Jim,

It does. It relies on the height of the windshield, of course, but

let's assume that they are correct that if you put Mary on a

basketball court next to one of those motorcycles, her lens would be

below the top of the windshield. That seems to be highly likely to be

true.

If that's the case, and if the two motorcycles are essentially the

same, then if she was on the street, the near cycle's windshield would

extend higher in her photo than the far cycle. The only way for her

lens to "see the far one over the top of the near one" would be to

elevate her lens above the height of the windshield tops. The only way

to do that is to put her up on the grass.

It is an ingenious argument, and doesn't rely on much.

John

So the weight of John's expertise falls on the side of Miller's argument, which is important

especially since he has done so much excellent work demonstrating that the Zapruder is a

recreation. Sometimes it astounds me how Tink wants to "pick and choose" between John's

support for the photo having internal features that show it was taken from the grass and his

belief that Mary was actually in the street, which implies that the photo, like the film, must

be a fake. Since I have given John's response to Gary Mack's confirmation that Mary had

said, "I stepped into the street", about three hours after the event in "Moorman/Zapruder

Revisited" and in "Tink rolls the dice", as well as in posts on this and other fora, I assume

I do not have to repeat it here. But John's position is subtle on this point, which I accent:

(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;

(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;

(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.

In relation to the internal features of the photograph itself, Jack has observed the following:

It is notable that it IS SEEN ONLY IN THE ZIPPO PRINT. The thumbprint

obscures it in all other Moorman prints.

Tentative observations.

1. No other part of the Hargis motorcycle is seen...no handlebars, gas tank,

rider, arms, hands anything...only the windshield.

2. The windshield is extremely blurry.

3. The Moorman photo shows Hargis lagging behind Martin. I am not sure

other films and photos do.

4. I need to redo my studies of the cop helmets. Two styles are seen in

Moorman, and they may not be correct.

John, in fact, agrees with these points by Jack and adds that, in his view, the photographic

record, which is a shambles of alteration and fabrication, serves as a great distraction:

> > He's right on that - and in general, of the things I have looked at

> > there is nothing in the Moorman Polaroid that supports it being

> > taken from the street. And I did discuss the windshield argument in

> > the forum.

> >

> > As to what really happened, you know that my take is that the

> > photographic evidence is a crock. But while attention is fixated on

> > the Moorman Polaroid showing her to be in the street, the truth will

> > recede ever further into the background.

Thus, his study of the eyewitness accounts, which has been published in the latest issue

of assassinationresearch.com, in John's view, provides a far more reliable foundation for

drawing inferences about what actually happened in Dealey Plaza than does the photos

and films, where his and other studies by David Mantik, David Lifton, Jack White, and

others--especially those collected together in HOAX--illustrate the problem of relying on

photos and films, the vast majority of which have been proved to be altered or faked.

Jack turned up a photo taken by Tina Towner, while she was standing in the street:

Jim...as luck would have it, Tina Towner, STANDING IN THE STREET, shota frame

almost identical to the Moorman view of the windshield and limo. The two images are

so close, I conclude that the matter is INCONCLUSIVE without knowing the following:

TINA

1. How close was Hargis to Tina?

2. How close was the limo to her?

3. What was the distance between limo and Hargis' windshield?

4. What was the windshield height above the street?

5. How tall was Tina?

6. Was the street flat in that area?

7. Did the street slope downhill in that area?

8. How did the focal length of the lens affect the image?

MARY

1. How close was Hargis to Mary?

2. How close was the limo to her?

3. What was the distance between limo and Hargis' windshield?

4. What was the windshield height given the camber and slope of Elm?

5. How tall was Mary compared to Tina?

6. How much was the camber of the street in each lane?

7. Did the street slope downhill in that area? (known, 3 degrees)

8. How did the focal length of the lens affect the image?

Since most of these VARIABLE factors are UNKNOWN, it is impossible to make any

definite conclusions. Therefore I say that the windshield issue is unknowable and

immaterial.

