Guest James H. Fetzer Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 All, 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, for example, 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. Something very odd is going on with Josiah Thompson. I left another--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 crucial 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". In (Z4) the Willis, Sitzman is 71" tall and Zapruder 64". And in (Z5) Bronson she is 65" tall and Zapruder 57". Now Sitzman cannot be 69" tall and 66" tall and 70" tall and 71" tall and 65" 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 and 57" tall. Something very odd is taking place here, for the discovery of which we, once again, have Jack White to thank. Perhaps Zapruder did not take "the Zapruder film, because the evidence presented here suggests he wasn't even there! Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 (edited) Notice that these discrepancies strongly support the hypothesis that the Moorman was altered in the pergola area, which may explain why--even though the photo in general must have been faked, as John Costella has established--there has been such an enduring attack on me and Jack for suggesting that something is not right. The purpose has been to distract us from more important issues. The crucial one would appear to be: Was Zapruder even there?, a question that Jack White has been asking even before MURDER. The Costella argument has established that the photo has to have been faked, which is reinforced if the windshield argument is well- founded. Because that, together with our LOS evidence, establishes inconsistent features proving its a fake. While 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. . . . All,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, for example, 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. Something very odd is going on with Josiah Thompson. I left another--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 crucial 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". In (Z4) the Willis, Sitzman is 71" tall and Zapruder 64". And in (Z5) Bronson she is 65" tall and Zapruder 57". Now Sitzman cannot be 69" tall and 66" tall and 70" tall and 71" tall and 65" 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 and 57" tall. Something very odd is taking place here, for the discovery of which we, once again, have Jack White to thank. Perhaps Zapruder did not take "the Zapruder film, because the evidence presented here suggests he wasn't even there! Jim Edited March 11, 2009 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) The crucial one would appear to be: Was Zapruder even there?,a question that Jack White has been asking even before MURDER. Mr. Fetzer, I was not going to reply unless you were able to present something factual and scientific to show that Zapruder did not take his film, but I would like a clarification of your position if you do not mind. Are you saying that someone else stood atop of the pedestal other than Zapruder and Sitzman or that no one was up there at all during the assassination??? Bill Miller Edited March 12, 2009 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Well, Bill, you have done me the kindness of a short question, to which my reply shall be equally brief. The evidence that Jack White has unearthed leaves the matter completely unresolved. There are several possibilities, including that Zapruder was made of rubber, that Zapruder was not there at all, and that someone else stood in for him. We shall see. The crucial one would appear to be: Was Zapruder even there?,a question that Jack White has been asking even before MURDER. Mr. Fetzer, I was not going to reply unless you were able to present something factual and scientific to show that Zapruder did not take his film, but I would like a clarification of your position if you do not mind. Are you saying that someone else stood atop of the pedestal other than Zapruder and Sitzman or that no one was up there at all during the assassination??? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) The evidence that Jack White has unearthed leaves the matter completely unresolved. There are several possibilities, including that Zapruder was made of rubber, that Zapruder was not there at all, and that someone else stood in for him. We shall see. Well Mr. Fetzer ... excuse me for not being a total idiot by contemplating that the figure seen standing on the pedestal and hopping off of it following the shooting was made of rubber. I hope that if the day comes that I ever consider something that stupid, then hopefully someone will cut my full blown dementia short by shooting my dumb behind. Your other option is interesting, but just as silly as the 'made of rubber option'. For Zapruder not to have been on the pedestal and was represented by someone else who must of had vertigo as well (or pretended to) so to shake the camera so much, we must consider Sitzman and both Hester's as accomplices after the fact. What motive could they have had and what justification do you have for saying such a thing so to implicate them in the murder of America's 35th President? And if you go to Trask's book called 'National Nightmare' ... there is a photo taken that shows someone who looks just like Zapruder inside the pedestal with Sitzman and the Hester's. Now would you like to re-think your position so that Bill O'Reilly doesn't have even more ammunition so to call you a nut to millions of viewers. I would