Jump to content
The Education Forum

Silliness... A Brief History


Recommended Posts

It is amazing that adults are continuing to argue the Moorman photo claim nine years after it was exposed as mistaken. Here is how it came to be.

In 1967, I obtained the best copies available of the Moorman photo in order to evaluate the anomalous shape behind the stockade fence. Copies were obtained from Wide World and UPI. The copy from Wide World photos was called the Zippo copy. Copies from UPI were high resolution but were cropped and did not include the Zapruder pedestal. In addition, Moorman was paid to permit a professional photographer to copy her Polaroid and produce a negative as big as the original Polaroid. A print from this negative was called the Drum Scan copy.

As Jack White pointed out, in the 1980s I provided the best copies I had to Gary Mack and Jack White. They used these copies in their work. In addition, at the same time they obtained a copy of the Polaroid from the FBI and also had a friend of Jack White’s copy the Polaroid.. (1) The Drum Scan copy, (2) the Gordon Smith copy, (3) the FBI copy were all in Jack White’s possession by the mid-1980s. These were all fairly high resolution copies of Mary Moorman’s Polaroid. In addition, Jack White had the Zippo copy that I had obtained from Wide World Photos. Taken with a box camera some feet away from the Polaroid, it suffered from grain break-up when enlarged.

Jack White published his claim in MIDP by showing a photo of the high resolution Gordon Smith copy with red lines that obscured the line-up of the points (or lines) that founded his claim concerning the line-of-sight. At that time, it was fairly difficult to get access to a copy of the Moorman photo that included the Zapruder pedestal. I looked at the illustration in MIDP and went to my file of high resolution copies. These showed clearly that Jack White had misread the Moorman photograph, that the points (or lines) he said lined up did not line up.

Redlinesandwithout.jpg

If one removed the red lines superimposed on the White/ Fetzer illustration, it was clear there was a significant gap. The true line-of-sight present in the Moorman photo was about six inches higher at Moorman’s position than the mistaken line-of-sight Jack White claimed. The true line-of-sight lined up perfectly with the position of Moorman’s camera as shown in the Zapruder film.

All of this was pointed out and argued vehemently on the DellaRosa forum. It led to the famous “experiment” of November 16, 2001 performed by White, Fetzer and Mantik. It now has become clear that this purported “experiment” was simply a scam to support White’s mistaken reading of the Zapruder film.

Why do I say it was a “scam”? Consider the following facts.

White rented a surveyor’s transit and took it to Dealey Plaza. White and company set it up at Moorman’s location near the south curb of Elm Street and took many photos of them looking through it. This proves exactly nothing since anyone can take a transit to Dealey Plaza and position it so the two points (or lines) mentioned by White line up. It could be done now if anyone wanted to. The real question concerns where the transit was pointed. If it failed to taken into account what is shown clearly in higher resolution copies of the Moorman photo (that is, the gap), it is irrelevant. Fetzer and White later claimed that they included the gap in their aiming of the transit. However, later evidence shows that this claim is false.

Todd Vaughan was present in Dealey Plaza that day. He tells a fairly hilarious story of what happened.

According to a post from Vaughan on December 3, 2001, he chatted for awhile with an acquaintance named Tony Cummings. Fetzer asked Cummings who Todd was and Cummings replied, “Todd Vaughan.” Fetzer then said to Cummings, “Oh xxxx!” Vaughan then introduced himself to Fetzer who asked Vaughan, “What kind of work do you do?” Vaughan replied that he worked in “corporate security.” They parted and Vaughan had a similar short encounter with Jack White. Neither invited him to look through the transit. After the transit was lined up, Vaughan introduced himself to David Mantik and mentioned that they had met earlier. Mantik cordially invited Vaughan to look through the transit. Here is what Vaughan said:

After the experiment appeared to be complete, but before the transit was moved and broke down, I introduced myself to Dr. Mantik. I mentioned that he and I had met before. Cordial as ever, he seemed to recall this and then invited me to look through the transit at the established line of sight. I did so, and immediately and clearly commented that I thought the alignment was close in the horizontal planes but was off in the vertical plane.

I then examined three versions of Moorman that were being used in the alignment attempt.

The first was a large blowup of the pedestal area mounted on stiff cardboard. It was obvious that this was an enlarged computer image that was somewhat pixilated, blurry, and off color, having a sepia like tone. It was also obvious that there was a crosshair overlaid that in the horizontal plane attempted to line up the bottom of the window with the top of the pedestal. As Josiah Thompson pointed out some months ago and here recently, those points DO NOT line up in Moorman. Rather there is a gap between them. I pointed all these facts out and commented that this version of Moorman did not allow one to see the correct relationship of the window to the pedestal.