John replied that, while Jack was right, the fact that there are two windshields in

the photograph--actually, as many as three!--eliminates many of the variables:

By itself, what you say is correct. But the point is that we are comparing

two windshields, not just one. That eliminates many variables.

The key question is: if the motorcycle cops were sitting (rolling), and Mary

were standing (ready to take a photo), on a basketball court, whether the

top of the windshields would have been above or below her lens. If there

is substantial evidence to say that they would have been below her lens,

then the issue is reopened. If they are above her lens, then there is no

way around it, in my opinion.

Jack's discovery of the Tina Towner photograph, I believe, makes the matter far more complex to resolve. Indeed, the following conclusions appear to me to be the case:

(4) Towner's photo is highly comparable to the Moorman in many respects.

(5) Arguments about being run over in the street thus have no foundation.

(6) The camber in the street may be the most important of the variables.

I am therefore inclined to agree with Jack that the argument is inconclusive. But notice that, if it is taken as further evidence of internal features that show the Moorman was taken from the grass, this does not change (1), (2), or (3). Indeed, while they support one argument,

(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;

(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;

(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street;

we now appear to have yet another. David, Jack, and I conducted our experiment on the LOS properly. It has been confirmed many times. I therefore make yet another argument:

(7) The Mantik/Fetzer experiment established internal evidence it was taken on the street;

(8) The Miller/Costella argument establishes internal evidence it was taken on the grass;

(9) The Moorman photograph displays internal properties that are physically incompatible.

In his earlier study of frame 232 published in LIFE, Costella observed that there were at least two physically incompatible features of the frame, one in the foreground and one in the background. On that basis, he rejected the frame as a fake. In these studies of the photo, I observe that there are at least two physically incompatible features of the Moorman, one in the foreground and one in the background. If premises (8) is accepted--that is, if Miller's argument is adopted--then, given premise (7), the photo should be rejected as a fake (9).

Based upon this line of argument, therefore, I conclude that, if the Miller/Costella argument is accepted, then it follows that there is internal evidence of the photo having been taken from the grass. The Tina Towner photograph, however, in my judgment, throws that claim into serious doubt. I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH JACK THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. But, if it were to be accepted, then it confirms that the photo is a fake.

The other observation that appears to follow from this discussion is that, since the photo of Mary with Jim Featherson probably represents the time at which his thumb print was made on the film, where the acid generally ate away at the image, especially of the motorcycles, as Jack has explained to me, the Zippo copies are our best evidence about the content of the photograph. It therefore appears to me that arguments attacking Jack, David and me for using the Zippo are misplaced and unwarranted, one more example of the assortment of weak arguments that have been advanced to defeat our confirmation of Jack's discovery, which, of course, should come as no surprise.

Edited March 10, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Jim...remember, a degree from Yale guarantees nothing. Look at Dubya Bush, who cannot

even put two sentences together coherently.

And remember...

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I don't want to strain your brain, but we had no camera to attach to the transit.

Un fricking believable! Two PhD's and a "photo expert" and you can't figure out a simple process called afocal projection? Or it was impossible to replace the transit with a camera at the same height? "Photo expert" LMAO! "PhD's" roflmao!

You clowns are a laughing stock!

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...726543a3adef4f3

Russ;

Time will of course tell, but history may also record that a debt of

gratitude is owed to the illustrious (if not mis-guided) Dr. Fetzer

and his work:

"ASSASSINATION SCIENCE". Had he not published (without my

authorization) that

information as regards the altered survey data/Z-film association, as

presented to him by Chuck Marlar, I would not have re-entered this

arena.

However, that my data which was in all truth factual, was mixed in

with much

of the "PURE GARBAGE" of this book, somewhat irritated me.

I must find the time to read his work on "Artificial Intelligence" as

this

may be one area in which he is fully qualified to speak.

To JKO, it would appear that we may have much in common!

1. There was a Lone Assassin

2. There were three shots fired

3. Much of the original published evidence is true.

4. The SBT is an intentional mis-representation of the facts.

5. The WC shot sequencing/scenario is an intentional

mis-representation of

the facts.

