In Film Posted at NARA, Moorman Says She Was "in the street"

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I received this email from Gary Mack a day or two ago, and I regret I have delayed

posting it till now, because lately I have been busier

than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

Gary is a good man, IMO, though we disagree on the fundamental issues in this case.

Although I have never met him, I am convinced he is also a pig-headed SOB.

Gary has some vocal enemies here, but I consider him a friend.

I appreciate his commitment to the case. Gary may not realize this, but he has REAL DOUBT.

Charles Sanders Peirce, the great American logician, teaches us only someone with REAL DOUBT will

continue to inquire into a mystery he claims is solved. (ditto for Bugliosi, McAdams, et al.)

Gary is Curator of the Sixth Floor Museum, as the whole world and his wife & kids know, But

what I appreciate is that Gary consistently goes above & beyond his duties as curator, to respond

to questions from researchers. I can testify that Gary provides a magnificent service to this forum,

on numerous threads related to Lee Oswald's departure from the TSBD,

providing key data that only he could have unearthed.

But as I say Gary & I disagree. Here's what Gary writes in reference to my memory

of THE TARGET CAR:

That’s why eyewitness testimony is such a problem.

Sorry, Ray, the heads we used for the four test shots did not move at all. Blood/matter went forward matching the Z film for the behind shots, and the blood/matter went out the left side for the right side/knoll shots. In each case the skull stayed locked onto a mount as it should have.

My response:

I agree that eyewitness testimony is OFTEN unreliable

but I hope yours truly is not your average eyewitness.

I went back to look at the first shot, from the grassy knoll.

A Winchester was the weapon used,

though the caliber was undisclosed

and it blew the head clean away,

and backward from the shooter.

The caliber bullet in the Target car was probably high.

I suspect the the head shot from the knoll

was smaller caliber,

but using an EXPLOSIVE BULLET.

But the CLEAR FACT EMERGING from THE TARGET CAR PROGRAM, IMO,

is that the bullet' FORCE

drives the victim away.

It NEVER drives the victim back towards the shooter.

Edited July 8, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Bill Miller]

Very interesting analysis.

Is there somewhere I can view the documentation (heights, distances, ect.) for this?

It's probably in both this forum and Lancer's archives. It was a simple test to check Moorman's view of the passing cycles. What was needed to know ...

1) Moorman's photo was unaltered when shown on TV on the afternoon of the assassination. The alignment of the cycles as seen against the background of the knoll are indisputable due to Moorman's photo being in her possession when it was filmed in Dallas.

2) A DPD bike's windscreen stands 58" off the ground. This measurement was taken from a DPD bike being sold as having been in JFK's motorcade. The same measurement was achieved whether or not a rider was sitting on the bike.

So to do a test ... we needed a DPD cycle ... or something representing the height of the DPD cycles windscreen. Two 58" tall wooden stands were constructed and placed in the street. A Moorman replica photo was taken at Fetzer and White's claim of 54.5" off the ground for Mary's lens height and from where Moorman was seen in the Zfilm, and again from the street next to the curb.

One view matched the gap issue concerning the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window, and also the height of the DPD windscreens when overlaid onto Moorman's Polaroid ... the other was so far off that it cannot even be argued concerning the gap issue and the way the cycles would have stacked up against the knoll.

Summary ... 54.5" in the grass makes Mary's lens high enough to see over the cycles windscreens, which causes them to stack upwards in Moorman's field of view the further from Mary they are.

54.5" off the street and looking at the 58" tall stands raises them much higher in Mary's field of view and causes each to stack downward in Moorman's field of view the further from Mary they are.

Moorman's unaltered photo and Fetzer's law of nature proved without a doubt that Moorman was above the curb when she took her famous photo. In the past decade ... no one has been able to dubunk my test and data. Fetzer was asked several times recently to address those stands and the law of perspective and he sits in silence.

To date, Fetzer still pushes Moorman being in the street by using what has been proven to be false and/or mistaken information.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Bill Miller

[Pat Speer]

A kidnapper is hit in the right temple. His head spins left with the bullet, but then jerks back before he drops.

