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

[Josiah Thompson]

Jack White wrote: “I request that the graphic headed JACK WHITE, WHITE LOS be removed. It is false that it represents my opinion regarding the Moorman line of sight. I have NEVER represented that graphic as expressing my belief, so it is a lie to say that I have. I did take the photo, but I took dozens of OTHERS to demonstrate lines of sight AT VARIOUS HEIGHTS. To choose one of many and say it represents MY BELIEF is totally false, and I ask that it be removed at once and an apology be rendered for the deliberately misleading implication.”

You never took a photo of the White LOS when you said it was 44.5" above the turf. When you and Fetzer returned to Dealey Plaza with a transit and guaranteed that the White LOS was 41.5" above the turf, you didn’t take a photo either. However, you and Fetzer did state in MIDP and TGZF what that LOS was. You said in MIDP: “I discovered a point within the photo that aligned two widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight. At the left is a graphic image of the two points of reference I aligned, which are easily located in the plaza. Two edges of the window openings in the rear of the paragola (sic) (A and in the photo exactly coincide with the top and south edge of the pedestal (C and D). As you can see, the angles AB and CD form a large cross (+), which is readily perceived across Elm where Moorman stood to take her picture.” And Fetzer did write in TGZF that “structural features of the Dealey Plaza pergola provided a line-of-sight present in the Moorman that should permit a determination of Mary’s location at the time she took her famous photo. These features are the left-hand side and the top of the pedestal from which Abraham Zapruder was allegedly taking his film and the bottom and right-hand side of the window behind them. These features create two points in space that are located approximately 35 feet apart, generating an imaginary line to the lens of her camera about 100 feet away.”

It is also true that you took a number of photos from Moorman’s position at various heights. Here they are:

Take a good look at the photo taken from 41.5" above the ground. Fetzer earlier said that that particular photo showed what he saw through the transit when you all decided that the White LOS was 41.5" above the turf. Or take a look at another photo you posted with the legend “Replication of sightline:”

When you wrote “Replication of sightline” over that photo and then compared it with blurry copies of the Zippo print, weren’t you referring to the White LOS? How could you be referring to anything but the White LOS? In that illustration, you tried to claim that your various angles that make the “cross” really did show what you pictured in “Replication of sightline.” Craig Lamson has given the lie to this with a simple but devastating illustration:

Let me say, Jack, I hold no particular animus to you. Fetzer is something else. You just made a mistake. However, to continue on this path, to ask for an apology for “a deliberately misleading implication” is just silly. Why not give it up, finally?

Josiah Thompson

I request that the graphic headed JACK WHITE, WHITE LOS be removed. It is false that it represents

my opinion regarding the Moorman line of sight. I have NEVER represented that graphic as expressing

my belief, so it is a lie to say that I have. I did take the photo, but I took dozens of OTHERS to demonstrate

lines of sight AT VARIOUS HEIGHTS. To choose one of many and say it represents MY BELIEF is totally

false, and I ask that it be removed at once and an apology be rendered for the deliberately misleading

implication.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

Fetzer writes: “Bear in mind that, not only is Josiah Thompson persisting in the gross misrepresentation of the line of sight, which is defined by four lateral edges, as I have explained time and time again– only to have Josiah reiterate his deception, especially for the benefit of a new target audience (which may be less knowing and therefore easier to deceive)--where the "point" he talks about (and I myself before engaging in this latest, protracted debate, sometimes used to describe it myself) created by the intersection of the top of the pedestal and its left-hand side exists only in space! It is not a physical point, which puts the lie to the succession of photographs that are alleged to show "Jack's line of sight" but actually do no such thing. I find it simply disgusting that he would so blatantly attempt to pull the rug over anyone's eyes at this point in time, but then, I suppose, nothing should surprise me any more.”