6. The WC expended so much time on their manipulation of the facts

related

to how the assassination occurred, they forgot to fully verify

Oswalds'

actual role/participation.

A few others beside this!

Glad to see you out on this limb with me JKO. I had thought I was by

myself

and it was quite lonely sitting out here.

Tom P

[John Dolva]

If someone would like to prove that all films/photos are in sync with each other, please obtain Meyer's " EPIPOLAR GEOMETRIC ANALYSIS"

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

The PDF link is just below the photo and to the right.

Read through it and if you're convinced he has properly completed his synchronization, ask yourself how Tina Towner's camera was capable of shooting at 23/24FPS.

I have that model camera. It shoots at 16-18 FPS on full wind.

There's a long way to go until we arrive at a seamless conclusion.

chris

Chris, that's an astute observation IMO. When I first read it I was somewhat miffed that it in timing (publication) post dated the work in our 'missing Nix.. topic without any reference to where he got the idea from.(I say our because of the multiple contributions from forum members(including yourself, which gives me an opportunity to mention a post you made there early on that has rtemained in my mind as something significant but not dealt with in the hullabaloo at the time).

However synchronicity in research is always happening. In this case a fundamental building block appears flawed. That is important.

[Bill Miller]

Jim...remember, a degree from Yale guarantees nothing. Look at Dubya Bush, who cannot

even put two sentences together coherently.

And remember...

So Dubya Bush being a goof is supposed to mean what ... that all Yale grads are idiots??? Is that like all photographers must be bone-heads because one in particular claimed Jean Hill was standing in the street during the shooting when Jean said she was back out of it before the first shot was fired ... that hardly seems justifiable.

Bill Miller

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Notice how often Josiah changes the subject or creates a new thread. I suspect it has to do with people like me and Jack being on the verge of hitting on something important. In an earlier post, I was speculating as to why a Yale Ph.D. in philosophy would commit so many fallacies in argument--such as the straw man (by exaggerating my position to make it easier to attack) and especially special pleading (by offering only the evidence that supports your side)--DELIBERATELY, since he has to know better. And I made a remark about Yale's tradition of involvement with the OSS and the CIA, which may have struck a nerve. He is not an idiot, but his conduct is not that of an investigator who wants to uncover the truth.

I left a similarly dangling issue in this post when I made the following observation: "Why the photo would be faked, I do not profess to know, but my guess would be there was something in the pergola area that had to be obfuscated and, when the alteration was done, it was not done quite right. The astounding part is not that a mistake was made, but that Jack White noticed the line of sight that you have done so much to obscure." I believe that Jack may have hit on the reason--or, at least, one of the reasons, since there may be more--for fiddling with the Moorman in the pergola area specifically, which has to do with the images of Sitzman and Zapruder, who might or might not have been there at all. Consider Jack's studies.

In (Z1) the Betzner, Sitzman is 69" tall and Zapruder is 62". In (Z2) the Moorman, their heights are now 66" and 58". In (Z3) the Nix, she is 70" tall and Zapruder (who is now wearing a hat) is 68". And in (Z4) the Willis, Sitzman is 71" tall and Zapruder 64". Now Sitzman cannot be 69" tall and 66" tall and 70" tall and 71" tall and be one person at one location in real time. However, her image could have been introduced into those photos and films to create a presence that was not actually at that place and time. Similarly, for Zapruder, who cannot be 62" tall and 58" tall and 68" tall and 64" tall. Something very odd is taking place here, for the discovery of which we, once again, have Jack White to thank. And this is fascinating stuff.

_______________________________________

Egad! Do you really have no sense of humor AT ALL? I knew you would leap out of your chair if I made that remark. But I did not expect you to frazzle your brain over it. Worse than your incapacity to appreciate tongue-in-cheek humor, however, is your lack of appreciation for the elements of conditional logic.