Dr. Mantik then produced an 8x10" glossy of Moorman. This was better quality, but as the area in question was not blown-up, it was of little use.

I then looked at, on my own accord, a copy of Grodens' TKOAP that was being used. That version of Moorman was completely useless.

In a later post on this forum, Vaughan wrote:

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.

It is obvious what White and company could have done to verify their “experiment.’ Since the whole issue is where they aimed the transit, they could have rigged a camera to shoot through the eye-piece of the transit. Of, if that was too difficult, they could have taped a camera to the top of the transit and taken a photo of their alignment. They did neither. Instead, Fetzer said “Oh xxxx!” when he heard Vaughan was present and neither Fetzer nor White invited him to look through the transit.

However, as Vaughan pointed out, David Mantik was “gentlemanly and cordial” and let him look through the transit. In addition, Manitk provided me with his notes of the “experiment” that confirm they simply ignored the gap and aligned the transit on the mistaken line-of-sight. Mantik’s notes show that the transit alignment crossed above the south curb of Elm Street at a height of 48.25". It’s fairly easy to go to Moorman position and take a photo with a line-of-sight that crosses the curb at height of 48". Here it is:

004_44800inabovecurbfromMoormanp-1.jpg

It shows that such a line of sight simply lines up White’s mistaken reading of the photo by disregarding the gap. On the other hand, if you take a photo that includes the gap it crosses the curb at a height of 54". Here it is:

014_145375inabovecurbfromMoormanpos.jpg

I submit that Vaughan’s sighting through the transit and its confirmation via Mantik’s notes shows that this much vaunted “experiment” was little more than a scam to save a discredited claim. It’s companion piece is the original Fetzer/White illustration that covered up the misalignment of the two points (or lines) with superimposed red lines.

Subsequent to this time, White has used the bleary Zippo Copy to make his claim since it’s grain break-up makes it virtually impossible to gauge the relative positions of the two points (or lines). When confronted with the fact that he switched the evidence, White claimed he used the Zippo copy in the Fetzer/White illustration. However, as Craig Lamson pointed out, internal evidence in the illustration clearly showed that one of the high resolution copies (not the Zippo copy) had been used in the MIDP illustration. Then White changed his story and said he did not remember what copy he used.

It is appalling that a simple mistake in reading the Moorman photo by Jack White is still the subject of debate nine years after the mistake was exposed. The unwilligness of Fetzer and White to admit a simple mistake has led to the waste of hundreds of hours of research time on a discredited claim. Should anyone wish to see the full posts by Todd Vaughan they can be found on this forum under the thread “Jack, let’s try an experiment...” at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...15423&st=60.

Josiah Thompson

Edited by Josiah Thompson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is amazing that adults are continuing to argue the Moorman photo claim nine years after it was exposed as mistaken. Here is how it came to be.

In 1967, I obtained the best copies available of the Moorman photo in order to evaluate the anomalous shape behind the stockade fence. Copies were obtained from Wide World and UPI. The copy from Wide World photos was called the Zippo copy. Copies from UPI were high resolution but were cropped and did not include the Zapruder pedestal. In addition, Moorman was paid to permit a professional photographer to copy her Polaroid and produce a negative as big as the original Polaroid. A print from this negative was called the Drum Scan copy.

As Jack White pointed out, in the 1980s I provided the best copies I had to Gary Mack and Jack White. They used these copies in their work. In addition, at the same time they obtained a copy of the Polaroid from the FBI and also had a friend of Jack White’s copy the Polaroid.. (1) The Drum Scan copy, (2) the Gordon Smith copy, (3) the FBI copy were all in Jack White’s possession by the mid-1980s. These were all fairly high resolution copies of Mary Moorman’s Polaroid. In addition, Jack White had the Zippo copy that I had obtained from Wide World Photos. Taken with a box camera some feet away from the Polaroid, it suffered from grain break-up when enlarged.

Jack White published his claim in MIDP by showing a photo of the high resolution Gordon Smith copy with red lines that obscured the line-up of the points (or lines) that founded his claim concerning the line-of-sight. At that time, it was fairly difficult to get access to a copy of the Moorman photo that included the Zapruder pedestal. I looked at the illustration in MIDP and went to my file of high resolution copies. These showed clearly that Jack White had misread the Moorman photograph, that the points (or lines) he said lined up did not line up.

