Jump to content

Jack, let's try an experiment...


Recommended Posts

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.

Zippo..MIDP...rathole..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With a rough lens distortion correction, the elevation gap is still there, so any attempt to determine Mm's film frame elevation is fundamentally flawed if one assumes there is no gap. The elevation gap is obscured by Jacks thick lines though if one assumes the right side of the vertical to be correct they may have established it correctly.

- Is anyone else experiencing problems when clicking on ''Click to view full image''. (For me it just stopped functioning sometime over the last half hour or so disabling the copying of the full sized images, but I got one of them before it happened. (Jacks posted one isn't of much value for this pupose as it's distorted by how it's photographed and because it's not flat, disabling perspective correction)?

(Anyway, if so, any change to the scripts should be logged. I'll try restarting and logging on again later to see if it still happens.)

EDIT : It must have been a momentary glitch. It works now.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a rough lens distortion correction, the elevation gap is still there, so any attempt to determine Mm's film frame elevation is fundamentally flawed if one assumes there is no gap. The elevation gap is obscured by Jacks thick lines though if one assumes the right side of the vertical to be correct they may have established it correctly.

- Is anyone else experiencing problems when clicking on ''Click to view full image''. (For me it just stopped functioning sometime over the last half hour or so disabling the copying of the full sized images, but I got one of them before it happened. (Jacks posted one isn't of much value for this pupose as it's distorted by how it's photographed and because it's not flat, disabling perspective correction)?

(Anyway, if so, any change to the scripts should be logged. I'll try restarting and logging on again later to see if it still happens.)

EDIT : It must have been a momentary glitch. It works now.

HOW MANY TIMES MUST I REPEAT: THE "GAP" IS IRRELEVANT. IT IS AN INVENTION OF DR. THOMPSON.

IT HAD NO INFLUENCE ON ANY OF MY STUDIES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Jack, I must have misunderstood. I thought it wasn't used to establish Moormans cameras film frame location.

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?

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.

Jack.

Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true.

I had met both you and Dr. Mantik some years previously. I had never met Fetzer. I had met Galanor earlier in the week.

I talked to you, Dr. Mantik and Fetzer, in that order. I did not talk to Galanor who during the experiment was wandering around the south-most lane of Elm Street trying to direct traffic out of that lane.

My conversations with both you and Fetzer were rather brief.

You and I specifically talked about the Moorman blow-up you were using for the pedestal line-up. I specifically asked you why it had a brown, sepia like color tone to it. You more-or-less blew me off.

Fetzer was rather stand-offish and confrontational, for some reason not discussing the experiment but rather demanding to know what I did for a living and where I worked.

Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.

I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.

Todd

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?

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.

Jack.

Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true.

I had met both you and Dr. Mantik some years previously. I had never met Fetzer. I had met Galanor earlier in the week.

I talked to you, Dr. Mantik and Fetzer, in that order. I did not talk to Galanor who during the experiment was wandering around the south-most lane of Elm Street trying to direct traffic out of that lane.

My conversations with both you and Fetzer were rather brief.

You and I specifically talked about the Moorman blow-up you were using for the pedestal line-up. I specifically asked you why it had a brown, sepia like color tone to it. You more-or-less blew me off.

Fetzer was rather stand-offish and confrontational, for some reason not discussing the experiment but rather demanding to know what I did for a living and where I worked.

Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.

I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.

Todd

I will talk to anyone. I did not know you and do not recall ever meeting you, so you cannot say my statements

are untrue. You may have remembered meeting me, but I do not recall having ever met you. As a researcher,

I meet hundreds of researchers and other people, and my memory is not prodigious enough to recall each one

of them by name. You can say I did not recognize you, which is true, but you cannot say my account is untrue

because I did not recognize you.

I do not recall the print having "a brown sepia like color". It was an 8.5x11 sheet of white paper with the Moorman

image printed on it on my b&w printer, and then mounted on a piece of white cardboard. So it has to be you stating

an untruth about a sepia image.