also like to know that if you are considering a man made of rubber being on the pedestal or someone shooting a film for Abe (presumably because they must have felt that Abe wasn't capable of using his own camera?), then can we dismiss the moronic claim in Hoax of there not being anyone on the pedestal in lieu of all the evidence??? Bill Miller Edited March 12, 2009 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Well, Bill, you have done me the kindness of a short question, to which my reply shall be equally brief. The evidence that Jack White has unearthed leaves the matter completely unresolved. There are several possibilities, including that Zapruder was made of rubber, that Zapruder was not there at all, and that someone else stood in for him. We shall see. The crucial one would appear to be: Was Zapruder even there?,a question that Jack White has been asking even before MURDER. Mr. Fetzer, I was not going to reply unless you were able to present something factual and scientific to show that Zapruder did not take his film, but I would like a clarification of your position if you do not mind. Are you saying that someone else stood atop of the pedestal other than Zapruder and Sitzman or that no one was up there at all during the assassination??? Bill Miller Or the other possibility, and the most likely considering his track record...White screwed up ..again. All of White "measurements" rely on his correctly finding the top of Zapruder' head. Given the poor images he as worked with and his track record of screwing up things like finding the correct LOS in Moorman, ther is better than even odds he screwed up again! However that ewill not stop Jim Fetzer, who will believe and pimp any lame theory, as long as it fits his needs. BTW Jim, you have never answered the question I ask quite some time ago. How did you verify the claims made by John Costella you have pimped in thiws discussion and published in hoax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Self-Explanatory! (at least to most) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Same alignment/different focal distances! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Should one bother to even mention what a difference the "focal plane" can create? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Quite difficult to merely "look" at a photographic image without having absolutely precise means of measurement confirmation, and therefore determine if the focal plane was in direct parallel alignment with the true vertical plane of the target/image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Without attempting to impugn your intellectual agility, the point of the comparison was that no person could be different heights at such similar times, unless he were made of rubber! Rubber, of course, stretches to different lengths under various pressures, which might explain how he and his secretary can be photographed as having many different heights in five images. I didn't think it would be such a big stretch for your mind. Zapruder and Sitzman may have been in the area, but I have always found it a bit odd that she would climb up on the pedestal, which would have been difficult for anyone but especially a woman in a dress, who, presumably, would want to preserve her modesty. But the question is a bit more basic than that, since we know that "the Zapruder film" is not a film that Zapruder--or anyone else!--could have taken, since it includes events, like the blow-out to the right-front, which are complete fabrications. A film that includes events that did not take place--and excludes others that did, such as Chaney motoring forward, not to mention Mary stepping into the street--cannot be a film that Zapruder took. You might want to review some of my posts on this forum and elsewhere, incuding "New Proof of JFK Video Fakery", which you can find on-line, and, of course, my studies at JFKresearch.com/Moorman/ and JFKresearch.com/Moorman2/ . We need a much better idea of what an authentic film would have shown. Fortunately, Rich DellaRosa, who moderates the JFKresearch.com forum, has viewed (what appears to be) an authentic film of these events on no less than three occasions. He appeared on BlackOpRadio.com on February 26, 2009, where his interview with Len Osanic can be found in its archives, http://blackopradio.com/archives2009.html, for listening and downloading. Because of that appearance, he has been asked questions about what he saw, which he has now answered in "The 'other' film -- FAQs", archived at http://jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php?to...g26647#msg26647 The "other" film -- FAQs Since I appeared recently on Len Osanic's "Black Op" radio program, I have been receiving several questions, I'll try and answer them here: 1. Where can this film be viewed? I really don't know. I believe that copies exist in various places around the world. However I have no knowledge where it can be viewed. I never at any time possessed a copy myself. When I saw it, the film was shown by a person unknown to me along with some others in a suburb of Washington DC (College Park, MD). 