Dr. Thompson and the old ignoraroo

[Jack White]

Dr. Thompson raves on about an alleged GAP in the Moorman Polaroid...as if it is important.

He IGNORES that ten years ago, I proved that the Moorman image is WORTHLESS as

EVIDENCE of any kind. I made a presentation at the Duluth conference showing that

"Zapruder" and "Sitzman" had been painted on by an artist. But the artist MADE A

CRUCIAL MISTAKE...FOUR WINDOWS IN THE BACKGROUND WHICH SHOULD BE IN

THE PHOTO ARE MISSING!

There can be no other explanation of this anomaly. Independently, John Costella working

in Australia, CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION, and he also presented hia same observation

in his Duluth presentation. So two different presentations were given in Duluth and became

widely published in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. Apparently Dr. Thompson has not

read the book or watched the free online videos.

Dr. Thompson can rave on all he wants about his precious GAP. It is irrelevant and

immaterial. It is clearly retouched, and cannot be admitted into evidence. Ignoring this

anomaly will not make it go away. His "gap" is meaningless, since the area is provably

retouched.

Jack

[Jack White]

Here is another of my window studies. The colorized Moorman was sent to me by a

researcher I cannot remember. The missing windows make Moorman worthless as

evidence.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

Here is another of my window studies. The colorized Moorman was sent to me by a

researcher I cannot remember. The missing windows make Moorman worthless as

evidence.

Jack

This is embarrassing. The windows are not visible because the bodies of Zapruder and Sitzman are blocking them out!

Josiah Thompson

[Josiah Thompson]

Dr. Thompson raves on about an alleged GAP in the Moorman Polaroid...as if it is important.

He IGNORES that ten years ago, I proved that the Moorman image is WORTHLESS as

EVIDENCE of any kind. I made a presentation at the Duluth conference showing that

"Zapruder" and "Sitzman" had been painted on by an artist. But the artist MADE A

CRUCIAL MISTAKE...FOUR WINDOWS IN THE BACKGROUND WHICH SHOULD BE IN

THE PHOTO ARE MISSING!

There can be no other explanation of this anomaly. Independently, John Costella working

in Australia, CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION, and he also presented hia same observation

in his Duluth presentation. So two different presentations were given in Duluth and became

widely published in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. Apparently Dr. Thompson has not

read the book or watched the free online videos.

Dr. Thompson can rave on all he wants about his precious GAP. It is irrelevant and

immaterial. It is clearly retouched, and cannot be admitted into evidence. Ignoring this

anomaly will not make it go away. His "gap" is meaningless, since the area is provably

retouched.

Jack

As the basis for your illustrations, are you once again using the "Zippo copy?" Are you still contending that you used the "Zippo copy" as the basis for your illustration in MIDP? Two simple questions. Please be so kind as to answer.

Josiah Thompson

[John Dugan]

http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html

"Jack White first made a name for himself by trying to show that the famous photographs (e.g., Fig. 1) of accused Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle in his back yard had been falsified. Claiming, among other things, that he had found discrepancies between the measurements of that rifle taken from the photo, and other photographs of the rifle recovered from the Texas School Book Depository, White maintained that Oswald was holding a different rifle than the one believed to be used to shoot President Kennedy.

Unfortunately under examination before the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations White's evidence completely fell apart. He demonstrated almost no understanding of the mathematical and geometrical principles of photogrammetry. He admitted to having received no training in photogrammetry or the forensic analysis of photographs.

His embarrassment before Congress did not stop White from continuing his research on the Kennedy assassination, although his findings remain questionable. Some researchers into Kennedy's assassination consider White something of a crackpot. "

Jack, should you really be "calling out" anyone?

you know, if you look at the clouds in the sky you can see anything you want to see.

Edited February 6, 2010 by John Dugan

[Bernice Moore]