I do not recall "blowing anyone off". Fetzer, Mantik and I were busy. I was taking photos. I do not recall you

or anyone else approaching me. A small crowd had gathered about 20 feet to the south to watch us, but I had

NO interaction with ANY of them and did not recognize anyone I knew. If that amounts to "blowing you off", that

is your interpretation. I do not recall ANYONE asking me ANY questions. You are presenting a false picture

of what was happening. If Mantik recognized you and invited you to look in the transit I was not aware of it, but

it may have happened. I was only aware of him asking Galanor. I gave Galanor the Moorman image at his

request.

So your statement:

"Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true."

IS IN ITSELF SIMPLY NOT TRUE! I do not know why you are interjecting this false claim.

I was busy. If I "blew you off" it was because you were interrupting what I was doing. I did not know you from

Adam. Sorry if that deflates your ego. I have no memory of anyone even saying anything to me, and did not

find out till much later that you were even present.

I think you should specify what was not true about the experiment, or withdraw your FALSE CLAIM.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
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?

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.

Jack.

Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true.

I had met both you and Dr. Mantik some years previously. I had never met Fetzer. I had met Galanor earlier in the week.

I talked to you, Dr. Mantik and Fetzer, in that order. I did not talk to Galanor who during the experiment was wandering around the south-most lane of Elm Street trying to direct traffic out of that lane.

My conversations with both you and Fetzer were rather brief.

You and I specifically talked about the Moorman blow-up you were using for the pedestal line-up. I specifically asked you why it had a brown, sepia like color tone to it. You more-or-less blew me off.

Fetzer was rather stand-offish and confrontational, for some reason not discussing the experiment but rather demanding to know what I did for a living and where I worked.

Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.

I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.

Todd

I will talk to anyone. I did not know you and do not recall ever meeting you, so you cannot say my statements

are untrue. You may have remembered meeting me, but I do not recall having ever met you. As a researcher,

I meet hundreds of researchers and other people, and my memory is not prodigious enough to recall each one

of them by name. You can say I did not recognize you, which is true, but you cannot say my account is untrue

because I did not recognize you.

I do not recall the print having "a brown sepia like color". It was an 8.5x11 sheet of white paper with the Moorman

image printed on it on my b&w printer, and then mounted on a piece of white cardboard. So it has to be you stating

an untruth about a sepia image.

I do not recall "blowing anyone off". Fetzer, Mantik and I were busy. I was taking photos. I do not recall you

or anyone else approaching me. A small crowd had gathered about 20 feet to the south to watch us, but I had

NO interaction with ANY of them and did not recognize anyone I knew. If that amounts to "blowing you off", that

is your interpretation. I do not recall ANYONE asking me ANY questions. You are presenting a false picture

of what was happening. If Mantik recognized you and invited you to look in the transit I was not aware of it, but

it may have happened. I was only aware of him asking Galanor. I gave Galanor the Moorman image at his

request.

So your statement:

"Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true."

IS IN ITSELF SIMPLY NOT TRUE! I do not know why you are interjecting this false claim.

I was busy. If I "blew you off" it was because you were interrupting what I was doing. I did not know you from

Adam. Sorry if that deflates your ego. I have no memory of anyone even saying anything to me, and did not

find out till much later that you were even present.

I think you should specify what was not true about the experiment, or withdraw your FALSE CLAIM.

Jack

Jack,

Allow me to spell it out for you as clearly as I possibly can.

What I am saying is not true is your claim that I “looked without any comment to any of us” and that “Any comments from him will be a dozen years late.”

The fact is that after looking through the transit I spoke with Dr. Mantik about the alignment being very close horizontally but off vertically because it did not account for the gap. After that I also talked to both you and Fetzer.

Therefore, your claim that I “looked without any comment to any of us” and that “Any comments from him will be a dozen years late.” is completely false.

Is that clear enough for you?

Todd

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?

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.

Jack.

Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true.

I had met both you and Dr. Mantik some years previously. I had never met Fetzer. I had met Galanor earlier in the week.

I talked to you, Dr. Mantik and Fetzer, in that order. I did not talk to Galanor who during the experiment was wandering around the south-most lane of Elm Street trying to direct traffic out of that lane.

My conversations with both you and Fetzer were rather brief.