Redlinesandwithout.jpg

If one removed the red lines superimposed on the White/ Fetzer illustration, it was clear there was a significant gap. The true line-of-sight present in the Moorman photo was about six inches higher at Moorman’s position than the mistaken line-of-sight Jack White claimed. The true line-of-sight lined up perfectly with the position of Moorman’s camera as shown in the Zapruder film.

All of this was pointed out and argued vehemently on the DellaRosa forum. It led to the famous “experiment” of November 16, 2001 performed by White, Fetzer and Mantik. It now has become clear that this purported “experiment” was simply a scam to support White’s mistaken reading of the Zapruder film.

Why do I say it was a “scam”? Consider the following facts.

White rented a surveyor’s transit and took it to Dealey Plaza. White and company set it up at Moorman’s location near the south curb of Elm Street and took many photos of them looking through it. This proves exactly nothing since anyone can take a transit to Dealey Plaza and position it so the two points (or lines) mentioned by White line up. It could be done now if anyone wanted to. The real question concerns where the transit was pointed. If it failed to taken into account what is shown clearly in higher resolution copies of the Moorman photo (that is, the gap), it is irrelevant. Fetzer and White later claimed that they included the gap in their aiming of the transit. However, later evidence shows that this claim is false.

Todd Vaughan was present in Dealey Plaza that day. He tells a fairly hilarious story of what happened.

According to a post from Vaughan on December 3, 2001, he chatted for awhile with an acquaintance named Tony Cummings. Fetzer asked Cummings who Todd was and Cummings replied, “Todd Vaughan.” Fetzer then said to Cummings, “Oh xxxx!” Vaughan then introduced himself to Fetzer who asked Vaughan, “What kind of work do you do?” Vaughan replied that he worked in “corporate security.” They parted and Vaughan had a similar short encounter with Jack White. Neither invited him to look through the transit. After the transit was lined up, Vaughan introduced himself to David Mantik and mentioned that they had met earlier. Mantik cordially invited Vaughan to look through the transit. Here is what Vaughan said:

After the experiment appeared to be complete, but before the transit was moved and broke down, I introduced myself to Dr. Mantik. I mentioned that he and I had met before. Cordial as ever, he seemed to recall this and then invited me to look through the transit at the established line of sight. I did so, and immediately and clearly commented that I thought the alignment was close in the horizontal planes but was off in the vertical plane.

I then examined three versions of Moorman that were being used in the alignment attempt.

The first was a large blowup of the pedestal area mounted on stiff cardboard. It was obvious that this was an enlarged computer image that was somewhat pixilated, blurry, and off color, having a sepia like tone. It was also obvious that there was a crosshair overlaid that in the horizontal plane attempted to line up the bottom of the window with the top of the pedestal. As Josiah Thompson pointed out some months ago and here recently, those points DO NOT line up in Moorman. Rather there is a gap between them. I pointed all these facts out and commented that this version of Moorman did not allow one to see the correct relationship of the window to the pedestal.

Dr. Mantik then produced an 8x10" glossy of Moorman. This was better quality, but as the area in question was not blown-up, it was of little use.

I then looked at, on my own accord, a copy of Grodens' TKOAP that was being used. That version of Moorman was completely useless.

In a later post on this forum, Vaughan wrote:

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.

It is obvious what White and company could have done to verify their “experiment.’ Since the whole issue is where they aimed the transit, they could have rigged a camera to shoot through the eye-piece of the transit. Of, if that was too difficult, they could have taped a camera to the top of the transit and taken a photo of their alignment. They did neither. Instead, Fetzer said “Oh xxxx!” when he heard Vaughan was present and neither Fetzer nor White invited him to look through the transit.

However, as Vaughan pointed out, David Mantik was “gentlemanly and cordial” and let him look through the transit. In addition, Manitk provided me with his notes of the “experiment” that confirm they simply ignored the gap and aligned the transit on the mistaken line-of-sight. Mantik’s notes show that the transit alignment crossed above the south curb of Elm Street at a height of 48.25". It’s fairly easy to go to Moorman position and take a photo with a line-of-sight that crosses the curb at height of 48". Here it is:

004_44800inabovecurbfromMoormanp-1.jpg

It shows that such a line of sight simply lines up White’s mistaken reading of the photo by disregarding the gap. On the other hand, if you take a photo that includes the gap it crosses the curb at a height of 54". Here it is:

014_145375inabovecurbfromMoormanpos.jpg

I submit that Vaughan’s sighting through the transit and its confirmation via Mantik’s notes shows that this much vaunted “experiment” was little more than a scam to save a discredited claim. It’s companion piece is the original Fetzer/White illustration that covered up the misalignment of the two points (or lines) with superimposed red lines.

