Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why the Moorman 5 print is BOGUS!


Recommended Posts

The Polaroid 5 print taken by Mary Moorman cannot be genuine

because the retouchers who added (or altered) the two "people"

on the pedestal made a major mistake by LEAVING OUT FOUR

WINDOW OPENINGS which should be in the photo. The attached

study would stand up in any court in the land as proof that the

extant photo has been tampered with, and thus is worthless

as evidence. Unfortunately, this might also negate its importance

in showing the badgeman figure and other things. Who did the

tampering and why is unknown. Apparently it was done in

connection with Zapruder and Sitzman alleged to have been

on the pedestal.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Polaroid 5 print taken by Mary Moorman cannot be genuine because the retouchers who added (or altered) the two "people" on the pedestal made a major mistake by LEAVING OUT FOUR WINDOW OPENINGS which should be in the photo. The attached study would stand up in any court in the land as proof that the extant photo has been tampered with, and thus is worthless as evidence. Unfortunately, this might also negate its importance in showing the badgeman figure and other things. Who did the tampering and why is unknown. Apparently it was done in connection with Zapruder and Sitzman alleged to have been on the pedestal.

Jack

With so many faked and fudged films and photos out there, one must really wonder: is Kennedy even really dead?!? Perhaps it would be easier - and a shorter list? - if someone could provide an inventory of those that are real and genuine ....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Polaroid 5 print taken by Mary Moorman cannot be genuine

because the retouchers who added (or altered) the two "people"

on the pedestal made a major mistake by LEAVING OUT FOUR

WINDOW OPENINGS which should be in the photo. The attached

study would stand up in any court in the land as proof that the

extant photo has been tampered with, and thus is worthless

as evidence. Unfortunately, this might also negate its importance

in showing the badgeman figure and other things. Who did the

tampering and why is unknown. Apparently it was done in

connection with Zapruder and Sitzman alleged to have been

on the pedestal.

Jack

Jack, maybe I'm missing something here. Isn't this a line of sight issue? I mean, I think the figures are blocking the windows you believe should be seen. When you added the red to emphasize what we should be seeing, it appears that it actually is overlapping the figures on the pedestal.

Jason Vermeer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Polaroid 5 print taken by Mary Moorman cannot be genuine

because the retouchers who added (or altered) the two "people"

on the pedestal made a major mistake by LEAVING OUT FOUR

WINDOW OPENINGS which should be in the photo. The attached

study would stand up in any court in the land as proof that the

extant photo has been tampered with, and thus is worthless

as evidence. Unfortunately, this might also negate its importance

in showing the badgeman figure and other things. Who did the

tampering and why is unknown. Apparently it was done in

connection with Zapruder and Sitzman alleged to have been

on the pedestal.

Jack

Jack, maybe I'm missing something here. Isn't this a line of sight issue? I mean, I think the figures are blocking the windows you believe should be seen. When you added the red to emphasize what we should be seeing, it appears that it actually is overlapping the figures on the pedestal.

Jason Vermeer

Look again. Picture one has nothing overlaid. Picture 2 has only the missing windows

overlaid. Picture 3 is the same as picture 2, but with red added for emphasis. NONE

OF THE PICTURES SHOWS ZAPRUDER OVERLAPING THE MISSING WINDOWS. Perform

your own study using the same photos, and you will see what I mean.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Polaroid 5 print taken by Mary Moorman cannot be genuine

because the retouchers who added (or altered) the two "people"

on the pedestal made a major mistake by LEAVING OUT FOUR

WINDOW OPENINGS which should be in the photo. The attached

study would stand up in any court in the land as proof that the

extant photo has been tampered with, and thus is worthless

as evidence. Unfortunately, this might also negate its importance

in showing the badgeman figure and other things. Who did the

tampering and why is unknown. Apparently it was done in

connection with Zapruder and Sitzman alleged to have been

on the pedestal.

