Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jack, let's try an experiment...


Recommended Posts

I know it’s never... or very seldom... done on this forum or any other. But let’s try an experiment. Instead of circling each other as opposing gladiators, trying to score a point here or a point there... let’s try to talk honestly and earnestly about what is in front of us. I’m going to tell you exactly where I’m coming from and why I’ve been asking the questions I’ve been asking. I hope, given that kind of display of good will and honesty, that you will reply in kind.

First, let me say it was generous of you to acknowledge that twenty some years ago I provided you and Gary Mack with my best copies of the Moorman photo. This has always been the way I’ve gone about things but it was good of you to acknowledge it.

I first heard of your Moorman claim back when we were all dueling on the DellaRosa site... that was long before Barb and I (and possibly Craig) all got kicked off for messing with you and Fetzer. Back in those days, it was not easy to get to see a copy of the Moorman photo that included Zapruder and the pedestal. That was because the UPI version of the photo that had been the most widely distributed had that right part of the photo cropped off. However, I pulled several complete versions out of my file and looked at them with a magnifying glass. I was amazed. It was clear by inspection that the two points you were talking about didn’t line up. It was an ingenious idea that you had but it was wrong by inspection. I posted what I saw on DellaRosa’s board and Todd Vaughan complimented me on seeing something that hadn’t been noticed before. Then someone gave me Fetzer’s book and I noticed the rather hyperbolic claim... “MOORMAN POLAROID PHOTO CONTAINS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF ZAPRUDER FILM TAMPERING.” I figured that was Fetzer not you. Then I looked at the photo that accompanied the claim. “What the hell are all these red lines doing there?" I asked myself "You can’t see the crucial area where the points are supposed to line up.” I already knew what was under the lines since I’d studied my photo with a magnifying glass. But just for amusement, I pulled out one the higher resolution ones and cropped it to fit your illustration. The result was this comparison that I’m sure you’ve seen before:

Redlinesandwithout.jpg

I think I was able to post this on the DellaRosa forum before getting kicked off. I know it was before you and Fetzer and Mantik took a transit to Dealey Plaza and performed your celebrated “experiment.” I think it was about the same time that you began substituting the “Zippo copy” for all other copies in your various “proofs, etc.” However, it was only through Craig Lamson’s great eye a few days ago that I was able to see something really important. You have been claiming over the last few days that the illustration in MIDP was put together using the “Zippo copy.” Craig saw clearly that this was not the case since there were fragments of the fingerprint on the illustration and these fragments are present only on the more high resolution copies.

Okay, so here is what I think and what I would beg you to discuss in your answer. I don’t know why you made the error in the first place but mistakes happen. Were you aware of this when you and Fetzer put together your illustration? Were you aware that if you stripped off the red lines your illustration showed the opposite of what you said it showed? Moving on, is this why you switched from the higher resolution copy used in the illustration to the "Zippo copy" that even Costella says is awful? Or to put it more neutrally, why did you start using to illustrate your argument what is obviously the worst copy we have of the Moorman photo? Finally, why have you been claiming for several days that you used the Zippo copy for the illustration when it is obvious that you used a higher resolution copy to make it up? probably the Gordon Smith copy... am I right?

When I first looked at the Moorman photo and noticed the two points didn’t line up, I thought this was a minor error of yours and that the argument would disappear like so many others. But it didn’t. Here we are six or so years later and we’re still talking about it. I hope you might be able to throw some light on the questions asked above and help me get some clarity concerning what really happened. I would be grateful for that.

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I ALWAYS TALK HONESTLY ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Yes Jack. It's just a shame it's out of your xxxx. Or xxx, whatever you call it over there.

Every single one of your xxxxx xxxxxx studies has been proven to be the product of an xxxxxxx or biased mind. You cannot respond to those criticisms. Rather than move towards the truth (which the Warren Commisson established over forty years ago) you seem intent on veering away from it. Then your supporters, like Fetzer (read my books, read my books), Healey (dur, dur, dur, dur) jump in to steer the car towards the curb.

Jack, feel free to type AD HOMINEM in capital letters (there you go, I've saved you the job - copy and paste). I'm sure you're a loveable, wonderful man, and I'd be happy to talk to you over a pint of real ale, but .... well, give up. Find something more useful to do. Do you have a garden?

