Dr. Thompson and the old ignoraroo

[Craig Lamson]

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

Great Jim, then please point us to the part of his work that shows with certainity the exact left edge of Zapruders clothing.

If you can't and Jack can't then he has proven exact nothing.

And who is 'GRASPING AT STRAWS"? Opps..Jim Fetzer....

[Jack White]

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

I have many copies of the Moorman photos, most graciously provided by Dr. Thompson himself. I have used all of the better ones

at various times over the past 28 years. I do not keep records of which was used for which study. The only ones I can say

for sure are:

...the Thompson #1 was used for the BADGEMAN studies because of the fidelity of the TONAL values

...the Zippo print was used to locate MOORMAN IN THE STREET because of its HIGHER CONTRAST.

On other studies I cannot remember for sure. It has been 28 years, and I kept no records.

I can only say that I the ones I used were appropriate for each use. Thompson himself provided ALL Moorman copies that

I have, telling Gary Mack that they represented his best prints. Now he complains that one of the prints he furnished was

not suitable for use.

My other copies were made directly from the Moorman original itself, either by myself or my friend Gordon Smith, master

photographer. It is hard to find a source better than the original Polaroid.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

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

...the Zippo print was used to locate MOORMAN IN THE STREET because of its HIGHER CONTRAST.

You understand exactly what the question is and why it is being asked. Then you dance around it. Two days ago, you said you were sure you used the Zippo copy for your illustration. You wrote: "Well, I reaffirm that the Zippo copy is what I used. Here is a hi-res scan of the entire Zippo... I have records of all and KNOW what I did.”

Now you say the "Zippo print was used to locate MOORMAN IN THE STREET because of HIGHER CONTRAST." Is that your answer? Are you maintaining that you used the Zippo copy from the beginning and never switched copies on us? It's a simple question. Why not just answer with equal simplicity?

Josiah Thompson

[Jack White]

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

...the Zippo print was used to locate MOORMAN IN THE STREET because of its HIGHER CONTRAST.

You understand exactly what the question is and why it is being asked. Then you dance around it. Two days ago, you said you were sure you used the Zippo copy for your illustration. You wrote: "Well, I reaffirm that the Zippo copy is what I used. Here is a hi-res scan of the entire Zippo... I have records of all and KNOW what I did.”

Now you say the "Zippo print was used to locate MOORMAN IN THE STREET because of HIGHER CONTRAST." Is that your answer? Are you maintaining that you used the Zippo copy from the beginning and never switched copies on us? It's a simple question. Why not just answer with equal simplicity?

Josiah Thompson

This repeated grilling and repeating the same question over and over is of no importance.

The Moorman photo, although useful in many respects, is WORTHLESS as evidence, because

it is demonstrated that THE ORIGINAL MOORMAN PHOTO HAS BEEN ALTERED TO PLACE

TWO FIGURES UPON THE PEDESTAL. It would not be admissible in any court in the land.

[Craig Lamson]

This repeated grilling and repeating the same question over and over is of no importance.

The Moorman photo, although useful in many respects, is WORTHLESS as evidence, because

it is demonstrated that THE ORIGINAL MOORMAN PHOTO HAS BEEN ALTERED TO PLACE

TWO FIGURES UPON THE PEDESTAL. It would not be admissible in any court in the land.

Jack you claim to be able to understand what you see in a photograph.

Please tell us, by using your powers of inspection, if you used the Zippo in your illustration in MDIP.

Thank you.

[Jack White]

Another study of the missing windows in the Moorman Polaroid.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Another study of the missing windows in the Moorman Polaroid.

Jack

LOL! Close enough, now thats funny. You need to show the exact left edge of Zapruders clothing...I don't see where you did that. Did I miss something?

[Jonathan Cohen]

>This repeated grilling and repeating the same question over and over is of no importance.