Subsequent to this time, White has used the bleary Zippo Copy to make his claim since it’s grain break-up makes it virtually impossible to gauge the relative positions of the two points (or lines). When confronted with the fact that he switched the evidence, White claimed he used the Zippo copy in the Fetzer/White illustration. However, as Craig Lamson pointed out, internal evidence in the illustration clearly showed that one of the high resolution copies (not the Zippo copy) had been used in the MIDP illustration. Then White changed his story and said he did not remember what copy he used.

It is appalling that a simple mistake in reading the Moorman photo by Jack White is still the subject of debate nine years after the mistake was exposed. Should anyone wish to see the full posts by Todd Vaughan they can be found on this forum under the thread “Jack, let’s try an experiment...” at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...15423&st=60.

Josiah Thompson

This false issue is repeated ad nauseum. It makes NO DIFFERENCE which copy of the Moorman photo is used! The result is the same.

It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether the gap is small or large, because THE GAP HAS NO PART IN THE EXPERIMENT.

FOUR EDGES FORM A CROSS (+). NO CORNERS ARE LINED UP SO A GAP AT AN IMAGINED CORNER IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER.

Thompson's GAP IS IRRELEVANT.

Thompson's GAP IS IRRELEVANT.

Thompson's GAP IS IRRELEVANT.

Thompson's GAP IS IRRELEVANT.

Thompson's GAP IS IRRELEVANT.

Thompson's GAP IS IRRELEVANT.

No corners are lined up, so the size of the gap is irrelevant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether the gap is small or large, because THE GAP HAS NO PART IN THE EXPERIMENT.

FOUR EDGES FORM A CROSS (+). NO CORNERS ARE LINED UP SO A GAP AT AN IMAGINED CORNER IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER.

Thompson's GAP IS IRRELEVANT.

Fine Jack.

Let’s take your words... not mine... from MIDP. And, while we’re at it, let’s take your illustration from MIDP. Here it is:

MIDPPhoto.jpg

You say on the facing page to this illustration:

“I discovered a point within the photo that aligned 2 widely disparate points such that their alignment established that unique line-of-sight. At the left is a graphic image of the points of reference I aligned, which are easily located in the plaza. Two edges of the window openings in the rear of the paragola (sic) A and B in the photo exactly coincide with the top and south edge of the pedestal C and D. As you can see, the angles AB and DC for a large cross (+)..”

Now let’s remove the wide red lines that you and Fetzer superimposed on the Moorman photo:

Redlinesandwithout.jpg

Do “the two edges of the window openings in the rear of the paragola (sic) A and B in the photo exactly coincide with the top and south edge of the pedestal C and D?” Do “the angles AB and DC form a large cross (+)..?”

Of course they don't. You've been wasting everyone's time for years with this kind of evasion, Jack.

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, the only people wasting their time over this silliness is Tink Thompson and Jack White.

What's the purpose of all this again?

BK

Dr. Thompson keeps repeating and repeating the same irrelevancy. I don't know what

his point is. I have CONCEDED THAT A GAP EXISTS in the Moorman photo. He will not

accept that I have conceded that. I repeatedly tell him that "the gap" has no relevance

to ANYTHING, but he will not accept that. He wants me to say THE GAP IS IMPORTANT.

The gap is not important. It is meaningless. I have no idea why he keeps repeating the

same posting. It is irrelevant. It is irrelevant. It is irrelevant.

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you trying to prove Jack?

And speaking of early prints of the Moorman photo.

I was shown a copy by a stranger I met at Dealey Plaza one anniversary, and I thought it clearly showed head debree flying off of JFK's head.

Does this show up in any of the copies you guys have?

Thanks,

BK

Hi, Bill...I and we (many others) have shown conclusively that Mary Moorman

was standing in the street as she repeatedly said and not on the curb as

Zapruder shows her. Dr. Thompson resists ALL PROOFS that the Z film has been

faked. Even though this issue is just ONE of more than a dozen, he continues

to harp on an irrelevant issue that he calls THE GAP. This is a meaningless

term invented by him. HE CAN MAKE THE GAP AS LARGE AS HE WANTS, it

will still mean nothing to finding Mary's line of sight.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you trying to prove Jack?

And speaking of early prints of the Moorman photo.

I was shown a copy by a stranger I met at Dealey Plaza one anniversary, and I thought it clearly showed head debree flying off of JFK's head.

Does this show up in any of the copies you guys have?