Sorry Patrick, I don't see that.

I would like to see that scene in slow motion.

I cannot tell whether that bullet came from right or left,

but to me it looked like the kidnapper was driven backwards

by a bullet from somewhere in front.

Recall the Gary Mack program, INSIDE THE TARGET CAR?

IN that program you can clearly see that IN EVERY INSTANCE

the "skull" was driven in the same direction as the bullet.

In that program the skulls are always driven forward by a bullet from behind

which proves to me that since JKF was driven backwards,

he must have been shot from the front.

One thing that is very obvious in this disucssion: a lot of perspectives are tied together. Pat and I disagree on the wounding to Kennedy's head, and my view of the wounding affects my view of the film. If my view of Kennedy's wounding is correct, the ejecta from the back of the head, which had to be considerable, was removed from the film to attempt to remove evidence of a shooter from the front. I am not claiming that this shooting came while the limo was stopped, but certainly when it was going slower that depicted in the extant film. I vigorously disagree with Pat that the principle witnesses to the head shot confirm the speed of the limo as shown in the extant film. David Lifton, after all interviewed a number of these in 1971 before the extant film was ever shown, and they all said it stopped. A number of motorcycle officers said it stopped. Toni Foster's assertions are late, true, but that is hardly her fault. Who took the time to interview her before Debra Conway in 2000? Now had Toni said one thing in 1963 or 4, and something totally different in 2000, that would be grounds to impeach her testimony.

I have to throw a bone to Bill Miller, whose studies on the height of the motorcycle shield seem definitive to me. But that is a separate issue from the limo stop, and what might have gone on during that stop, or around the time of the stop.

I would also agree, Raymond, that the poor slob who got himself shot showed every evidence of being struck from the front. Remind me not to kidnap anybody. Best, Daniel

Daniel, I think it's inaccurate to insinuate the motorcycle officers claimed the limo stopped. Hargis mentioned it once or twice, but he later clarified that it almost stopped, and has never said anything indicating he assumed the Z-film was fake. As far as Lifton and the closest witnesses, who, besides Newman, did he interview?

And if you're gonna rely on Newman--who has never suggested the Z-film was fake, by the way--well, then you oughta rely upon his two most consistent observations:

1. The sound at the time of the head shot came from behind him, at the back of the arcade, and not from his right--the direction of the picket fence.

2. The right top side of Kennedy's head--by his right ear--exploded, and NOT the back of his head. Newman, who I believe has been interviewed more than any other witness, is clear about this. He was but 15 feet or so away from Kennedy, staring right at the back of his head, when Kennedy's head exploded. And yet he saw nothing explode from the back of the head. Nothing. He saw one wound, by Kennedy's temple, (EXACTLY where it is depicted in the Z-film), and told people about this before Kennedy had even been pronounced dead.

It's really really silly, IMO, to use him as a witness supporting that the back of the head exploded, and that the Z-film is fake.

I interviewed William Newman (and his wife) in late November, 1971. My friend, the late Bill Corrigan, went to his home, and spent well over an hour there.

The interview was recorded on a SONY reel to reel machine, the same model that Nixon used in Watergate.

Both Newman and his wife said that the car stopped. There was nothing subtle about it. It stopped. Moreover, when I told him that the film at the National Archives showed not such stop, he responded that he didn't care what the film showed--the car stopped, and he was there.

I think what is really silly is that the witnesses can be ignored because of some psychologist's theory. They were there and they said the car stopped.

Newman did not offer any theory that the Zapruder film was faked--and I did not question him in that fashion. I questioned him about what he saw--and he said the car stopped.

Period.

FYI: I also interviewed Franzen, and Chism, and spent over an hour in Moorman's home. Her husband forbade me from using my tape recorder, but Bill and I made extensive notes afterwards. I have posted that account elsewhere. And yes, Moorman, too, was a car-stop witness.

DSL

7/7/11; 2:30 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Thanks, David. Did Franzen and Chism also claim the car stopped? Are transcripts of your interviews with Newman, Franzen, and Chism available?