Explained in the paper was the fact that the White LOS can be described in several ways. One way is to say it is formed by the lining up of “two points in space.” These are the right top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom left corner of the pergola window beyond. This is how Fetzer described it when he wrote in TGZFH “that certain structural features of the Dealey Plaza pergola provided a line-of-sight present in the Moorman that should permit a determination of Mary’s location at the time she took her famous photo. These features are the left-hand side and the top of the pedestal from which Abraham Zapruder was allegedly taking his film and the bottom and right-hand side of the window behind them. These features create two points in space that are located approximately 35 feet apart, generating an imaginary line to the lens of her camera about 100 feet away.” It can also be described in a more opaque way as being defined “by four lateral edges.” Either way you describe it, you end up with the same result. In the Moorman photo, neither the “two points in space” nor the “four lateral edges” come into alignment. Craig Lamson has shown this with an illuminating illustration:

Fetzer writes: “So Thompson appears to be misrepresenting the results of the Janowitz/Dehaeseleer experiment, which, of course, is par for the course in these discussions”

Fetzer’s argument is with his erstwhile collaborator, John Costella. I wrote only: “John Costella recently described a further test of which I was unaware. According to Costella, Rick Janowitz carried out an experiment suggested by Marcel Dehaeseleer. This happened in 2003. Costella described the experiment as a simple comparison of the field of view in the Moorman photo with the field of view produced by the same camera lens when placed in the street or placed in the grass. “If Mary were in the street,” wrote Costella on December 14, 2008, “you would not see as much background as if she were in the grass, simply because she was closer to everything in the background. Janowitz and Marcel (if their research was done as well as it seemed) proved that the field of view of the extant Moorman [photo] corresponds to that of a grass position, not a street position.” [NOTE: See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6048. I have been unable to find any monograph or posting giving the results of this experiment.]

Fetzer writes: “The most stunning example of misrepresentation, I suspect, is in relation to Costella's own work. Josiah and his followers often claim John has no opinion about where Mary was standing, even though he CHANGED HIS MIND and concluded that Mary was probably in the street.”

John Costella 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 into the street when taking it, then the extant photo cannot be genuine. But since we have no corroborating evidence for Mary being in the street, other than her own say-so, then I don’t tie myself down to either conclusion. I have said that my gut feeling 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.” This is what John Costella said. No one has misrepresented anything. Costella says explicitly that he has not changed his mind on this since 2002. The reference for the Costella quote is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6230.

Fetzer writes: “If [Thompson does not survive critical scrutiny, he will have exposed himself as a charlatan and a knave. There is no other explanation for these logical and evidential atrocities than that he has an agenda to defeat research that enhances our understanding of the true causes of the death of JFK. He poses as though he were some kind of guardian of intellectual purity in the research community, when he has in fact infected it with his poisonous venom. Not everyone has been taken in by this exhibition of duplicity... What other explanation is possible? If he is not an op, he acts as if he were. The evidence is simply overwhelming.... Nothing quite captures their modus operandi so perfectly as the section in "Pig on a Leash" in which David Lifton describes his observations about Mack's efforts to manage Mary's words and actions in the preparation of a documentary on the assassination. It is remarkable and revealing about the cancer that has spread within the research community. As in the case of cancer affecting our physical health, this cancer affects our mental health. It takes a powerful dose of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning to overcome it, which, no doubt, is why those of us who are doing what we can to promote it have come under such relentless and unscrupulous attacks. Think about it. Tink is a Ph.D. from Yale with a doctoral degree in philosophy. He is also a professional PI. The arguments he is presenting are so fallacious and the claims he is advancing are so shabby there can be no other explanation.”

These are strong words. It is true that I find Professor Fetzer’s penchant for reducing research on the Kennedy assassination to the intellectual level of the National Enquirer to be a drag. However, what is most wearisome is that he's such a bore. The words in the above paragraph amply illustrate his style... that of an incredible and finally wearisome blowhard. And there is the fact that he never admits he's made a mistake. That means we're going to hear him droning on in this murky cloud of bloviation for day after day after day. Since our job is really done... since we've achieved what we set out to achieve... I may just go fishing and let Fetzer bore the rest of you.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Josiah Thompson

[Bill Miller]

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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

[David G. Healy]

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.