You and I specifically talked about the Moorman blow-up you were using for the pedestal line-up. I specifically asked you why it had a brown, sepia like color tone to it. You more-or-less blew me off.

Fetzer was rather stand-offish and confrontational, for some reason not discussing the experiment but rather demanding to know what I did for a living and where I worked.

Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.

I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.

Todd

I will talk to anyone. I did not know you and do not recall ever meeting you, so you cannot say my statements

are untrue. You may have remembered meeting me, but I do not recall having ever met you. As a researcher,

I meet hundreds of researchers and other people, and my memory is not prodigious enough to recall each one

of them by name. You can say I did not recognize you, which is true, but you cannot say my account is untrue

because I did not recognize you.

I do not recall the print having "a brown sepia like color". It was an 8.5x11 sheet of white paper with the Moorman

image printed on it on my b&w printer, and then mounted on a piece of white cardboard. So it has to be you stating

an untruth about a sepia image.

I do not recall "blowing anyone off". Fetzer, Mantik and I were busy. I was taking photos. I do not recall you

or anyone else approaching me. A small crowd had gathered about 20 feet to the south to watch us, but I had

NO interaction with ANY of them and did not recognize anyone I knew. If that amounts to "blowing you off", that

is your interpretation. I do not recall ANYONE asking me ANY questions. You are presenting a false picture

of what was happening. If Mantik recognized you and invited you to look in the transit I was not aware of it, but

it may have happened. I was only aware of him asking Galanor. I gave Galanor the Moorman image at his

request.

So your statement:

"Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true."

IS IN ITSELF SIMPLY NOT TRUE! I do not know why you are interjecting this false claim.

I was busy. If I "blew you off" it was because you were interrupting what I was doing. I did not know you from

Adam. Sorry if that deflates your ego. I have no memory of anyone even saying anything to me, and did not

find out till much later that you were even present.

I think you should specify what was not true about the experiment, or withdraw your FALSE CLAIM.

Jack

Jack,

Regarding the Moorman enlargement used at the experiment, it was indeed an 8.5x11 sheet of white mounted on a piece of white cardboard, but the image did have an overall light brown sepia tone to it, which is why I asked you about it.

Todd

Edited by Todd W. Vaughan
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?

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.

Jack.

Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true.

I had met both you and Dr. Mantik some years previously. I had never met Fetzer. I had met Galanor earlier in the week.

I talked to you, Dr. Mantik and Fetzer, in that order. I did not talk to Galanor who during the experiment was wandering around the south-most lane of Elm Street trying to direct traffic out of that lane.

My conversations with both you and Fetzer were rather brief.

You and I specifically talked about the Moorman blow-up you were using for the pedestal line-up. I specifically asked you why it had a brown, sepia like color tone to it. You more-or-less blew me off.

Fetzer was rather stand-offish and confrontational, for some reason not discussing the experiment but rather demanding to know what I did for a living and where I worked.

Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.

I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.

Todd

I will talk to anyone. I did not know you and do not recall ever meeting you, so you cannot say my statements

are untrue. You may have remembered meeting me, but I do not recall having ever met you. As a researcher,

I meet hundreds of researchers and other people, and my memory is not prodigious enough to recall each one

of them by name. You can say I did not recognize you, which is true, but you cannot say my account is untrue

because I did not recognize you.

I do not recall the print having "a brown sepia like color". It was an 8.5x11 sheet of white paper with the Moorman

image printed on it on my b&w printer, and then mounted on a piece of white cardboard. So it has to be you stating

an untruth about a sepia image.

I do not recall "blowing anyone off". Fetzer, Mantik and I were busy. I was taking photos. I do not recall you

or anyone else approaching me. A small crowd had gathered about 20 feet to the south to watch us, but I had

NO interaction with ANY of them and did not recognize anyone I knew. If that amounts to "blowing you off", that

is your interpretation. I do not recall ANYONE asking me ANY questions. You are presenting a false picture

of what was happening. If Mantik recognized you and invited you to look in the transit I was not aware of it, but

it may have happened. I was only aware of him asking Galanor. I gave Galanor the Moorman image at his

request.

So your statement:

"Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true."