The argument is CONDITIONAL: It has an "IF ... THEN ___" structure, if that is not too difficult for a Yale Ph.D. to understand. What I conclude is that, IF the Miller/Costella argument is accepted, THEN it follows that there is internal evidence of the photo having been taken from the grass. Consider the following:

(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;

(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;

(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.

These are John's premises, which you have never understood. He agrees with you on (1), but he agrees with me on (2). It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one Mary took (3). Those are John's premises and John's conclusion. Try reading his key post in response to Mack's verification.

(4) Towner's photo is highly comparable to the Moorman in many respects.

(5) Arguments about being run over in the street thus have no foundation.

(6) The camber in the street may be the most important of the variables.

In my opinion, the camber is sufficient that, depending precisely where the motorcycles were situated on the street, relative to the camber, they could have yielded virtually any comparison, with the more distant higher or lower than the less distant. Jack made the crucial point: there are many variables.

(7) The Mantik/Fetzer experiment established internal evidence it was taken on the street;

(8) The Miller/Costella argument establishes internal evidence it was taken on the grass;

(9) The Moorman photograph displays internal properties that are physically incompatible.

This is the CONDITIONAL PART OF THE ARGUMENT. The Tina Towner photograph, in my judgment, throws premise (8) into serious doubt. I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH JACK THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. But, if it were to be accepted, then it confirms that the photo is a fake, which, I presume, is not what you were looking for. Let me repeat that: IF IT WERE TO BE ACCEPTED--which is not my position--THEN IT CONFIRMS THAT THE PHOTO IS A FAKE.

As it happens, I understand Costella's position, but you do not. Why the photo would be faked, I do not profess to know, but my guess would be there was something in the pergola area that had to be obfuscated and, when the alteration was done, it was not done quite right. The astounding part is not that a mistake was made, but that Jack White noticed the line of sight that you have done so much to obscure.

STUDY COSTELLA's post, because what he is telling you is that his position on the photo is what I have offered here as (1), (2), and (3). He does agree with Miller about (8), but I do not, because I regard the evidence especially given the Tina Towner photo, as leaving the matter in an inconclusive state--there are too many variables with missing values. Your enduring misunderstanding is making you look like a mental midget:

____________

Re: FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID ON NOVEMBER 22ND.

Josiah,

I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you. I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source wasn't Gary Mack. But at that time I thought you were going to reveal that she didn't say she stepped into the street at all.

As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the assassination, she said she stepped into the street. Given that this is damaging to your case (and his), I now agree that his authority is impeccable.

Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:

1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens.

2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has repeated to this day, that she stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE PHOTO FROM THE STREET.

3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the President's or Jackie's attention.

4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like frozen turkeys:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../jfk/clip_C.mov

5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.

6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.

The net results are:

A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as presenting a consistent depiction of the assassination.

B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic evidence is fraudulent.

C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is impeached as evidence -- its admissibility relies on the testimony of the photographer.

D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can see for no one else seeing her step into the street is that she did it AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.

As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman Polaroid as telling us anything at all. What surprises me the most is that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of WHETHER SHE STEPPED INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from, is the key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder film. The Polaroid is irrelevant in all this.

My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and has tried to make me understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't read his section in "Pig on a Leash" should do so. (And let me also say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006, when he dug out his transcript.)

I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it as vehemently as Jim, past behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving us this explosive and unequivocal evidence confirming Lifton's transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun. I think we've all learned a lot in the past week.

John

_________________

So it is simply false that I have been "forced to admit that Bill Miller's proof concerning the motorcycles is correct". And this lapse, on your part, I take it, is because you never read anything I have written carefully, probably because it makes it easier for you to misrepresent. We also find that your argument about being run over if she were in the street has no basis and that the Zippos are our "best evidence". Fraud and fakery, alas!, are still your middle name.

Jim...remember, a degree from Yale guarantees nothing. Look at Dubya Bush, who cannot

even put two sentences together coherently.

And remember...

So Dubya Bush being a goof is supposed to mean what ... that all Yale grads are idiots??? Is that like all photographers must be bone-heads because one in particular claimed Jean Hill was standing in the street during the shooting when Jean said she was back out of it before the first shot was fired ... that hardly seems justifiable.