john the clavius site is well known for degrading jack..at every opportunity it has been hateful it is the type of site that chases normal people away and makes one wonder what kind of mind sets those that do contribute have imo,,but then to each their own there is more to the story re the hsca than that little hateful demeaning clip they have posted which does not tell all.......jack has done hundreds of studies searching for the truth for one and all during the past more than 40 years trying to help find that truth i do not think there is another on this board who can say and prove the same as he has constantly done so.. some did start out writing books doing studies articles ec but then they quit or took many years off carried on with what they wanted to do, the complete resolve was only shown by jack white he kept on while many dragged their feet or took time off..there are many derogative remarks about jack on the web on many sites he has been and still is a main target, how would you like it, and do you think you could take it as he has.for the sake of finding out the truth about the conspiracy and death of jfk. who was i might add your president and your familys as well.....and jack still does.take it and still is....the old saying of walk in another mans shoes comes to mind and until one has been on that other receiving end in reality they do not know of what they speak of imo.. i would also like to see any members studies on clavius that have been done r the assassination of their president or is it just one sided talk on their part so they can throw stones but that is all....like they must put their actions where their mouths are unless there are just a drop in the pan and they have moved quickly on..with no interest in the actual truth of their country....perhaps some have done studies i do not know,,but if so i do wish they would present such also may i ask please that you show myself and others interested any of the studies that you may have completed or are these just your thoughts at this time and perhaps as more time passes and you may learn much more..those perhaps with time may change...no offense meant just that i am interested now in seeing some of your work re the assassination.seeing that you have seen fit to clip and post criticism at someone who has done much for all.....thankyou...b

Edited February 6, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[David G. Healy]

http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html

"Jack White first made a name for himself by trying to show that the famous photographs (e.g., Fig. 1) of accused Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle in his back yard had been falsified. Claiming, among other things, that he had found discrepancies between the measurements of that rifle taken from the photo, and other photographs of the rifle recovered from the Texas School Book Depository, White maintained that Oswald was holding a different rifle than the one believed to be used to shoot President Kennedy.

Unfortunately under examination before the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations White's evidence completely fell apart. He demonstrated almost no understanding of the mathematical and geometrical principles of photogrammetry. He admitted to having received no training in photogrammetry or the forensic analysis of photographs.

His embarrassment before Congress did not stop White from continuing his research on the Kennedy assassination, although his findings remain questionable. Some researchers into Kennedy's assassination consider White something of a crackpot. "

Jack, should you really be "calling out" anyone?

you know, if you look at the clouds in the sky you can see anything you want to see.

Hey, hey, hey Dugan....

You another of those trolls that haunt JFK boards or do you really have something to offer in way of case research? Wouldn't want to think you're just another lone nut wannabe's of 6th Floor persuasion.... Btw, ya gotta be original son, ya making your self look like, a hopeful, perhaps Craig Lamson will recognize ya, but don't hold out too much hope...

Cordially yours in research...

Redd Foxx

p.s. till you prove your JFK assassination research mettle, calling out anyone here is downright foolishness on your part..... Carry on...

Edited February 6, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Jack White]

http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html

"Jack White first made a name for himself by trying to show that the famous photographs (e.g., Fig. 1) of accused Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle in his back yard had been falsified. Claiming, among other things, that he had found discrepancies between the measurements of that rifle taken from the photo, and other photographs of the rifle recovered from the Texas School Book Depository, White maintained that Oswald was holding a different rifle than the one believed to be used to shoot President Kennedy.

Unfortunately under examination before the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations White's evidence completely fell apart. He demonstrated almost no understanding of the mathematical and geometrical principles of photogrammetry. He admitted to having received no training in photogrammetry or the forensic analysis of photographs.

His embarrassment before Congress did not stop White from continuing his research on the Kennedy assassination, although his findings remain questionable. Some researchers into Kennedy's assassination consider White something of a crackpot. "

Jack, should you really be "calling out" anyone?

you know, if you look at the clouds in the sky you can see anything you want to see.

Sonny, you are living in the Dark Ages. I was NOT embarrassed by Blakey's attack, which

occurred just before the break for lunch. The Blakey attack OUTRAGED Seth Kantor, and

Nita Totenburg of NPR. Both Seth and Nita challenged Goldsmith and Blakey during the

lunch hour. Nita reported on NPR that studios were flooded with calls of protest. Goldsmith

and Kantor spoke in the cafeteria. I was there. Golddmith apologized, adding that it was

BLAKEY'S METHOD to try to discredit those who doubted the official story. Nina's call to

Blakey telling about the NPR protest calls caused him to back off. After the lunch break

all was "sweetness and light", and I was lavished with praise for having come to Washington

to testify. So Sonny, your accusation does not hold water. I was there. You were not.

"Photogrammetry" was a fancy term used back then mainly by the CIA and a few academics.

All it means is "measuring photographs". I had MEASURED PHOTOGRAPHS to reach most

of my conclusions. But I did not call it photogrammetry because I did not use that term.

It was CIA TERMINOLOGY.