Wow! Allright! Now we can move on to the REAL issue, the Zapruder Film.... So, when are the seamless film advocates of Dealey Plaza (more commonly called: Lone Nut, anti-film alerationists-WCR supporters) going to deliver proof thaaaaaat the seamless films (of Dealey Plaza 11/22) are indeed seamless? Thus propping up their position that the Zapruder film is NOT altered. Time to talk to Robert Groden guys, heretell he's got access to most all the 11/22/63 *film* frames (and that is what you need, the frames)

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Lets deal with the most glaring mistake first. Jack has once again made a complete fool of himself, The FBI Moorman also shows the windshields without being obscured by the thumbprint.

[Craig Lamson]

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,

I just love it when White makes a statement and shows his gross inability to analyse photography.

Towner and Mooorman are not comparable, and in fact it is quite easy to spot the fact that the Towner camera was much lower than the Moorman camera. How would we do that? Its really quite simple, just watch the Towner film and observe the trunklid of the limo. Can you see as much of it, along the width of the limo in Towner as you see in Moorman? Of course not, you can only see a sliver of the width because the towmer camera is lower than the Moorman camera. In Moorman you see a pretty good bit of the trunklid width, meaning Moormans lens was higher than Towners.

Gosh, Jim went to all of that trouble, false logic and all, and it was for nothing, just one more ruse in his vain attempt to support his failed position.

[Craig Lamson]

Jim, you cite Costella's work often as being correct, can you please tell us how you verifed the results of his "scientific" studies?

[Bill Miller]

Mr. Fetzer ... Jack can think he sees all kinds of things, but go to your Towner image and look at how big the cycle rider is and how he looks against the background. The height of those cycle stands against the background between the street and the slope so that little stupid stuff in trying to bring them together is impossible.

Jack is known for not being able to read an image worth a damn - how else could he have missed the obvious. The laws of nature are never wrong ... they need no enforcement ... or did you forget that! It cannot be both ways. One can go on about whether the windscreens may be an inch higher or so, but even you must surely know that they do not reach the top of the doorway of the shelter.

People misread images ... the laws of nature do not.

Bill Miller

PS: If you cite Costella, will you please date the quotes you are using for we don't want to get confused between his opinions given before he found his error from after it was found.

Its like someone writing bad checks saying that they thought it was Ok to do so because there was plenty of money to cover them before their arithmetic error was found. Lets try and use some of that critical thinking and apply those laws of nature that need no enforcement.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Wow! Allright! Now we can move on to the REAL issue, the Zapruder Film.... So, when are the seamless film advocates of Dealey Plaza (more commonly called: Lone Nut, anti-film alerationists-WCR supporters) going to deliver proof thaaaaaat the seamless films (of Dealey Plaza 11/22) are indeed seamless? Thus propping up their position that the Zapruder film is NOT altered. Time to talk to Robert Groden guys, heretell he's got access to most all the 11/22/63 *film* frames (and that is what you need, the frames)

David, here is a note that may interest you ...

Dear 'Drunky da'Clown',

If you do a forum search you will find that the filmes were looked at by several members here and put in motion while running in sync with one another. Go look at the films and the work they did (Dolva and Len I think?) and then see if you have any more questions to raise.

Bill Miller

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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 James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I could not agree with you more. The entire operation is a psy op to distract attention from the massive evidence that proves the alteration of the Zapruder, which in turn impeaches the authenticity of the Muchmore and the Nix. I have made this point on many occasions, including in "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited" and "Tink rolls the dice". Here is a sampler of the kinds of issues that deserve discussion on this forum, if we are sincerely devoted to discovering the truth about the death of JFK. The fact that they steadfastly refuse to confront these issues indicates that they have a different agenda than truth:

Remember, the assassination films are authentic only if the events which they depict corresponds to what actually happened at that time and in that place. It is not enough for the Zapruder, Muchmore, and Nix to be consistent with one another, since Muchmore and Nix could have been altered to conform to the Zapruder. What happened to the unresponsive spectators? the Greer head turns? the "blob" and the blood spray painted in? the absence of brains and debris being blown out the back of his head? the absence of brains and debris on the trunk of the limo? the publication of 232 in LIFE with physically impossible features? the rapid dissipation of the blood spray? mistakes made inserting the Simmons Freeway sign into the film? mistakes in introducing the lamppost into the film? the removal of Connally’s turn to his left? Irwin Schwartz’ report of seeing JFK’s brains blown out to the left rear? the visible blow-out to the back of his head seen in frames around 374? Homer McMahon’s report of observing 6-8 impacts on bodies? reports from William Reymond, Rich DellaRosa and others of having seen viewed the film with features that we had predicted based on medical evidence and eyewitness accounts? the absence of witnesses reporting the back-and-to-the-left motion that is the most conspicuous feature of the extant film? the missing limo stop? the absence of Chaney's motoring forward to notify Chief Curry JFK had been shot? Each of these impeaches the Zapruder film.