Jack

Jack, maybe I'm missing something here. Isn't this a line of sight issue? I mean, I think the figures are blocking the windows you believe should be seen. When you added the red to emphasize what we should be seeing, it appears that it actually is overlapping the figures on the pedestal.

Jason Vermeer

Look again. Picture one has nothing overlaid. Picture 2 has only the missing windows

overlaid. Picture 3 is the same as picture 2, but with red added for emphasis. NONE

OF THE PICTURES SHOWS ZAPRUDER OVERLAPING THE MISSING WINDOWS. Perform

your own study using the same photos, and you will see what I mean.

Jack

Jason (or anyone)...please point out where Zapruder overlaps the window openings

in the attached.

Thanks.

Jack

Thanks, Robin. I should point out that the Moorman you posted

is 2 degrees away from verticality (as is the original). In my

study, I rotated the image 2 degrees left to make the verticals

vertical.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to Jack's claim is quite simple and it has been pointed out to him many times in the past even though he chooses not to listen to reason.

post-1084-1146275836_thumb.jpg

The Willis, Betzner and Bronson photos hold the answer. Note that part of Zapruder's clothing in the three previously mentioned photographs is lightened by the sun shining on him from the SW. Now understand that Moorman's photo is a B&W image with limited color tones, thus the part of Zapruder's clothing that is lightened by the sunlight has blended into the background of the colonnade. What Jack see's as Zapruder's total outline is only the dark shaded part of Mr. Z's clothes. Jack either purposely ignores this or he simply cannot comprehend how the sunlit portion of Zapruder's clothing is covering the window openings in Mary's #5 photo.

Anyone who can get access to a good copy of the news footage that was shot of Mary's #5 Polaroid not 30 minutes following the shooting and while still in Mary's possession will see that the window openings of the colonnade are not seen on the original photo either. Now with that being said, I think that we can all agree that Mary Moorman did not alter her own photograph within the first 30 minutes of the assassination, thus if no window openings are present in the news film showing her famous Polaroid, then there must be a logical answer found elsewhere for not seeing them in the later prints. I have given you the only logical answer in my opening remarks within this response.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's see if I have this right.

A few years ago Jack White wasted gargantuan amounts of people's time with the thesis he sold to Fetzer, Mantik and others. He said two points in the Moorman photo lined up. They were the left front corner of the pedestal Zapruder and Sitzman were standing upon and the bottom right corner of the window behind them in the Pergola. He published this claim in one of Fetzer's tabloid books. He was right in claiming that the center of Moorman's camera had to also be on that line. Then he went to Dealey Plaza, lined up the two points and found that Moorman's camera would then have been only 43" or 44" above the turf. Yet, in the Zapruder film, Moorman is shown with her camera to her face obviously higher than 43" or 44" above the ground. "Aha," proclaimed White, "I've finally proven that the Zapruder film is faked!" The only problem was that White's research was sloppy. The two points don't line up. The true line-of-sight formed by these two points confirms the location of Moorman's camera as shown in the Zapruder film. White's point was all hooey!

So now White is claiming that not the Zapruder film but the Moorman film has been faked. This silly argument has also been around for a long time. Bill Miller, having years earlier disposed of White's earlier argument, based as it was on sloppy research, disposes of this one in the same way. "Jack, the reason you can't see the two windows is that Zapruder is standing in front of them! Duh!!? To describe this research as "sloppy" does it a favor!

Thanks Bill.

The answer to Jack's claim is quite simple and it has been pointed out to him many times in the past even though he chooses not to listen to reason.

post-1084-1146275836_thumb.jpg

The Willis, Betzner and Bronson photos hold the answer. Note that part of Zapruder's clothing in the three previously mentioned photographs is lightened by the sun shining on him from the SW. Now understand that Moorman's photo is a B&W image with limited color tones, thus the part of Zapruder's clothing that is lightened by the sunlight has blended into the background of the colonnade. What Jack see's as Zapruder's total outline is only the dark shaded part of Mr. Z's clothes. Jack either purposely ignores this or he simply cannot comprehend how the sunlit portion of Zapruder's clothing is covering the window openings in Mary's #5 photo.