Jack

Edited February 6, 2010 by Jack White

[John Dolva]

The Origin of the Term Photogrammetry

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&sour...G2blLkE-7ple__Q

[Jack White]

Here is another of my window studies. The colorized Moorman was sent to me by a

researcher I cannot remember. The missing windows make Moorman worthless as

evidence.

Jack

This is embarrassing. The windows are not visible because the bodies of Zapruder and Sitzman are blocking them out!

Josiah Thompson

It is EMBARRASSING for Dr. Thompson. It is clear to everyone except him that Zapruder and Sitzman ARE NOT BLOCKING

THE WINDOWS.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Dr. Thompson raves on about an alleged GAP in the Moorman Polaroid...as if it is important.

He IGNORES that ten years ago, I proved that the Moorman image is WORTHLESS as

EVIDENCE of any kind. I made a presentation at the Duluth conference showing that

"Zapruder" and "Sitzman" had been painted on by an artist. But the artist MADE A

CRUCIAL MISTAKE...FOUR WINDOWS IN THE BACKGROUND WHICH SHOULD BE IN

THE PHOTO ARE MISSING!

There can be no other explanation of this anomaly. Independently, John Costella working

in Australia, CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION, and he also presented hia same observation

in his Duluth presentation. So two different presentations were given in Duluth and became

widely published in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. Apparently Dr. Thompson has not

read the book or watched the free online videos.

Dr. Thompson can rave on all he wants about his precious GAP. It is irrelevant and

immaterial. It is clearly retouched, and cannot be admitted into evidence. Ignoring this

anomaly will not make it go away. His "gap" is meaningless, since the area is provably

retouched.

Jack

Sadly for Jack White (and by extension John Costella) all they have proven with this body of work is that they are rather inept at photo analysis.

For the premise White and Costella present to be true (that the windows must be visable and since they are not there must be alteration) it rests on a fact that must be established beyond a doubt.

That fact is the exact location of the left (Zapruders's right) side of Zapruders clothing. It is this edge that will establish the if the window areas are exposed or hidden.

The problem for White and Costella is that this part of Zapruders clothing is in a RIMLIGHT, or area of bright sunlight , compared to the bulk of his clothing which is in open shade. The effect of this rimlight is to move the darkness of Zapruders clothing up the tonal scale. In other words it will record on film lighter than the fabric in open shade.

There are other examples of this present in the Moorman. One of the men on the steps shows this artifact as does the shirt of the motorcycle cop in the lower right side of the image. Given the larger size of the cop in the photo lets use him to illustrate the problem faced by White and Costella. A crop from the Moorman:

Notice the cop in the bottom of the picture and inspect his sleeve. Notice how the top side of his sleeve is in full sun, with the bottom (other side of the crease) is in open shade. This is exaclty what is taking place on Zapruders clothing. The left side of his clothing (in the rimlight) is recorded like the top of the cops sleeve, the rest of his clothing is recorded darker like the bottom of the cops sleeve. Pretty standard stuff.

So how does this effect finding the exact left edge of Zapruders clothing? The probem faced by White and Costella in finding this exact edge is a "tone merge".

A tone merge is when two objects record in the photograph with tonality that is nearly equal, rendering it impossible to distinguish one from the other. This is exactly what happens with left side of Zapruders clothing.

If you go into photoshop and sample the tonality of the light portion of cops sleeve and then sample the tonality of the wall beside Zapruder, you will find, on average, that the tonal values match. If we extend this to the rimlit side of Zapruders clothing, the nature of White and Costella's problem is shown.

They simply can't find the exact left edge of Zapruders clothing, and without it their study proves nothing.

Scratch yet another claim of "alteration"

Edited February 6, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

I had MEASURED PHOTOGRAPHS to reach most

of my conclusions. But I did not call it photogrammetry because I did not use that term.

It was CIA TERMINOLOGY.

Jack

Of course you "measured" things. The problem is you did not measure them properly. Thats why you got shot down, and why it still sticks to this day.

Your spin is meaningless.

[Jack White]

The Origin of the Term Photogrammetry

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&sour...G2blLkE-7ple__Q

My 1967 Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines photogrammetry as the science of making

measurements from aerial photos used for map making.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

In the first post, #1, Jack has already proven the windows should be visible. You and Thompson never tire of grasping after straws!

Dr. Thompson raves on about an alleged GAP in the Moorman Polaroid...as if it is important.