Lemkin - ban me, I don't care. By the by, you're an utter nutter. I told my friend about you (injured in the fake London tube attacks) and she burst into tears. Do you have any grip on reality?

Why normal people waste their time on something called "The Edukashun Forum" is beyond me. There are good people here - and you know who you are. Give it up, ignore these morons.

Paul.

Edited by Peter Lemkin - next time I won't be so easy on you Paul. I suggest you examine your anger and apparent hate. Ad homs and constant attacks are not allowed. Just as the sun is having increased solar activity now, you seem to be exuding increased ad hom activity.

Edited by Peter Lemkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ALWAYS TALK HONESTLY ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Yes Jack. It's just a shame it's out of your xxxx. Or xxx, whatever you call it over there.

Every single one of your xxxxx xxxxxx studies has been proven to be the product of an xxxxxxx or biased mind. You cannot respond to those criticisms. Rather than move towards the truth (which the Warren Commisson established over forty years ago) you seem intent on veering away from it. Then your supporters, like Fetzer (read my books, read my books), Healey (dur, dur, dur, dur) jump in to steer the car towards the curb.

Jack, feel free to type AD HOMINEM in capital letters (there you go, I've saved you the job - copy and paste). I'm sure you're a loveable, wonderful man, and I'd be happy to talk to you over a pint of real ale, but .... well, give up. Find something more useful to do. Do you have a garden?

Lemkin - ban me, I don't care. By the by, you're an utter nutter. I told my friend about you (injured in the fake London tube attacks) and she burst into tears. Do you have any grip on reality?

Why normal people waste their time on something called "The Edukashun Forum" is beyond me. There are good people here - and you know who you are. Give it up, ignore these morons.

Paul.

Paul, if you think that the inaccuracy of some of Jack's studies in any way supports the "truth established by the Warren Commission", you really need to study the evidence with blinders off... Many of us here argue against Jack's studies indicating the evidence is fake because we know, to as great a certainty as humanly possible, that the evidence suggests a conspiracy, and that arguing it is fake is therefore silly.

If you really have come here just to trash Jack, you should probably go away, as there are plenty of us here to argue against him that can do so without propping up anything as ludicrous as the single-bullet theory.

If you want to defend the single-bullet theory, on the other hand, go ahead, start a new topic on the brilliance of it, and we will make you look every bit as silly as you think you've made Jack White.

Edited by moderator, offensive quote changed to moderated quote.

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, if you think that the inaccuracy of some of Jack's studies in any way supports the "truth established by the Warren Commission", you really need to study the evidence with blinders off...

Every one of Jack White's studies is false. Every single one. Look at MIDP for starters. People like him, and Fetzer and Healey for starters, are so ignorant it defies belief. Eight, nine, ten shots were fired. Mary Poppins was the spotter. If you want to find the truth, start at the evidence. LHO went home on a Thursday to get some "curtain rods". His rifle in the Paines' garage disappeared at about the same time. LHO walked to the TSBD on Friday morning carrying his rifle in a bag. Later on that day the Chief Executive of The United States Of America was shot as he passed that building. I could go on. Work it out, it's not rocket science. The fact that not a single piece of real evidence suggests otherwise tells me that your average CT is a moron.

What's wrong with the single bullet theory? Sixth floor window, straight line ... oh take your sunglasses off. Anyone here know anything about physics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, if you think that the inaccuracy of some of Jack's studies in any way supports the "truth established by the Warren Commission", you really need to study the evidence with blinders off...

Every one of Jack White's studies is false. Every single one. Look at MIDP for starters. People like him, and Fetzer and Healey for starters, are so ignorant it defies belief. Eight, nine, ten shots were fired. Mary Poppins was the spotter.

If you want to find the truth, start at the evidence. LHO went home on a Thursday to get some "curtain rods". His rifle in the Paines' garage disappeared at about the same time. LHO walked to the TSBD on Friday morning carrying his rifle in a bag. Later on that day the Chief Executive of The United States Of America was shot as he passed that building. I could go on. Work it out, it's not rocket science. The fact that not a single piece of real evidence suggests otherwise tells me that your average CT is a moron.