Thanks,

BK

Hi, Bill...I and we (many others) have shown conclusively that Mary Moorman

was standing in the street as she repeatedly said and not on the curb as

Zapruder shows her. Dr. Thompson resists ALL PROOFS that the Z film has been

faked. Even though this issue is just ONE of more than a dozen, he continues

to harp on an irrelevant issue that he calls THE GAP. This is a meaningless

term invented by him. HE CAN MAKE THE GAP AS LARGE AS HE WANTS, it

will still mean nothing to finding Mary's line of sight.

Jack

Jack, you're starting to sound like John McAdams, who, in order to avoid admitting that his SBT has a different point of exit on Kennedy's throat than the HSCA's SBT, refused to admit that two bullets entering in the same location, one heading upward and one heading downward, would not exit from the same location.

IF Josiah's re-enactment photo from 54 inches more accurately re-creates the size and shape of the windows, including the gap, than your re-enactment, then it is obvious the Moorman photo could have been taken, indeed probably was taken, from 54 inches, and that any Moorman in the street argument built around the idea her photo only lines up at a lower level is false.

If you agree and think there are other reasons to believe the photo is fake, please say what they are.

If you disagree...why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PERHAPS BECAUSE MARY SAID SHE WAS IN THE STREET BUT SHE WAS ONLY THERE ONLY TOOK THE PHOTO AND DID NOT STATE THIS JUST THE ONCE, BUT ACCORDING TO SOME WHAT SHE RECALLED DOES NOT COUNT...AND NEVER DID NOR HAS..I CALL THAT .DUH...b excuse caps please..

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you trying to prove Jack?

And speaking of early prints of the Moorman photo.

I was shown a copy by a stranger I met at Dealey Plaza one anniversary, and I thought it clearly showed head debree flying off of JFK's head.

Does this show up in any of the copies you guys have?

Thanks,

BK

Hi, Bill...I and we (many others) have shown conclusively that Mary Moorman

was standing in the street as she repeatedly said and not on the curb as

Zapruder shows her. Dr. Thompson resists ALL PROOFS that the Z film has been

faked. Even though this issue is just ONE of more than a dozen, he continues

to harp on an irrelevant issue that he calls THE GAP. This is a meaningless

term invented by him. HE CAN MAKE THE GAP AS LARGE AS HE WANTS, it

will still mean nothing to finding Mary's line of sight.

Jack

Jack, you're starting to sound like John McAdams, who, in order to avoid admitting that his SBT has a different point of exit on Kennedy's throat than the HSCA's SBT, refused to admit that two bullets entering in the same location, one heading upward and one heading downward, would not exit from the same location.

IF Josiah's re-enactment photo from 54 inches more accurately re-creates the size and shape of the windows, including the gap, than your re-enactment, then it is obvious the Moorman photo could have been taken, indeed probably was taken, from 54 inches, and that any Moorman in the street argument built around the idea her photo only lines up at a lower level is false.

If you agree and think there are other reasons to believe the photo is fake, please say what they are.

If you disagree...why?

This guy simply refuses to believe things even though they have been presented multiple times.

1. There is NO DOUBT (no matter how many times Thompson objects) that Mary Moorman and Jean Hill

WERE NOT ON THE GRASS as seen in the Z film.

2. There is NO DOUBT that a PORTION of the Moorman photo has been ALTERED.

Both of these things have been demonstrated endlessless, but preconceived biases keep some

from considering them.

See Trask, page 250 (spotted by David Lifton).

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, I agree with Bill Kelly. What is the purpose of rehashing the same thing over and over again? Another new topic on the identical subject.

I think we've established now that Josiah Thompson doesn't agree with Jack White's interpretation of the film record. It's also clear that Jack isn't going to acknowledge that Josiah's critcisms are valid.

Jack posts on many topics here on the forum. Does Josiah have any interest now in the JFK assassination, outside of challenging the views of Jim Fetzer and Jack White?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, just a request.

Could you consider adding ''in me'', or something to that effect, after NO DOUBT, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, just a request.

Could you consider adding ''in me'', or something to that effect, after NO DOUBT, please?

No. There is NO DOUBT that Mary and Jean were NOT on the grass as seen in Zapruder.

There is NO DOUBT, PERIOD. All other possibilities have been considered. There is

NO DOUBT. NO DOUBT at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Jack, that's singable. xxxx, I wish Dylan in his heyday, had had the opportunity to expand on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, just a request.

Could you consider adding ''in me'', or something to that effect, after NO DOUBT, please?

No. There is NO DOUBT that Mary and Jean were NOT on the grass as seen in Zapruder.

There is NO DOUBT, PERIOD. All other possibilities have been considered. There is

NO DOUBT. NO DOUBT at all.

Jack,

Read the paragraph under the photo:

post-5680-1266099480_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...