>The Moorman photo, although useful in many respects, is WORTHLESS as evidence, because

>it is demonstrated that THE ORIGINAL MOORMAN PHOTO HAS BEEN ALTERED TO PLACE

>TWO FIGURES UPON THE PEDESTAL. It would not be admissible in any court in the land.

Jack, if I'm not mistaken, didn't this photo run on national news wire services within hours of the assassination? If that's the case, how could the photo possibly have been altered in the manner you suggest, given the time constraints?

Edited February 7, 2010 by Jonathan Cohen

[Jack White]

>This repeated grilling and repeating the same question over and over is of no importance.

>The Moorman photo, although useful in many respects, is WORTHLESS as evidence, because

>it is demonstrated that THE ORIGINAL MOORMAN PHOTO HAS BEEN ALTERED TO PLACE

>TWO FIGURES UPON THE PEDESTAL. It would not be admissible in any court in the land.

Jack, if I'm not mistaken, didn't this photo run on national news wire services within hours of the assassination? If that's the case, how could the photo possibly have been altered in the manner you suggest, given the time constraints?

All early versions I know of were CROPPED ON THE LEFT SIDE.

Retouching does not take much time.

[Bernice Moore]

jonathan you may be interested....in these photos....jack i am thinking you may mean the right hand side the pedestal...thanks b...here is the fwpaper...

Edited February 7, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

jack i forget duh... . where was this copy printed in the newspaper , was this the australian one...b?? thanks

Edited February 7, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[John Dugan]

Another study of the missing windows in the Moorman Polaroid.

Jack

are these white spots not part of the windows you say are missing?

And why is your crop, where the windows begin, cutting off part of the person's right side? The entire right arm has been cropped off.

Edited February 7, 2010 by John Dugan

[Jonathan Cohen]

Another study of the missing windows in the Moorman Polaroid.

Jack

are these white spots not part of the windows you say are missing?

And why is your crop, where the windows begin, cutting off part of the person's right side? The entire right arm has been cropped off.

John, I agree with you. I see white spots which certainly appear to be the windows behind Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal.

Jack, every version of the Moorman picture available at Robin Unger's gallery on Duncan Macrae's forum has Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting in terms of its alteration. Do you know of a copy of Moorman where Zapruder and Sitzman are NOT on the pedestal, or are you just pointing out that some versions of the photo were cropped in that area?

[Jack White]

Another study of the missing windows in the Moorman Polaroid.

Jack

are these white spots not part of the windows you say are missing?

And why is your crop, where the windows begin, cutting off part of the person's right side? The entire right arm has been cropped off.

John, I agree with you. I see white spots which certainly appear to be the windows behind Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal.

Jack, every version of the Moorman picture available at Robin Unger's gallery on Duncan Macrae's forum has Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting in terms of its alteration. Do you know of a copy of Moorman where Zapruder and Sitzman are NOT on the pedestal, or are you just pointing out that some versions of the photo were cropped in that area?

There are versions of Moorman where the pedestal area was cropped off on the left. I doubt that I can

find one, but as I recall, Weisberg1 was a version, complete with cutline, sent out by a wire service on 11-22.

It was cropped just short of the pedestal. I have a slide version of it somewhere, but my scan of it was likely

lost about three computers ago.

[David G. Healy]

Another study of the missing windows in the Moorman Polaroid.

Jack

LOL! Close enough, now thats funny. You need to show the exact left edge of Zapruders clothing...I don't see where you did that. Did I miss something?

what's funny is this, Jack. I'd be telling the trolls this: read it and weep dudes, if you dosagree get the latest version of the alleged original, provide its provenance, post it here --then, we'll take it from there....What you lone nut trolls need to do is some original research.... in short, get off your lazy rearends and show us your BEEF!

So Craig, ya got yourself a small stable of wannabes these days, so put the trolls to work, get the original photos and films get them up here....

Dude this is getting boring, that's spelled B-O-R-I-N-G Put that newbie caddie to work!

Edited February 7, 2010 by David G. Healy