2. Do you believe it is an unedited version of the Zapruder Film? Personally, I do not believe the film is in any way a version of the Zapruder film. The Z film appears amateurish to me and unrealistic in the sense that it seems like an animated "cartoon". The "other" film seemed to be professionally done with great color rendition and smooth panning. Additionally, I am unsure as to whether Zapruder shot the film attributed to him. A French photo journalist who saw the film on several occasions does refer to it as an unedited version of the Z film FWIW. 3. What are the major discrepancies in what is seen on both films? The "other" film shows the limo on Houston Street as it turns onto Elm. The Z film does not even though Z testified that he began filming when the limo first came into view and did not stop filming until the limo left the Plaza, The 'other" film shows the limo making a wide turn onto Elm, nearly going up on the curb and as though it first was headed to the service road in front of the TSBD. Greer apparently struggled to navigate into the center of Elm. The crowd appeared quite animated as the limo progressed down Elm St. In the Z film, the crowd appears frozen. In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down, not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive. In the Z film the open umbrella seems stationary except that a slight rotation can be detected. The dark complected man with the cap alternately nicknamed TA (The Accomplice) and The Cuban is seen in the "other" film motioning with an upraised arm while he stepped into the street and was approaching the limo. He formed his up-raised hand into a fist -- perhaps the infantryman's signal to "stop." I have concluded that he was trying to attract Greer and Kellerman to stop the limo exactly at his position -- which they did. the Limo was stopped ~2 to 3 seconds. The Z film shows no stop. The stop was so sudden that it jostled the occupants forward. A portion of this forward motion can be detected in the extant Z film. With the limo stopped, Greer turned to face JFK. At that moment JFK received 2 shots to the head: one from the rear causing his head to move forward slightly and one to the right temple, fired from the front, resulting in a violent explosion out the rear of JFK's head and sending a huge spray of blood and brain matter toward DPD Officer Hargis hitting his helmet with what William Manchester termed a "red sheet" and with such force that Hargis later said he thought he himself was hit. This most gory explosion of matter is not accurately portrayed in the extant Z Film. Apparently once that Greer saw that JFK was hit, he then swung around and accelerated the limo leaving Dealey Plaza and passing the lead car to entrance the Stemmons freeway. 4. If the Zapruder film is altered, why did "they" leave in the explosive head shot? The first thing to keep in mind is that "they" never believed the Z film would be viewed by the public. Members of the WC stated that they believed only a few college professors would even read their report. With Time, Inc. and the FBI controlling access to the Z film they could control who could view it or even selected frames from it. If questioned, they could always say it was being withheld due to concern over the Kennedy family's right to privacy. In 1975, the extant Z film was shown on national TV on Geraldo Rivera's "Goodnight America" program by Robert Groden. That segment can be found on MPI's DVD Image Of An Assassination." The public was shocked to see the head shot. To many, the Z film was proof of a second gunman, one firing from the front. To counter those beliefs a Nobel winning physicist (Luis Alvarez) concocted a "jet effect" theory to explain how a shot from the TSBD could cause the violent "back and to the left" reaction defying Newton's 2nd law of motion. Newton's second law of motion can be formally stated as follows: The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object. (http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/newtlaws/u2l3a.html). The alterationists IMO HAD to leave in the fatal head shot. They couldn't very well claim that JFK was a victim of whiplash. At the necessary time Dr Alvarez was dragged out to produce a total canard. 5. Why was the Zapruder film fabricated/altered? IMO, and simply stated, the purposes of altering the Z film, in order of priority, were: * To remove all evidence of multiple shooters * To remove evidence of shots from any direction but the rear if possible * To remove evidence of Secret Service complicity 6. On 11/23, Dan Rather claimed to have viewed the Z film, the first reporter to do so. He claimed that JFK's head was throw violently forward not backward. How can that be? IMO, he may have been shown an early attempt of an altered film in which the frames were reversed. But it is possible that he saw NO film at all -- and he was instructed what to say. Keep in mind that on 11/22, Rather was simply a TV reporter for the local Dallas CBS affiliate -- but virtually overnight he was promoted to CBS's official White House Correspondent. Quid pro quo?? 7. Will the "other" film ever become accessible to the public? I truly doubt it. It is a dangerous property because that one film proves that JFK was murdered as a part of a well planned and executed conspiracy. It lays the WCR bare as an intentionally written pack of lies and proves the complicity of the Secret Service, the FBI, and the highest levels of the U.S government. I have known of ~ a half dozen people who have seen the film in the distant, past -- yet no two ever saw it in the same place at the same time. I truly wish that someone would come foreward and report a more recent viewing. I truly do. Rich DellaRosa Forum Admin The evidence that Jack White has unearthed leaves the matter completely unresolved. There are several possibilities, including that Zapruder was made of