Bill Miller

Edited March 11, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Bill Miller]

I am not sure what posting some more badly thought-out illustrations would do other than helping others see someone making a fool of themselves, and that goal was reached a long time ago.

Why not ask Jack to ride over to Dealey Plaza with a camera and stand in the street with the camera lens height he gives Moorman and shoot that LOS. Would that not be one of the easiest and most scientific ways to approach this subject???

Here is a view from Marie Muchmore's position with two unknown gentlemen who I got to stand-in for this test. It had been pointed out many times in the beginning to both White and Fetzer that had Jean and Mary of been in the street/gutter, then the slope of the hill and drop over the curb would hide the shoes of the two women which can be seen in some of the clearer frames. Several times I have told Fetzer that if Moorman had dropped down into the street after Altgens #6 was exposed like the newest revision of Fetzer's suggest, then Moorman's height compared to Hill's and Brehm's would drop and her physical size would shrink as it did here in this real-world recreation.

So what's next ... We hear Fetzer tell us that the conspirators forefathers were there when the laws of nature were created so to one day hide Moorman's being in the street? Why not, that makes about as much sense as anything else I have heard come from them guys.

Bill Miller

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Notice that these discrepancies lend weigh to the hypothesis that

the Moorman was altered in the pergola area, which may explain

why--even though the photo in general must have been faked, as

John Costella has established--there has been such an enduring

attack on me and Jack for suggesting that something is not right.

As I have elsewhere observed, even though Mary was in the street,

there were multiple reasons for putting her back on the grass, as

David Lifton has observed, in a series of fascinating emails to me,

where he explains the significance of the debate and why it seems

extremely important to the ongoing cover up in the assassination:

> Jim:

>

> I hardly have the time to post on anything that "in a more perfect world" would

> require serious thought, serious composition, rewriting, etc. But. . .here

> goes:

>

> Barb asks something that reveals she probably has not really put herself in

> the position of those involved in this affair‹assuming there was film editing

> (and I certainly believe that to be the case).

>

> For me, the starting point for this discussion is David Healey¹s astute

> observation that ³the curb² formed a serious line of demarcation for those

> involved in such editing.

>

> Anything ³above the line² was in one world (optically speaking); anything

> ³below the line² was in another.

>

> ³Below the line² involved the fabrication of the false motion of the limo,

> going forward from frame to frame. (I think he called that the ³rolling

> matte²).

>

> ³Above the line² was ³the background², which in this case happened to include

> ³the bystanders.²

>

> One does not have to read‹or think much about‹optical printing to understand

> that to ³insert Mary² (and/or anyone else) ³below the line² would immeasurably

> complicate the process.

>

> What is wanted ³below the line² is simply the car ³moving forward² from frame

> to frame‹and certainly not that image, but complicated, terribly complicated,

> by an ³up close and personal² bystander, like Moorman, suddenly entering the

> scene.

>

> Perhaps, in principle, such an alteration could be done. But it seems

> intuitively obvious (at least to me) that it would be far better to

> DE-complicate the problem by ³moving Mary² up to the grass, than to attempt to

> create what is called a ³rolling matte² situation (the car moving forward)

> which, in ADDITION TO whatever issues have to be dealt with, would also have

> to include one or two bystanders who ³flash by² (as part of the ³rolling

> matter²) as the car moves forward.

>

> Of course, there is then this additional issue, and concerns how such a film

> would affect the investigation. If Mary Moorman were to be ³right next to² the

> car (as she basically said she was, in these early media interviews) and if

> that should become ³official² because of her placement in just that manner was

> verified on the Zapruder film, then she would become a ³star witness², perhaps

> ³the closest person to the president when he was shot,² etc etc‹and if she

> THEN testified about the car stop, it would magnify the importance of that,

> and immediately focus even more attention on that issue.