IS IN ITSELF SIMPLY NOT TRUE! I do not know why you are interjecting this false claim.

I was busy. If I "blew you off" it was because you were interrupting what I was doing. I did not know you from

Adam. Sorry if that deflates your ego. I have no memory of anyone even saying anything to me, and did not

find out till much later that you were even present.

I think you should specify what was not true about the experiment, or withdraw your FALSE CLAIM.

Jack

Jack,

Allow me to spell it out for you as clearly as I possibly can.

What I am saying is not true is your claim that I “looked without any comment to any of us” and that “Any comments from him will be a dozen years late.”

The fact is that after looking through the transit I spoke with Dr. Mantik about the alignment being very close horizontally but off vertically because it did not account for the gap. After that I also talked to both you and Fetzer.

Therefore, your claim that I “looked without any comment to any of us” and that “Any comments from him will be a dozen years late.” is completely false.

Is that clear enough for you?

Todd

you WCR pristine evidence type, lone nut guys are taking a pasting not only here, but other web forums as well... ya made your stand, lost so live with it and move on... stipend time is coming to a close.... all your lone nut hopes and dreams are in Bugliosi/Hanks/HBO hands.... not an enviable position, I must say. Especially with Oliver Stone pondering in the wings. O-U-C-H

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?

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.

Jack.

Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true.

I had met both you and Dr. Mantik some years previously. I had never met Fetzer. I had met Galanor earlier in the week.

I talked to you, Dr. Mantik and Fetzer, in that order. I did not talk to Galanor who during the experiment was wandering around the south-most lane of Elm Street trying to direct traffic out of that lane.

My conversations with both you and Fetzer were rather brief.

You and I specifically talked about the Moorman blow-up you were using for the pedestal line-up. I specifically asked you why it had a brown, sepia like color tone to it. You more-or-less blew me off.

Fetzer was rather stand-offish and confrontational, for some reason not discussing the experiment but rather demanding to know what I did for a living and where I worked.

Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.

I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.

Todd

I will talk to anyone. I did not know you and do not recall ever meeting you, so you cannot say my statements

are untrue. You may have remembered meeting me, but I do not recall having ever met you. As a researcher,

I meet hundreds of researchers and other people, and my memory is not prodigious enough to recall each one

of them by name. You can say I did not recognize you, which is true, but you cannot say my account is untrue

because I did not recognize you.

I do not recall the print having "a brown sepia like color". It was an 8.5x11 sheet of white paper with the Moorman

image printed on it on my b&w printer, and then mounted on a piece of white cardboard. So it has to be you stating

an untruth about a sepia image.

I do not recall "blowing anyone off". Fetzer, Mantik and I were busy. I was taking photos. I do not recall you

or anyone else approaching me. A small crowd had gathered about 20 feet to the south to watch us, but I had

NO interaction with ANY of them and did not recognize anyone I knew. If that amounts to "blowing you off", that

is your interpretation. I do not recall ANYONE asking me ANY questions. You are presenting a false picture

of what was happening. If Mantik recognized you and invited you to look in the transit I was not aware of it, but

it may have happened. I was only aware of him asking Galanor. I gave Galanor the Moorman image at his

request.

So your statement:

"Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true."

IS IN ITSELF SIMPLY NOT TRUE! I do not know why you are interjecting this false claim.

I was busy. If I "blew you off" it was because you were interrupting what I was doing. I did not know you from

Adam. Sorry if that deflates your ego. I have no memory of anyone even saying anything to me, and did not

find out till much later that you were even present.

I think you should specify what was not true about the experiment, or withdraw your FALSE CLAIM.

Jack

Jack,

Allow me to spell it out for you as clearly as I possibly can.

What I am saying is not true is your claim that I “looked without any comment to any of us” and that “Any comments from him will be a dozen years late.”

The fact is that after looking through the transit I spoke with Dr. Mantik about the alignment being very close horizontally but off vertically because it did not account for the gap. After that I also talked to both you and Fetzer.

Therefore, your claim that I “looked without any comment to any of us” and that “Any comments from him will be a dozen years late.” is completely false.

Is that clear enough for you?

