Jack, let's try an experiment...

[Jack White]

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.

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

As I have posted on another thread which you ignore, the ZIPPO COPY WAS NOT USED.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL IMAGE USED. It was from a copy I made of the "original" print.

I cannot see whay you say that the + cross OBSCURES the lineup. It may hie your

GAP, but the gap is immaterial. I did NOT use the gap for any alignment. I used the

edges of the pedestal and window. I do not understand your obsession with the gap.

THE GAP IS IRRELEVANT!

Just for you...here is the image used. Note that it has the thumbprint, ruling out the

Zippo print, which does not have the thumbprint. You have wasted thousands of words

on an issue WHICH DOES NOT EXIST.

[Josiah Thompson]

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?

Todd said years ago that he took a look through their transit and that it was fairly close as far as the horizontal (left and right) axis went but was off in terms of the vertical (up and down) axis. I hope Todd might give us his own account.

Josiah Thompson

Edited February 7, 2010 by Josiah Thompson

[Jack White]

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?

Todd said years ago that he took a look through their transit and that it was fairly close as as the horizontal (left and right) axis went but was off in terms of the vertical (up and down) axis. I hope Todd might give us his own account.

Josiah Thompson

You might want to get an opinion from Stewart Galanor. He was there and was dubious

about the experiment. He looked thru the transit after Mantik found the line of sight. He

suggested a very minor adjustment. David made the adjustment, and Stewart agreed

about the lineup. Vaughan came over and wanted to look, although none of us knew

who he was. He looked without any comment to any of us. Any comments from him will

be a dozen years late.

[John Dolva]

Well, I wonder, because if you look at the smaller photo, the edge of the pedestal can be defined as in line with the edge of the inner corner of the openings. There's also a lens distortion to consider given it's peripheral. Sinilarly the ''line'' (should be arc) of the gamma blown out photo as posted is on a different agle to the top of the pedestal, So, I think the vertical line then is close to right, and the horizontal is flawed, and there is a gap there but not quite as much as argued. Anyway that's how it looks to me if using the Zippo. (Also I think Jack misplaces the guys second button above belt.) , so, it's really the horizontal that's the issue, quite apart from the experiment not being completed and that the lens distortion not correctly applied on supporting photos. (I hope that makes sense. It seemed so when I wrote it.. ) And sans a rigorous objective experiment was not carried out, rather, it falls flat on the oft repeated mistake to have what one wants to prove affecting the ''proof''.

[Josiah Thompson]

As I have posted on another thread which you ignore, the ZIPPO COPY WAS NOT USED.

I said you used the "Zippo print" with the transit because that is what you said back on the Yahoo JFK research board when we debated this. If someone has the time, perhaps they can look it up. I wasn't in Dealey Plaza. I have no idea what copy you used or what you said or where you sighted the transit. However, height measurements taken from David Mantik's notes (which he was kind enough to provide to me) show indisputably that you simply aligned the transit on the the two points, thus dispensing with what was actually present in the Moorman photo. Todd's look-see through the transit only confirms this. Whatever was done is more than irrelevant to the crucial issue... do the two points (or two sets of lines, as you would have it) line up in the photo or not? We've shown they don't.

Josiah Thompson

[Josiah Thompson]

Well, I wonder, because if you look at the smaller photo, the edge of the pedestal can be defined as in line with the edge of the inner corner of the openings. There's also a lens distortion to consider given it's peripheral. Sinilarly the ''line'' (should be arc) of the gamma blown out photo as posted is on a different agle to the top of the pedestal, So, I think the vertical line then is close to right, and the horizontal is flawed, and there is a gap there but not quite as much as argued. Anyway that's how it looks to me if using the Zippo. (Also I think Jack misplaces the guys second button above belt.) , so, it's really the horizontal that's the issue, quite apart from the experiment not being completed and that the lens distortion not correctly applied on supporting photos. (I hope that makes sense. It seemed so when I wrote it.. ) And sans a rigorous objective experiment was not carried out, rather, it falls flat on the oft repeated mistake to have what one wants to prove affecting the ''proof''.

Are there any photos I can post to help you with this, John. I would be glad to oblige.

Josiah Thompson

[John Dolva]

Yes, Joshia, thank you for offering. I would like a copy of a lossless least enhanced photo of the Zippo. At the moment I think there is a third explanation that needs looking at, which I predict will show that it is the horizontal ie that which determines the film frames elevation that is too low and she was indeed on the grass. But, even so, a conjunction of lines of sight with a proper DP plat in hand already establishes she was on the grass. (There wasn't an inches deep hole there she stands in, was there?) Any way, I'd be interested to see whether this hypothesis (re elevation) is correct or not.

[Jack White]

Yes, Joshia, thank you for offering. I would like a copy of a lossless least enhanced photo of the Zippo. At the moment I think there is a third explanation that needs looking at, which I predict will show that it is the horizontal ie that which determines the film frames elevation that is too low and she was indeed on the grass. But, even so, a conjunction of lines of sight with a proper DP plat in hand already establishes she was on the grass. (There wasn't an inches deep hole there she stands in, was there?) Any way, I'd be interested to see whether this hypothesis (re elevation) is correct or not.