>

> Can you imagine some lawyer on the staff of the Warren Commission, arguing

> that the car could not have stopped because ³the film doesn¹t show it², when

> the person right next to the car said it did? And talked of an extended time

> frame of the shooting that was completely at odds with what the film showed?

>

> What I¹m saying is that had Moorman testified to these matters as ³facts,² and

> if the film showed her poised right next to the car (assuming that could have

> been done, optically) but with the car-stop removed, then the top of what is

> really a Pandora¹s Box of interrelated issues could easily spring open.

>

> The way to minimize all this is to minimize the impact of Mary Moorman¹s

> account, and the way to do that is to simply put her up on the grass, having

> her ³innocuously take² the photograph she did.

>

> As I recall: the top FBI official in Dallas (Gemberling) had a car immediately

> sent to Hill¹s home, in order to bring her in and speak with her. That was

> before the ³let¹s minimize² her account² behavior began.

>

> If the film showed Moorman, right there in the street, and right next to the

> car, then her entire account of having waited, stepped into the street, aimed,

> waiting. . And then ³clicked² (with the car stopped, essentially)--all that

> would have cast serious doubt on the validity of the film, which showed

> nothing of the kind.

>

> Any sharp attorney on the Commission could then have raised some serious red

> flags, and that could be another manner in which ³the record² would contain

> still additional information pointing to the film as possibly having been

> altered, fabricated, etc.

>

> So that¹s my ³answer² as to why Moorman had to be moved ³up onto the grass.²

> The starting point is that she ³had to be somewhere² (i.e., she couldn¹t be

> ignored, since her picture was distributed nationally on 11/22 or 11/23).

> ³Moving Mary up on the grass² was a sensible way to deal with the problem, and

> the reality that, from an optical editor¹s point of view, the curb was a

> dividing line of sorts; so ³moving Mary² up on the grass vastly simplified the

> fabrication of a false film.

>

> Hope these remarks contribute.

>

> DSL

When I thanked him for making some astute observations, he wrote again:

No problem, but. . .: keep in mind that mine is a totally subjective

impression.

Again let me stress that if Moorman (and Hill) were in fact in the street,

and then "lifted up" and "moved" over to the lawn, then sophisticated

optical editing/fabrication was done. That means there must have been a

graphics house somewhere that synthesized the multiple frauds involved here,

presumably with a big green light from the Johnson White House saying "Do

what you have to do--we don't want a nuclear war", etc.

You can't do this kind of work without lots of intermediate steps, work

prints, 16 (or, more likely 35 mm) work; etc Altering the films--to change

"the reality of the event" --is as significant as altering the wounds, or

removing bullets.

Someone has to edit "what actually happened" to fit the "story" of what was

suspposed to have happened. And then edit the "collateral" films

accordingly. Its not rocket science, but it would take some time and

technical talent.

So we're dealing with a very significant (and technically complex) coverup

(or "cleanup", depending on one's perspective).

DSL

> Excellent, David! I can't seem to post anything without a typo or a

> misspelling. I like your point about the perception of the wall. If

> you have no objection, I would like to use it in a forthcoming reply.

> And I can re-post it with more paragraph breaks, as you also suggest.

>

> Many thanks!

>

> Jim

>

> Quoting "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>:

>

>> Jim:

>>

. . .

>>

>> My subjective impression is that Lamson is full of baloney when he says "

>> You are comitting fraud." To the contrary, you have gone out of your way to

>> meticulously clarify what you folks have done, and what it proves.

>>

>> For what its worth--as someone who was intrigued by, and spent much time

>> with, the Moorman photograph, starting in the Spring of 1965 (and this is

>> subjecjtive): It always seemed pretty clear to me that the camera must have

>> been "down in the street" to get that exaggerated angle and height of "the

>> wall." When I first visited Dealey Plaza (Nov 1971)--and even after having

>> studied many photographs of the area--I was still a bit surprised to see how

>> "low" the wall was, in reality, compared with the impression one got of "the

>> wall" from the Moorman photo. It seemed to me that the camera had to be down

>> in the street, and "tilted up" towards the pergola, to get that view. Again,

>> these statements are not based on any quantitative data.