Anyone who can get access to a good copy of the news footage that was shot of Mary's #5 Polaroid not 30 minutes following the shooting and while still in Mary's possession will see that the window openings of the colonnade are not seen on the original photo either. Now with that being said, I think that we can all agree that Mary Moorman did not alter her own photograph within the first 30 minutes of the assassination, thus if no window openings are present in the news film showing her famous Polaroid, then there must be a logical answer found elsewhere for not seeing them in the later prints. I have given you the only logical answer in my opening remarks within this response.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The only problem was that White's research was sloppy. The two points don't line up. The true line-of-sight formed by these two points confirms the location of Moorman's camera as shown in the Zapruder film. White's point was all hooey!

So now White is claiming that not the Zapruder film but the Moorman film has been faked. This silly argument has also been around for a long time. Bill Miller, having years earlier disposed of White's earlier argument, based as it was on sloppy research, disposes of this one in the same way. "Jack, the reason you can't see the two windows is that Zapruder is standing in front of them! Duh!!? To describe this research as "sloppy" does it a favor!

Thanks Bill."

Josiah,

Aside from all the errors in Jack's claim from his not noticing that Moorman was looking over the tops of the cycles windshields in her #5 Polaroid - to ignoring Jean Hill when she said she had stepped back over the curb and onto the grass before the first shot was fired - to the Bronson slide showing Jean Hill's shoes and Moorman's socks which would not be visible from Bornson's location had these women been over the hill slope and having stepped off an 8 to 9 inch curb on top of it all (just to name a few) ... Jack has recently said that your 'drum scan' of Moorman's photograph has created at gap between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window seen in the background that was not there on Moorman's original. I have noted that the original Moorman photo filmed not 30 minutes after the shooting seems to also show a gap, so I do not know how Jack can justify his remarks about your drum scan ... so would you care to address Jack's allegation that the drum scan misrepresents the true cap between the pedestal and the window of the colonnade?

(I mentioned in an earlier post that Groden's copy prints of Moorman's photo shows a gap and I'd expect that if your drum scan created a gap that wasn't never there, then Jack would have posted one of his Moorman prints showing what he said to be accurate, but he did not. However, to prove the point even more - would you post one of your non-drum scans of Moorman's print showing the gap that Jack said doesn't exist or wanted to demonstrate using one of his own copies?)

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lest any of the provocateurs imagine that this is

something I just now thought of, I suggest they

refer to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, pages

256-57.

Jack

No, Jack ... we are not saying that you just thought of this nonsense, while I must say that it does appear however that you may have come up with idea rather quickly and without a lot of forethought. And whether people read it in a book or see your alleged evidence here on the forum - it will not change the fact that your approach was flawed and full of errors. There is a saying that says that the diference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid man doesn't know when to admit he was wrong. The camera lens height that you gave for Moorman is SHORTER that the standing height of a DPD cycle's windshield by four inches. It was obvious to me the first time I looked at your claim that Moorman's camera was well above the Officers 'Hargis and Martin' windshields, thus Mary cannot be standing on the street, but rather she is elevated above the curb. As I said in an earlier reply, Moorman said to Mark Oakes that the claim you've made about her being in the street when she took that #5 photograph is silly. It's odd that when I, Thompson, Mack, Groden, and a list of others have gone to Moorman's location as seen in the Zapruder film and shot a recreation photo ... we all achieve the gap that is seen in her Polaroid. A first grade art student could tell that your LOS was too far east and too low to be the same LOS Moorman was on. As I recall, Tony Cummings was present during your investigation and tried to tell you guys the mistake you were making, but you all were too arrogant to listen to him.