rubber, that Zapruder was not there at all, and that someone else stood in for him. We shall see. Well Mr. Fetzer ... excuse me for not being a total idiot by contemplating that the figure seen standing on the pedestal and hopping off of it following the shooting was made of rubber. I hope that if the day comes that I ever consider something that stupid, then hopefully someone will cut my full blown dementia short by shooting my dumb behind. Your other option is interesting, but just as silly as the 'made of rubber option'. For Zapruder not to have been on the pedestal and was represented by someone else who must of had vertigo as well (or pretended to) so to shake the camera so much, we must consider Sitzman and both Hester's as accomplices after the fact. What motive could they have had and what justification do you have for saying such a thing so to implicate them in the murder of America's 35th President? And if you go to Trask's book called 'National Nightmare' ... there is a photo taken that shows someone who looks just like Zapruder inside the pedestal with Sitzman and the Hester's. Now would you like to re-think your position so that Bill O'Reilly doesn't have even more ammunition so to call you a nut to millions of viewers. I would also like to know that if you are considering a man made of rubber being on the pedestal or someone shooting a film for Abe (presumably because they must have felt that Abe wasn't capable of using his own camera?), then can we dismiss the moronic claim in Hoax of there not being anyone on the pedestal in lieu of all the evidence??? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Tom, These look very interesting, but they belong on a Moorman thread. Please move them there and add some explanation about what you take them to show. Then I and others who care about the Moorman might address them on those threads. Thanks. Jim Quite difficult to merely "look" at a photographic image without having absolutely precise means of measurement confirmation, and therefore determine if the focal plane was in direct parallel alignment with the true vertical plane of the target/image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Jim, you don't have a clue what Tom is showing there! Why do you think this should be in the Moorman thread? LOL! What he shows are basics that apply to everything ... not just Moorman, and in what he posted, it directly applies to the Zapruder on the pedestal issue. Is it any wonder the ridiculousness of the changing heights thesis sounds like a winner to you? Or do you even look at anything Jack White puts in front of you and evaluate it before you promote it? What Tom has demonstrated is only one of the problems with Jack's "proofs" ... and it is all lost on you because by your reply you revealed you are clueless. And you want to be taken seriously with your promotion of this kind of nonsense as proof of anything!? Barb :-) Tom, These look very interesting, but they belong on a Moorman thread. Please move them there and add some explanation about what you take them to show. Then I and others who care about the Moorman might address them on those threads. Thanks. JimQuite difficult to merely "look" at a photographic image without having absolutely precise means of measurement confirmation, and therefore determine if the focal plane was in direct parallel alignment with the true vertical plane of the target/image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 OK, I'll bite. What are you showing here, Tom? Barb seems to think it has something to do with the fabrication of the Zapruder, but that is established by the inclusion of events that did not occur--such as the massive blow-out to the right front--and exclusion of events that did occur--such as Chaney motoring forward or, dare I say it?, Mary stepping into the street. But I thought that I had explained this many times, so I am baffled that Barb, who should know better, apparently does not. Jim, you don't have a clue what Tom is showing there! Why do you think this should be in the Moorman thread? LOL!What he shows are basics that apply to everything ... not just Moorman, and in what he posted, it directly applies to the Zapruder on the pedestal issue. Is it any wonder the ridiculousness of the changing heights thesis sounds like a winner to you? Or do you even look at anything Jack White puts in front of you and evaluate it before you promote it? What Tom has demonstrated is only one of the problems with Jack's "proofs" ... and it is all lost on you because by your reply you revealed you are clueless. And you want to be taken seriously with your promotion of this kind of nonsense as proof of anything!? Barb :-) Tom, These look very interesting, but they belong on a Moorman thread. Please move them there and add some explanation about what you take them to show. Then I and others who care about the Moorman might address them on those threads. Thanks. JimQuite difficult to merely "look" at a photographic image without having absolutely precise means of measurement confirmation, and therefore determine if the focal plane was in direct parallel alignment with the true vertical plane of the target/image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 (edited) ....with the fabrication of the Zapruder, but that is established by the inclusion of events that did not occur--.... (bold mine) ROFLMAO! You really are a piece of work jimbo.... Edited March 15, 2009 by Craig Lamson 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