>>

>> Best, DSL

>>

In relation to the discover of Moorman in the Street" on YouTube, which can

be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO8vnfieuDshe , he also wrote:

I just watched that U-Tube video. . Several times. . .

Surely this video is from 20 years ago (or more?).

When I see evidence like this, I really get disgusted the with likes of

Thompson, and others, who don't seem to understand the critical importance

of what Mary Moorman is saying.

I spent an hour or more, visiting with Moorman, in 1971--and although I have

no filmed record, this is basically what she told me.

If Moorman's account is correct, then obviously the Zapruder film has been

altered. . And I see no plausible way to believe that Moorman conjured up

such a completely false account. I really find that ridiculous.

To the contrary: in view of the multiple car stop witnesses, its clear that

the film has been altered.

What Moorman's account does is indicate the extent of the alteration; the

truly sophisticated optical work that was done, to "lift" Moorman from the

street, and place her (and Hill, probably) up on the grass.

This is state of the art special effects work, circa 1963.

For years---and this is based on the fact that he never owned up to major

errors in Six Seconds--I've felt that Thompson has a puny little ego that

won't permit him to own up to the fact that the foundation for the entire

book he wrote back in 1967 was falsified evidence. So he's wedded to that

"1967 reality," where the Z film was the be-all and end-all.

Well, it isn't.

. . .

Notice how often Josiah changes the subject or creates a new thread. I suspect it has to do with people like me and Jack being on the verge of hitting on something important. In an earlier post, I was speculating as to why a Yale Ph.D. in philosophy would commit so many fallacies in argument--such as the straw man (by exaggerating my position to make it easier to attack) and especially special pleading (by offering only the evidence that supports your side)--DELIBERATELY, since he has to know better. And I made a remark about Yale's tradition of involvement with the OSS and the CIA, which may have struck a nerve. He is not an idiot, but his conduct is not that of an investigator who wants to uncover the truth.

I left a similarly dangling issue in this post when I made the following observation: "Why the photo would be faked, I do not profess to know, but my guess would be there was something in the pergola area that had to be obfuscated and, when the alteration was done, it was not done quite right. The astounding part is not that a mistake was made, but that Jack White noticed the line of sight that you have done so much to obscure." I believe that Jack may have hit on the reason--or, at least, one of the reasons, since there may be more--for fiddling with the Moorman in the pergola area specifically, which has to do with the images of Sitzman and Zapruder, who might or might not have been there at all. Consider Jack's studies.

In (Z1) the Betzner, Sitzman is 69" tall and Zapruder is 62". In (Z2) the Moorman, their heights are now 66" and 58". In (Z3) the Nix, she is 70" tall and Zapruder (who is now wearing a hat) is 68". And in (Z4) the Willis, Sitzman is 71" tall and Zapruder 64". Now Sitzman cannot be 69" tall and 66" tall and 70" tall and 71" tall and be one person at one location in real time. However, her image could have been introduced into those photos and films to create a presence that was not actually at that place and time. Similarly, for Zapruder, who cannot be 62" tall and 58" tall and 68" tall and 64" tall. Something very odd is taking place here, for the discovery of which we, once again, have Jack White to thank. And this is fascinating stuff.

_______________________________________

Egad! Do you really have no sense of humor AT ALL? I knew you would leap out of your chair if I made that remark. But I did not expect you to frazzle your brain over it. Worse than your incapacity to appreciate tongue-in-cheek humor, however, is your lack of appreciation for the elements of conditional logic.

The argument is CONDITIONAL: It has an "IF ... THEN ___" structure, if that is not too difficult for a Yale Ph.D. to understand. What I conclude is that, IF the Miller/Costella argument is accepted, THEN it follows that there is internal evidence of the photo having been taken from the grass. Consider the following:

(1) He agrees with Tink: internal features of the Moorman show it was taken on the grass;

(2) He agrees with me: Mary stepped into the street, just as she has said again and again;

(3) It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.