What's wrong with the single bullet theory? Sixth floor window, straight line ... oh take your sunglasses off. Anyone here know anything about physics?

One single piece of real evidence that suggests otherwise:

Oswald - Through the Door Window Glass - Physics Proves Oswald's Innocence

When Roy Truly and Dallas police officer Marion Baker entered the TSBD within a minute of the last shot, they immediatly went to the back of the building and began assending the stairs. Truly was ahead of Baker, but it was Baker who saw a man in the small window of the door leading to the vestibule of the Second Floor lunchroom.

Truly continued up the stairs but Baker stopped and looked in the window and saw a man in the lunchroom, and opened the door, drew his gun and stopped the man as he was about to buy a coke. Truly appeared and said the man, Oswald, was an employee, and the two then continued up the stairs.

After testifying before the Warren Commission, Truly was recalled and placed under oath again and asked ONE question - did the door to the Second Floor lunchoom have an automatic closing mechanism. Yes.

And when seen in the blueprints of the building, the vestibule has TWO doors, one from the west, the one Baker saw Oswald through, and one to the south.

If the one to the west was even partially open, as if Oswald had just passed through there as he had to in order to be the assassin, then the window would have been smaller, as physics will tell you - and Oswald would have been to the left, having already entered the lunchroom. For Baker to have seen Oswald through that window, the door would have had to be closed, and Oswald would have had to have entered the vestibule through the South door, coming from the offices or the men's room or the first floor where he said he was at the time of the assassination.

When the Secret Service began to film their "reenactment" to prove the scenario they wanted to prove, they STOP at that door, knowing that if they open the door, you can no longer see through the window and Oswald is innocent. So they don't bother to go any further and follow the Patsy out of the TSBD and to the bus and to the cab and to the rooming house and to 10th and Patton and to the Theater, because he is no longer a suspect in the assassination.

Presumed Guilty

by Howard Roffman

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PG.pdf

p. 113

The circumstances surrounding the lunchroom encounter indicate that Oswald entered the

lunchroom not by the vestibule door from without, as he would have had he descended from the sixth floor, but through a hallway leading into the vestibule. The outer vestibule door is closed automatically by a closing mechanism on the door (7H591). When Truly arrived on the second floor, he did not see Oswald entering the vestibule (R151). For the Commission's case to be valid, Oswald must have entered the vestibule through the first door before Truly arrived. Baker reached the second floor immediately after Truly and caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald in the vestibule through a small window in the outer door. Although Baker said the vestibule door "might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time" (3H255), it is dubious that he could have distinguished whether the door was fully or "almost" closed.

Baker's and Truly's observations are not at all consistent with Oswald's having entered the vestibule through the first door. Had Oswald done this, he could have been inside the lunchroom well before the automatic mechanism closed the vestibule door. Truly's testimony that he saw no one entering the vestibule indicates either that Oswald was already in the vestibule at this time or was approaching it from another source. However, had Oswald already entered the vestibule when Truly arrived on the second floor, it is doubtful that he would have remained there long enough for Baker to see him seconds later. Likewise, the fact that neither man saw the mechanically closed door in motion is cogent evidence that Oswald did not enter the vestibule through that door.

One of the crucial aspects of Baker's story is his position at the time he caught a "fleeting

glimpse" of a man in the vestibule. Baker marked this position during his testimony as having been immediately adjacent to the stairs at the northwest corner of the building (3H256; CE 497). "I was just stepping out on to the second floor when I caught this glimpse of this man through this doorway," said Baker.

It should be noted that the Report never mentions Baker's position at the time he saw Oswald in the vestibule (R149-51). Instead, it prints a floor plan of the second floor and notes Baker's position "when he observed Oswald in lunchroom" (R150). This location, as indicated in the Report, was immediately outside the vestibule door (see CE 1118). The reader of the Report is left with the impression that Baker saw Oswald in the vestibule as well from this position. However, Baker testified explicitly that he first caught a glimpse of the man in the vestibule from the stairs and, upon running to the vestibule door, saw Oswald in the lunchroom (3H256). The Report's failure to point out Baker's position is significant.