He IGNORES that ten years ago, I proved that the Moorman image is WORTHLESS as

EVIDENCE of any kind. I made a presentation at the Duluth conference showing that

"Zapruder" and "Sitzman" had been painted on by an artist. But the artist MADE A

CRUCIAL MISTAKE...FOUR WINDOWS IN THE BACKGROUND WHICH SHOULD BE IN

THE PHOTO ARE MISSING!

There can be no other explanation of this anomaly. Independently, John Costella working

in Australia, CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION, and he also presented hia same observation

in his Duluth presentation. So two different presentations were given in Duluth and became

widely published in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. Apparently Dr. Thompson has not

read the book or watched the free online videos.

Dr. Thompson can rave on all he wants about his precious GAP. It is irrelevant and

immaterial. It is clearly retouched, and cannot be admitted into evidence. Ignoring this

anomaly will not make it go away. His "gap" is meaningless, since the area is provably

retouched.

Jack

Sadly for Jack White (and by extension John Costella) all they have proven with this body of work is that they are rather inept at photo analysis.

For the premise White and Costella present to be true (that the windows must be visable and since they are not there must be alteration) it rests on a fact that must be established beyond a doubt.

That fact is the exact location of the left (Zapruders's right) side of Zapruders clothing. It is this edge that will establish the if the window areas are exposed or hidden.

The problem for White and Costella is that this part of Zapruders clothing is in a RIMLIGHT, or area of bright sunlight , compared to the bulk of his clothing which is in open shade. The effect of this rimlight is to move the darkness of Zapruders clothing up the tonal scale. In other words it will record on film lighter than the fabric in open shade.

There are other examples of this present in the Moorman. One of the men on the steps shows this artifact as does the shirt of the motorcycle cop in the lower right side of the image. Given the larger size of the cop in the photo lets use him to illustrate the problem faced by White and Costella. A crop from the Moorman:

Notice the cop in the bottom of the picture and inspect his sleeve. Notice how the top side of his sleeve is in full sun, with the bottom (other side of the crease) is in open shade. This is exaclty what is taking place on Zapruders clothing. The left side of his clothing (in the rimlight) is recorded like the top of the cops sleeve, the rest of his clothing is recorded darker like the bottom of the cops sleeve. Pretty standard stuff.

So how does this effect finding the exact left edge of Zapruders clothing? The probem faced by White and Costella in finding this exact edge is a "tone merge".

A tone merge is when two objects record in the photograph with tonality that is nearly equal, rendering it impossible to distinguish one from the other. This is exactly what happens with left side of Zapruders clothing.

If you go into photoshop and sample the tonality of the light portion of cops sleeve and then sample the tonality of the wall beside Zapruder, you will find, on average, that the tonal values match. If we extend this to the rimlit side of Zapruders clothing, the nature of White and Costella's problem is shown.

They simply can't find the exact left edge of Zapruders clothing, and without it their study proves nothing.

Scratch yet another claim of "alteration"

Edited February 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

It is EMBARRASSING for Dr. Thompson. It is clear to everyone except him that Zapruder and Sitzman ARE NOT BLOCKING

THE WINDOWS.

Jack

This thread is largely a distraction, so let's cut to the chase. Let's cut to the question you have been studiously avoiding answering for the last day.

You said two days ago on the “flushing” thread:

“The illustration in MIDP used the ZIPPO copy... Well, I reaffirm that the Zippo copy is what I used. Here is a hi-res scan of the entire Zippo. Note the "black dot" which he says is virtually invisible. He needs to to visit his opthalmologist right away. I do not understand how he can "divine" which of many Moorman copies I used, when I have records of all and KNOW what I did.”

Are you still claiming this? Are you still claiming you used the blurry Zippo copy from the beginning and that you have records to show this? Are you still claiming that you did not start with a reasonably high-resolution copy and then switched when you saw it showed your argument was false? Just a simple answer, Jack. Are you still claiming what you were claiming two days ago? Surely, you can answer such a simple and direct question.

You ask, Why is this important?

It is important, Jack, because the answer to your question tells us a lot about your integrity as a researcher and about the worth of your claim. Did you really just start your research with the “blurriest” of all the Moorman copies? Or did you do what any smart person would do... start with the best copy you had? If the latter, why did you switch? Isn’t it sort of cheating if you find a high resolution copy proves the opposite of what you want to prove, so you move to the worst copy you have? What would you say if you found one of us doing that? Wouldn't the word "cheater" come to mind?

So let’s hear your answer. Our ears are wide open.

Josiah Thompson