These are John's premises, which you have never understood. He agrees with you on (1), but he agrees with me on (2). It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one Mary took (3). Those are John's premises and John's conclusion. Try reading his key post in response to Mack's verification.

(4) Towner's photo is highly comparable to the Moorman in many respects.

(5) Arguments about being run over in the street thus have no foundation.

(6) The camber in the street may be the most important of the variables.

In my opinion, the camber is sufficient that, depending precisely where the motorcycles were situated on the street, relative to the camber, they could have yielded virtually any comparison, with the more distant higher or lower than the less distant. Jack made the crucial point: there are many variables.

(7) The Mantik/Fetzer experiment established internal evidence it was taken on the street;

(8) The Miller/Costella argument establishes internal evidence it was taken on the grass;

(9) The Moorman photograph displays internal properties that are physically incompatible.

This is the CONDITIONAL PART OF THE ARGUMENT. The Tina Towner photograph, in my judgment, throws premise (8) into serious doubt. I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH JACK THAT THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. But, if it were to be accepted, then it confirms that the photo is a fake, which, I presume, is not what you were looking for. Let me repeat that: IF IT WERE TO BE ACCEPTED--which is not my position--THEN IT CONFIRMS THAT THE PHOTO IS A FAKE.

As it happens, I understand Costella's position, but you do not. Why the photo would be faked, I do not profess to know, but my guess would be there was something in the pergola area that had to be obfuscated and, when the alteration was done, it was not done quite right. The astounding part is not that a mistake was made, but that Jack White noticed the line of sight that you have done so much to obscure.

STUDY COSTELLA's post, because what he is telling you is that his position on the photo is what I have offered here as (1), (2), and (3). He does agree with Miller about (8), but I do not, because I regard the evidence especially given the Tina Towner photo, as leaving the matter in an inconclusive state--there are too many variables with missing values. Your enduring misunderstanding is making you look like a mental midget:

____________

Re: FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID ON NOVEMBER 22ND.

Josiah,

I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you. I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source wasn't Gary Mack. But at that time I thought you were going to reveal that she didn't say she stepped into the street at all.

As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the assassination, she said she stepped into the street. Given that this is damaging to your case (and his), I now agree that his authority is impeccable.

Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:

1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens.

2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has repeated to this day, that she stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE PHOTO FROM THE STREET.

3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the President's or Jackie's attention.

4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like frozen turkeys:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../jfk/clip_C.mov

5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.

6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.

The net results are:

A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as presenting a consistent depiction of the assassination.

B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic evidence is fraudulent.

C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is impeached as evidence -- its admissibility relies on the testimony of the photographer.

D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can see for no one else seeing her step into the street is that she did it AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.

As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman Polaroid as telling us anything at all. What surprises me the most is that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of WHETHER SHE STEPPED INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from, is the key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder film. The Polaroid is irrelevant in all this.

My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and has tried to make me understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't read his section in "Pig on a Leash" should do so. (And let me also say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006, when he dug out his transcript.)

I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it as vehemently as Jim, past behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving us this explosive and unequivocal evidence confirming Lifton's transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun. I think we've all learned a lot in the past week.

John

_________________

So it is simply false that I have been "forced to admit that Bill Miller's proof concerning the motorcycles is correct". And this lapse, on your part, I take it, is because you never read anything I have written carefully, probably because it makes it easier for you to misrepresent. We also find that your argument about being run over if she were in the street has no basis and that the Zippos are our "best evidence". Fraud and fakery, alas!, are still your middle name.

Jim...remember, a degree from Yale guarantees nothing. Look at Dubya Bush, who cannot

even put two sentences together coherently.

And remember...

So Dubya Bush being a goof is supposed to mean what ... that all Yale grads are idiots??? Is that like all photographers must be bone-heads because one in particular claimed Jean Hill was standing in the street during the shooting when Jean said she was back out of it before the first shot was fired ... that hardly seems justifiable.

Bill Miller

Edited March 11, 2009 by James H. Fetzer