Todd

Yes...it spells out your agenda. You may have spoken with Dr. Mantik. You did not introduce yourself to me

nor speak to me....except in your own mind. It is in line with your comment about the black computer print

you thought was sepia toned. You are a legend in your own mind. If you spoke to me, you were a nameless,

faceless bystander I did not know nor remember. Your sense of self-importance makes you think I noticed

you. You were not a part of the experiment, and had no reason to be there.

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?

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.

Jack.

Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true.

I had met both you and Dr. Mantik some years previously. I had never met Fetzer. I had met Galanor earlier in the week.

I talked to you, Dr. Mantik and Fetzer, in that order. I did not talk to Galanor who during the experiment was wandering around the south-most lane of Elm Street trying to direct traffic out of that lane.

My conversations with both you and Fetzer were rather brief.

You and I specifically talked about the Moorman blow-up you were using for the pedestal line-up. I specifically asked you why it had a brown, sepia like color tone to it. You more-or-less blew me off.

Fetzer was rather stand-offish and confrontational, for some reason not discussing the experiment but rather demanding to know what I did for a living and where I worked.

Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.

I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.

Todd

I will talk to anyone. I did not know you and do not recall ever meeting you, so you cannot say my statements

are untrue. You may have remembered meeting me, but I do not recall having ever met you. As a researcher,

I meet hundreds of researchers and other people, and my memory is not prodigious enough to recall each one

of them by name. You can say I did not recognize you, which is true, but you cannot say my account is untrue

because I did not recognize you.

I do not recall the print having "a brown sepia like color". It was an 8.5x11 sheet of white paper with the Moorman

image printed on it on my b&w printer, and then mounted on a piece of white cardboard. So it has to be you stating

an untruth about a sepia image.

I do not recall "blowing anyone off". Fetzer, Mantik and I were busy. I was taking photos. I do not recall you

or anyone else approaching me. A small crowd had gathered about 20 feet to the south to watch us, but I had

NO interaction with ANY of them and did not recognize anyone I knew. If that amounts to "blowing you off", that

is your interpretation. I do not recall ANYONE asking me ANY questions. You are presenting a false picture

of what was happening. If Mantik recognized you and invited you to look in the transit I was not aware of it, but

it may have happened. I was only aware of him asking Galanor. I gave Galanor the Moorman image at his

request.

So your statement:

"Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true."

IS IN ITSELF SIMPLY NOT TRUE! I do not know why you are interjecting this false claim.

I was busy. If I "blew you off" it was because you were interrupting what I was doing. I did not know you from

Adam. Sorry if that deflates your ego. I have no memory of anyone even saying anything to me, and did not

find out till much later that you were even present.

I think you should specify what was not true about the experiment, or withdraw your FALSE CLAIM.

Jack

Jack,

Allow me to spell it out for you as clearly as I possibly can.

What I am saying is not true is your claim that I “looked without any comment to any of us” and that “Any comments from him will be a dozen years late.”

The fact is that after looking through the transit I spoke with Dr. Mantik about the alignment being very close horizontally but off vertically because it did not account for the gap. After that I also talked to both you and Fetzer.

Therefore, your claim that I “looked without any comment to any of us” and that “Any comments from him will be a dozen years late.” is completely false.

Is that clear enough for you?

Todd

you WCR pristine evidence type, lone nut guys are taking a pasting not only here, but other web forums as well... ya made your stand, lost so live with it and move on... stipend time is coming to a close.... all your lone nut hopes and dreams are in Bugliosi/Hanks/HBO hands.... not an enviable position, I must say. Especially with Oliver Stone pondering in the wings. O-U-C-H

Ah, I see Healey has weighed in once more with his typical rambling, off-topic drivel. Did you have something to add to the discussion, David?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.

I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.

Todd

Years ago we were able to confirm exactly what Todd said.

David Mantik, always a gentleman, not only let Todd look through the eyepiece of their transit after it had been set up, he also took meticulous measurements. Being a gentleman, he sent me those measurements and they confirm exactly what Todd said.

