Craig Lamson Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Notice that these discrepancies lend weigh to the hypothesis thatthe 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 cannoteven 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 What garbage. Ofd course Lifton is simply full of it. Ther.eis no "above the line/below the line". Parts of the limo and the occupants extend "above the line" Nothing of Moorman IF she had been altered in Zapruder, would not have added more difficulty as it pertains to "below the line/above the line". In fact putting her in the grass IF the film had been altered would have been harder since realistic shadows would have been required. Nothing is harder to illustrate IN THIS ERA OF HIGH END DIGITAL RETOUCHING, than a realistic shadow. Back in the day of analog retouching, realistic shadow were mostly impossible. All in all Lifton offers us nothing but bunk...as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Notice that these discrepancies lend weigh to the hypothesis thatthe 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 cannoteven 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 What garbage. Ofd course Lifton is simply full of it. Ther.eis no "above the line/below the line". Parts of the limo and the occupants extend "above the line" Nothing of Moorman IF she had been altered in Zapruder, would not have added more difficulty as it pertains to "below the line/above the line". In fact putting her in the grass IF the film had been altered would have been harder since realistic shadows would have been required. Nothing is harder to illustrate IN THIS ERA OF HIGH END DIGITAL RETOUCHING, than a realistic shadow. Back in the day of analog retouching, realistic shadow were mostly impossible. All in all Lifton offers us nothing but bunk...as usual. glass artists, Craig -- nothing, NOTHING was impossible including "realistic shadows". Simply depends on the artists capability and specialty (and Hollywierd had the best there was. AND that WAS their job, to make it realistic -- ala believable) -- and for only a few frames to boot? Piece of cake. Also, I doubt there are but few more knowing than David Lifton concerning *conspiracy and the JFK assassination*. One in particular, Mark Lane. And we ALL know what happend to those WCR/SBT supporters that publicly (and private) debated Mark Lane concerning the subject matter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Notice that these discrepancies lend weigh to the hypothesis thatthe 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 cannoteven 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 What garbage. Ofd course Lifton is simply full of it. Ther.eis no "above the line/below the line". Parts of the limo and the occupants extend "above the line" Nothing of Moorman IF she had been altered in Zapruder, would not have added more difficulty as it pertains to "below the line/above the line". In fact putting her in the grass IF the film had been altered would have been harder since realistic shadows would have been required. Nothing is harder to illustrate IN THIS ERA OF HIGH END DIGITAL RETOUCHING, than a realistic shadow. Back in the day of analog retouching, realistic shadow were mostly impossible. All in all Lifton offers us nothing but bunk...as usual. glass artists, Craig -- nothing, NOTHING was impossible including "realistic shadows". Simply depends on the artists capability and specialty (and Hollywierd had the best there was. AND that WAS their job, to make it realistic -- ala believable) -- and for only a few frames to boot? Piece of cake. Also, I doubt there are but few more knowing than David Lifton concerning *conspiracy and the JFK assassination*. One in particular, Mark Lane. And we ALL know what happend to those WCR/SBT supporters that publicly (and private) debated Mark Lane concerning the subject matter.... PASSABLE shadows at 24 frames per second maybe...realistic shadows in a still ( which is what we are dealing with...right?) with analog... on GRASS...never gonna happen. Lifton...His comments about film aleration are based on WHAT Daivd? How much compositing experience? Oh yea, NONE. His comments are bunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 More long threads about the same subject, with more predictable disagreements between the usual suspects. As I've noted before, I'm an agnostic on the subject of film alteration. That being said, I think that discussions like this do little to further the cause we all (I think) are primarily here for. Can all of you who are debating this subject agree on one thing- that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot President Kennedy, and that therefore his death was the result of a conspiracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now