What is the fascination with the Zippo print? All this has been gone over years ago

and now it is being repeated for a new and younger audience. What does the

Zippo print have to do with anything?

Here is a good copy of the Zippo. Have at it.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Jack White

[Josiah Thompson]

Yes, Joshia, thank you for offering. I would like a copy of a lossless least enhanced photo of the Zippo. At the moment I think there is a third explanation that needs looking at, which I predict will show that it is the horizontal ie that which determines the film frames elevation that is too low and she was indeed on the grass. But, even so, a conjunction of lines of sight with a proper DP plat in hand already establishes she was on the grass. (There wasn't an inches deep hole there she stands in, was there?) Any way, I'd be interested to see whether this hypothesis (re elevation) is correct or not.

Here is what I have, John.

I obtained a copy of the Zippo in 1967 along with a caption from Wide World photos:

The best copy I have is the following one:

Not how the grain break-up makes details difficult to see.

Josiah Thompson

[Josiah Thompson]

Yes, Joshia, thank you for offering. I would like a copy of a lossless least enhanced photo of the Zippo. At the moment I think there is a third explanation that needs looking at, which I predict will show that it is the horizontal ie that which determines the film frames elevation that is too low and she was indeed on the grass. But, even so, a conjunction of lines of sight with a proper DP plat in hand already establishes she was on the grass. (There wasn't an inches deep hole there she stands in, was there?) Any way, I'd be interested to see whether this hypothesis (re elevation) is correct or not.

What is the fascination with the Zippo print? All this has been gone over years ago

and now it is being repeated for a new and younger audience. What does the

Zippo print have to do with anything?

Here is a good copy of the Zippo. Have at it.

The Zippo print is important because you substituted it for much better prints years ago and have been using it to maintain the fiction about Moorman. Because of grain break-up you can't see much detail in the Zippo photo enlargements. That fact permits you to say things you could not get away with if you were referring to higher resolution prints like the one you used in MIDP. I agree with you. The Zippo print is irrelevant. What should be used are the high resolution prints that have been in your possession for over twenty years. Why have you steadfastly avoided useing them since at least 2003? That's the question.

Josiah Thompson

[Dean Hagerman]

Every one of Jack White's studies is false. Every single one.

That was the most rediculous thing I have ever read in my entire life

So Dean, as a student of the images, what Moorman did White use in his MDIP illustration? Was it the Zippo?

Well Craig im not sure, Jack says he did not use the Zippo image so I would have to agree with him, why would he lie about that?

I have looked at many copies of Moorman (Thank you again for letting me download the Drum Scan from you) but I never felt the need to try and see what copy Jack used in his study in MIDP

[Craig Lamson]

Well Craig im not sure, Jack says he did not use the Zippo image so I would have to agree with him, why would he lie about that?

Thats a good question Dean, why did he spend the last few days telling us he DID use the Zippo, until he got caught?

Edited February 8, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

Yes, Joshia, thank you for offering. I would like a copy of a lossless least enhanced photo of the Zippo. At the moment I think there is a third explanation that needs looking at, which I predict will show that it is the horizontal ie that which determines the film frames elevation that is too low and she was indeed on the grass. But, even so, a conjunction of lines of sight with a proper DP plat in hand already establishes she was on the grass. (There wasn't an inches deep hole there she stands in, was there?) Any way, I'd be interested to see whether this hypothesis (re elevation) is correct or not.

What is the fascination with the Zippo print? All this has been gone over years ago

and now it is being repeated for a new and younger audience. What does the

Zippo print have to do with anything?

Here is a good copy of the Zippo. Have at it.

The Zippo print is important because you substituted it for much better prints years ago and have been using it to maintain the fiction about Moorman. Because of grain break-up you can't see much detail in the Zippo photo enlargements. That fact permits you to say things you could not get away with if you were referring to higher resolution prints like the one you used in MIDP. I agree with you. The Zippo print is irrelevant. What should be used are the high resolution prints that have been in your possession for over twenty years. Why have you steadfastly avoided useing them since at least 2003? That's the question.

Josiah Thompson

You have no idea what you are talking about. I always try to use one of the best quality images

I have. WHY WOULD I PURPOSELY USE A BAD IMAGE? What good would that do? I have NOT

steadfastly avoided using the best images. That would be dumb.

[Craig Lamson]

You have no idea what you are talking about. I always try to use one of the best quality images

I have. WHY WOULD I PURPOSELY USE A BAD IMAGE? What good would that do? I have NOT

steadfastly avoided using the best images. That would be dumb.

Finally you were FORCED out of the hole you were digging. Are you picking up the shovel AGAIN?

[Jack White]

You have no idea what you are talking about. I always try to use one of the best quality images

I have. WHY WOULD I PURPOSELY USE A BAD IMAGE? What good would that do? I have NOT

steadfastly avoided using the best images. That would be dumb.

Finally you were FORCED out of the hole you were digging. Are you picking up the shovel AGAIN?

What hole? I take the high road. I do not crawl into ratholes.