Mantik’s measurements show that the line-of-sight they measured that day with the transit crossed the south curb of Elm Street at a height of 48.25 inches. This gave us something precise to work with. We went to Dealey Plaza, found Moorman’s approximate position and set up the camera on the curb exactly 48" above the top of the curb. Here is the resulting photograph:

004_44800inabovecurbfromMoormanp-1.jpg

It shows that when you do what they did you end up with a photo lining up the top left corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the window beyond. In other words, all they did was perform a stunt. As Todd pointed out, they made no allowance for the “gap” present in the Moorman photo but simply set up their transit as if there weren’t any gap.

What they did is as irrelevant as if the referees at the Superbowl set out to determine if a first down had been made by carefully measuring the width of the field at the point the last play ended. They pulled a PR stunt and have been advertizing it as “science” ever since. When people refer to “assassinated science” it is this sort of nonsense they are referring to.

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?

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.

Jack.

Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true.

I had met both you and Dr. Mantik some years previously. I had never met Fetzer. I had met Galanor earlier in the week.

I talked to you, Dr. Mantik and Fetzer, in that order. I did not talk to Galanor who during the experiment was wandering around the south-most lane of Elm Street trying to direct traffic out of that lane.

My conversations with both you and Fetzer were rather brief.

You and I specifically talked about the Moorman blow-up you were using for the pedestal line-up. I specifically asked you why it had a brown, sepia like color tone to it. You more-or-less blew me off.

Fetzer was rather stand-offish and confrontational, for some reason not discussing the experiment but rather demanding to know what I did for a living and where I worked.

Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.

I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.

Todd

I will talk to anyone. I did not know you and do not recall ever meeting you, so you cannot say my statements

are untrue. You may have remembered meeting me, but I do not recall having ever met you. As a researcher,

I meet hundreds of researchers and other people, and my memory is not prodigious enough to recall each one

of them by name. You can say I did not recognize you, which is true, but you cannot say my account is untrue

because I did not recognize you.

I do not recall the print having "a brown sepia like color". It was an 8.5x11 sheet of white paper with the Moorman

image printed on it on my b&w printer, and then mounted on a piece of white cardboard. So it has to be you stating

an untruth about a sepia image.

I do not recall "blowing anyone off". Fetzer, Mantik and I were busy. I was taking photos. I do not recall you

or anyone else approaching me. A small crowd had gathered about 20 feet to the south to watch us, but I had

NO interaction with ANY of them and did not recognize anyone I knew. If that amounts to "blowing you off", that

is your interpretation. I do not recall ANYONE asking me ANY questions. You are presenting a false picture

of what was happening. If Mantik recognized you and invited you to look in the transit I was not aware of it, but

it may have happened. I was only aware of him asking Galanor. I gave Galanor the Moorman image at his

request.

So your statement:

"Your claims about me at the experiment are simply not true."

IS IN ITSELF SIMPLY NOT TRUE! I do not know why you are interjecting this false claim.

I was busy. If I "blew you off" it was because you were interrupting what I was doing. I did not know you from

Adam. Sorry if that deflates your ego. I have no memory of anyone even saying anything to me, and did not

find out till much later that you were even present.

I think you should specify what was not true about the experiment, or withdraw your FALSE CLAIM.

Jack

Jack,

Regarding the Moorman enlargement used at the experiment, it was indeed an 8.5x11 sheet of white mounted on a piece of white cardboard, but the image did have an overall light brown sepia tone to it, which is why I asked you about it.

Todd

Ask Stewart Galanor, who has it. Maybe it has turned brown with age. My computer printer uses black toner, not brown,

I use white paper. If I had used colored paper, I would have remembered, I think. There was no reason to use colored paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.

I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.

Todd

Years ago we were able to confirm exactly what Todd said.

David Mantik, always a gentleman, not only let Todd look through the eyepiece of their transit after it had been set up, he also took meticulous measurements. Being a gentleman, he sent me those measurements and they confirm exactly what Todd said.