Josiah has adopted the pose that there is a simple choice between accepting Mary's testimony that she was really in the street—which “Moorman/Zapruder Revisited” documents, but which this new piece misrepresents; indeed, a new find is a video of Mary explaining how she stepped into the street to take her photograph, "Moorman In The Street - JFK Assassination", on YouTube—and the alleged consistency of all of the films and photographs, when consistency is not enough to establish authenticity. He writes as though Costella were on his side, when he is actually Tink’s greatest nightmare. It is as though he has not read "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" (OpEdNews), presenting John's latest proof, much less THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. Indeed, none of what I have said here even reaches to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, ( the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the right-front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten after twice breaking the plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that night (HOAX, page 435)! In fact, none of it is true. Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back of his head. Not one of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the mortician! It's not just that Tink’slittle boat has sprung a leak. It has sunk like a sieve into the ocean of truth!

But, of course, getting serious about JFK research entails abandoning the illusion that, if Jack, David and I are wrong about the Moorman, then the Zapruder is authentic; that the authenticity of the films is proven by their consistency; that there is no evidence to impeach the authenticity of the Zapruder; that photos and films have primacy over witness testimony, when witness testimony is required for their admissibiity; and other absurdities advocated by Josiah Thompson, a Yale Ph.D. in philosophy and professional PI who has to know that these claims are not simply false but obviously mistaken. Wasting time on the Moorman appears to be his conception of a contribution to JFK research. Why he should adopt such a ridiculous attitude I leave for others to judge.

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.

Wow! Allright! Now we can move on to the REAL issue, the Zapruder Film.... So, when are the seamless film advocates of Dealey Plaza (more commonly called: Lone Nut, anti-film alerationists-WCR supporters) going to deliver proof thaaaaaat the seamless films (of Dealey Plaza 11/22) are indeed seamless? Thus propping up their position that the Zapruder film is NOT altered. Time to talk to Robert Groden guys, heretell he's got access to most all the 11/22/63 *film* frames (and that is what you need, the frames)

Edited March 9, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Bill Miller]

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.

Mr. Fetzer ... I'm supposed to be a stooge and yet it is you clowns who post all these pictures of yourselves playing with a transit while claiming you had no camera.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I don't want to strain your brain, but we had no camera to attach to the transit. Our alignment was verified by Jack White, Stewart Galanor, and even Todd Vaughan. It was properly done. Many others have replicated our experiment with similar results, even including Tink Thompson and Gary Mack! I have explained all of this many times, which means that this is one more in an endless series of harassment posts. I confess, when I though you might be more sincere than the others, I was taking you for your better.

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.

Mr. Fetzer ... I'm supposed to be a stooge and yet it is you clowns who post all these pictures of yourselves playing with a transit while claiming you had no camera.

[Bill Miller]

I don't want to strain your brain, but we had no camera to attach to the transit. Our alignment was verified by Jack White, Stewart Galanor, and even Todd Vaughan. It was properly done. Many others have replicated our experiment with similar results, even including Tink Thompson and Gary Mack! I have explained all of this many times, which means that this is one more in an endless series of harassment posts. I confess, when I though you might be more sincere than the others, I was taking you for your better.

Mr. Fetzer, if you cannot keep the simple things straight, then how can you be expected to be accurate on the more detailed things. Mack and Thompson did not get similar results to yours.

And your remark about not having a camera attached to the transit ... One of you jokers claimed not to have a camera. Once its pointed out that a camera must have been there to have taken your photos ... its now the camera wasn't attached to the transit. But the critical thinker that you are ... you could have handed Mantik the camera and he gotten a picture holding the camera to the transit like (it would have been attached in any other fashion).