Ironically and without you being aware of it, the photo of Fetzer holding the stick shows Moorman's gap better than your transit LOS. The reason being for this is because the person holding the camera for that picture is now west and above the transit ... just as Mary was and as I have said from the beginning. The Fetzer photo shows that in fact your transit was too low and too far east to be on an accurate LOS with Moorman's camera in her #5 Polaroid.

Yet when you and Fetzer do the same alleged recreation - your gap closes as seen in the insert above. So we find that your gap is off, Mary's camera is above the DPD windshields where your LOS would not be, and Mary herself says to Mark Oakes that the idea she was in the street to take that photo is silly.

Ah, lo' and behold ... a regular non-drum scan Moorman print and it too shows the gap, which Jack's transit photo does not have.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lest any of the provocateurs imagine that this is

something I just now thought of, I suggest they

refer to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, pages

256-57.

Jack

.... and for any 'incompeteneurs' who now are finding that they wasted their hard earned money for a book that is a total sham - just remember that it may still be used for leveling tables that have one leg shorter than the others.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's see if I have this right. ... "Aha," proclaimed White, "I've finally proven that the Zapruder film is faked!" ... So now White is claiming that not the Zapruder film but the Moorman film has been faked.
No. It's that the Moorman photo, which the Z film proves is doctored, proves that the Z film is doctored. QE...Q?

It is, I think, an example of what was meant when they said that "the physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient!" ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The only problem was that White's research was sloppy. The two points don't line up. The true line-of-sight formed by these two points confirms the location of Moorman's camera as shown in the Zapruder film. White's point was all hooey!

So now White is claiming that not the Zapruder film but the Moorman film has been faked. This silly argument has also been around for a long time. Bill Miller, having years earlier disposed of White's earlier argument, based as it was on sloppy research, disposes of this one in the same way. "Jack, the reason you can't see the two windows is that Zapruder is standing in front of them! Duh!!? To describe this research as "sloppy" does it a favor!

Thanks Bill."

Josiah,

Aside from all the errors in Jack's claim from his not noticing that Moorman was looking over the tops of the cycles windshields in her #5 Polaroid - to ignoring Jean Hill when she said she had stepped back over the curb and onto the grass before the first shot was fired - to the Bronson slide showing Jean Hill's shoes and Moorman's socks which would not be visible from Bornson's location had these women been over the hill slope and having stepped off an 8 to 9 inch curb on top of it all (just to name a few) ... Jack has recently said that your 'drum scan' of Moorman's photograph has created at gap between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window seen in the background that was not there on Moorman's original. I have noted that the original Moorman photo filmed not 30 minutes after the shooting seems to also show a gap, so I do not know how Jack can justify his remarks about your drum scan ... so would you care to address Jack's allegation that the drum scan misrepresents the true cap between the pedestal and the window of the colonnade?

(I mentioned in an earlier post that Groden's copy prints of Moorman's photo shows a gap and I'd expect that if your drum scan created a gap that wasn't never there, then Jack would have posted one of his Moorman prints showing what he said to be accurate, but he did not. However, to prove the point even more - would you post one of your non-drum scans of Moorman's print showing the gap that Jack said doesn't exist or wanted to demonstrate using one of his own copies?)

Bill

Bill, I'd love to post the photos you mention but I'm sitting in a small motel in Birmingham, Alabama where I just arrived to work for the next two weeks on a murder case. So I can't. But this should be said.

What Jack White refers to as my "drum scan" is a minutely scanned copy of a negative very nearly the actual size of Mary Moorman's Photo #5. In 1967, Moorman permitted a professional photographer in Dallas to copy here Polaroid using an approximately 4" by 5" negative. This negative, of course, has not decayed at all in the intervening years and may well be the best surviving rendition of Moorman's famous photograph. But it really doesn't matter since EVERY rendition of the Moorman photo shows the gap as it is shown in the drum scan. It shows the level of White's commitment to honest, objective research that when things go against him he won't admit it and tries to impugn the very clear message of the evidence. As usual, he's just wasting people's time.

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...