Mantik’s measurements show that the line-of-sight they measured that day with the transit crossed the south curb of Elm Street at a height of 48.25 inches. This gave us something precise to work with. We went to Dealey Plaza, found Moorman’s approximate position and set up the camera on the curb exactly 48" above the top of the curb. Here is the resulting photograph:

004_44800inabovecurbfromMoormanp-1.jpg

It shows that when you do what they did you end up with a photo lining up the top left corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the window beyond. In other words, all they did was perform a stunt. As Todd pointed out, they made no allowance for the “gap” present in the Moorman photo but simply set up their transit as if there weren’t any gap.

What they did is as irrelevant as if the referees at the Superbowl set out to determine if a first down had been made by carefully measuring the width of the field at the point the last play ended. They pulled a PR stunt and have been advertizing it as “science” ever since. When people refer to “assassinated science” it is this sort of nonsense they are referring to.

Josiah Thompson

Your photo is totally wrong! You did not follow my instructions for finding the line of sight.

You lined up the CORNER of the pedestal with the CORNER of the window. Our experiment

has ALWAYS IGNORED THE CORNERS! Our experiment uses the EDGES of the pedestal

and window. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO COMPREHEND? I have NEVER said anything about

using the corners. I have always referred to a CROSS (+). The Moorman photo has the

GAP that is so precious to you, but the gap is irrelevant. It is of no use because it is not

a part of the CROSS. Why you persist in saying our experiment used the CORNERS I do

not know, BUT IT IS BLATANTLY FALSE! And you insist that GREAT PRECISION is required.

It is not. I have done the experiment dozens of times. You have not. The viewpoint can

be off by several inches AND IS STILL MUCH TOO LOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Mantik, however, was as gentlemanly and as cordial as ever and invited me to look through the transit, which I did (I did not “come over and (want) to look” as you falsely claim - I was invited to look). I told him that the alignment was very close horizontally (left and right) but was off vertically because it did not account for the gap.

I wrote up the entire experience and posted it on the DellaRossa board a few days after I returned from Dallas. I believe that I still have that write up and will post it here when I find it.

Todd

Years ago we were able to confirm exactly what Todd said.

David Mantik, always a gentleman, not only let Todd look through the eyepiece of their transit after it had been set up, he also took meticulous measurements. Being a gentleman, he sent me those measurements and they confirm exactly what Todd said.

Mantik’s measurements show that the line-of-sight they measured that day with the transit crossed the south curb of Elm Street at a height of 48.25 inches. This gave us something precise to work with. We went to Dealey Plaza, found Moorman’s approximate position and set up the camera on the curb exactly 48" above the top of the curb. Here is the resulting photograph:

004_44800inabovecurbfromMoormanp-1.jpg

It shows that when you do what they did you end up with a photo lining up the top left corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the window beyond. In other words, all they did was perform a stunt. As Todd pointed out, they made no allowance for the “gap” present in the Moorman photo but simply set up their transit as if there weren’t any gap.

What they did is as irrelevant as if the referees at the Superbowl set out to determine if a first down had been made by carefully measuring the width of the field at the point the last play ended. They pulled a PR stunt and have been advertizing it as “science” ever since. When people refer to “assassinated science” it is this sort of nonsense they are referring to.

Josiah Thompson

Your photo is totally wrong! You did not follow my instructions for finding the line of sight.

You lined up the CORNER of the pedestal with the CORNER of the window. Our experiment

has ALWAYS IGNORED THE CORNERS! Our experiment uses the EDGES of the pedestal

and window. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO COMPREHEND? I have NEVER said anything about

using the corners. I have always referred to a CROSS (+). The Moorman photo has the

GAP that is so precious to you, but the gap is irrelevant. It is of no use because it is not

a part of the CROSS. Why you persist in saying our experiment used the CORNERS I do

not know, BUT IT IS BLATANTLY FALSE! And you insist that GREAT PRECISION is required.

It is not. I have done the experiment dozens of times. You have not. The viewpoint can

be off by several inches AND IS STILL MUCH TOO LOW.

This composite shows how much Thompson was off of the line of sight (red lines).

The smaller pix compare with the image Mantik used to find the LOS, plus the

interesting comparison of the HEIGHT of "Zapruder" and the unknown man on the

pedestal.

post-667-1265658999_thumb.jpg

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...