Had Oswald descended from the sixth floor, his path through the vestibule into the lunchroom would have been confined to the north wall of the vestibule. Yet the line of sight from Baker's position at the steps does not include any area near the north wall. From the steps, Baker could have seen only one area in the vestibule—the southeast portion. The only way Oswald could have been in this area on his way to the lunchroom is if he entered the vestibule through the southernmost door, as the previously cited testimony indicates he did.

Oswald could not have entered the vestibule in this manner had he just descended from the sixth floor. The only way he could have gotten to the southern door is from the first floor up through either a large office space or an adjacent corridor. As the Report concedes, Oswald told police he had eaten his lunch on the first floor and gone up to the second to purchase a coke when he encountered an officer (R182).

Thus, Oswald had an alibi. Had he been the sixth-floor gunman, he would have arrived at the lunchroom at least 5 seconds after Baker did, probably more. It is extremely doubtful that he could have entered the vestibule through the first door without Baker's or Truly's having seen the door in motion. Oswald's position in the vestibule when seen by Baker was consistent only with his having come up from the first floor as he told the police.

Oswald could not have been the assassin.

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ALWAYS TALK HONESTLY ABOUT EVERYTHING.

You reply: “I ALWAYS TALK HONESTLY ABOUT EVERYTHING.”

Fine. Then I will quit trying to have anything approaching a real dialogue with you and treat you as the zealot you have chosen to be.

Back in 2000, you published an illustration in MIDP that you said showed the line-up of two points: the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of a pergola window. You covered up the purported line-up of these points with needlessly wide red lines. The Moorman copy you used for the illustration was the “Gordon Smith copy,” a fairly high-resolution copy that you obtained by having Moorman’s Polaroid copied. When the red lines are removed from this copy, it is clear that the two points do not line-up. In short, your claim is shown to be false by inspection.

Redlinesandwithout.jpg

When this was pointed out to you, you simply switched copies. Instead of the reasonably high resolution "Gordon Smith copy," you used the “Zippo copy.” This copy was made by a law enforcement officer using a box camera and shooting the Polaroid from several feet away. As it is enlarged, grain break-up makes it virtually impossible to see details. The result is that details apparent on all the high resolution copies of the Moorman photo ("Gordon Smith copy,"" FBI copy,"" Drum Scan copy") are virtually obliterated. By switching copies, you make it possible to continue making your claim when all other copies of the photo show that it is false by inspection.

When you, Fetzer and Mantik took your transit, to Dealey Plaza you brought along the “Zippo copy.” This permitted you to align the transit along the line-of-sight established by the two points and assured the result you got. Todd Vaughan looked through the transit and told you it was not aligned properly in the vertical dimension. David Mantik’s notes confirm this.

In 2003, you authored a chapter for Fetzer’s TGZFH. Once again, you took up the Moorman-in-the-Street argument. However, instead of using the reasonably high resolution "Gordon Smith copy" as you had in MIDP (2000), you substituted the bleary “Zippo copy.” The “Zippo copy” produced bleary illustrations, but, by doing so, you concealed from the reader the fact that your argument failed by inspection.

Since then you have used exclusively the “Zippo copy.” You say that “for locating the Moorman line of sight, ANY MOORMAN PRINT can be used, since the features of the line of sight are the same.” You say that but your actions belie your words. You have stuck exclusively with the bleary “Zippo copy” because any other copy shows you are wrong.

Switching evidence is generally considered rather bad form or even cheating. Hence, over the last few days, you have been claiming that you never switched anything... that in fact your illustration in MIDP used the “Zippo copy.” This claim is falsified by the obvious fact that fragments of the fingerprint (present only on higher resolution copies and not present on the “Zippo copy”) are present on the MIDP illustration.

So there you are. When challenged, your approach is not to have a civil and informative discussion of the facts, but simply to deny the evidence. Such an approach will work for awhile, but, as the facts pile up against you, no one pays any attention to you anymore. I had hoped we could have a genuine discussion but you have foreclosed that. Too bad.

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one thing Josiah, when you say vertical dimension do you mean a horizontal line along a vertical or a vertical line along a horizontal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...