Jump to content
The Education Forum

Everything I know about Moorman 5


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

1. Gary Mack is the undisputed expert on Moorman and the provenance

of the photos, having done extensive research into all known sources of

good prints of Moorman 5. He obtained around a dozen early prints from

Harold Weisberg, Josiah Thompson, Robert Groden, UPI and other sources,

as well as information regarding the copy negatives. He researched the

copyright, sales, uses, etc. Anything Gary says in this area you can take

to the bank.

2. Among the copies he obtained from Groden were closeup slides of various

portions of the image, including the end of the concrete wall, which seemed

to show a large puff of smoke. (Cutler thought this was made by a man

he called the "smoke puffer" in the blackdogman location.) Groden indicated

that his slide had been made from an 8x10 borrowed from Thompson, as

he recalled. The Weisberg and Thompson prints were of about equal quality,

both having been early prints from the UPI original copy negative. Another

copy Gary obtained was the ZIPPO print, of unestablished provenance.

3. At the TV station where he worked, Gary put this slide on a large screen

monitor, adjusted the brightness, and saw what he thought was a man's

head. The slide was very underexposed, and he asked me to copy it

to see whether the quality could be improved.

4. Using a Repronar slide copier with electronic flash and bw fine grain

film, I shot a roll of exposures at half-stop increments. At least three

of the exposures yeilded optimal results. I chose the best exposure

and made 8x10s, which very clearly showed the image that Gary dubbed

Badge Man and I call Badgeman (take your pick).

5. Gary and I did several years of research on the discovery, including:

.....taking it to MIT, where computer enhancement showed it to be a man

.....copying Mary's ORIGINAL, which she brought to my office

.....havinng the Thompson #1 copied by profesional photographer Byrd Williams

.....having a very large drum scan made from the Williams/Thompson #1

.....having the original copied by professional photographer Gordon Smith.

6. In the 1980s Geoffrey Crawley and I, USING MARY'S CAMERA, and

jury-rigged Kodak film, took "recreation" photos in Dealey Plaza. When

overlaid over the Moorman photo, they were a perfect match in the

central areas. At the time, I THOUGHT IT ODD that to achieve the

correct line of sight, we had to SIT ON THE GRASS ABOUT FOUR FEET

SOUTH OF THE CURB.

7. In the 1990s, I determined that the line of sight of the Moorman photo

WAS TOO LOW FOR HER TO STAND ON THE GRASS as shown in Zapruder,

but was accurate only if Mary was standing in the gutter about 18 inches

north of the curb. This has been confirmed by many others (see Fetzer et al).

8. A small group disputed this, and produced an image they called the

DRUMSCAN as "proof". It proved nothing except a diversion they called

the GAP. The "gap" is IMMATERIAL to my studies, and is a red herring

to distract from the obvious. Too, the DRUMSCAN IS PROVABLY ALTERED

from the Moorman 5 image...and the quality of the image is distinctly of

inferior quality. The drumscan is worthless as proof of anything.

9. A reconstruction photo taken by Nigel Turner proves the Badgeman

image is the correct size and place.

10. For years I believed that the Moorman 5 HAD TO BE A GENUINE IMAGE.

I no longer believe that, because my Zapruder studies show that the

representation of Zapruder and Sitzman ON THE PEDESTAL CANNOT

BE ACCURATE (see The Zapruder Waltz). The Z/S image is either altered

or added. Actually, it is entirely possible that the Badgeman image could

also be an added red herring. I have no idea how or when Moorman 5

could have been altered.

11. The Badgeman image IS NOT A HOAX nor any addition BY ME. It

was present in all images I have studied...just better in some than others.

If Moorman 5 was altered, it was done by someone WITH A MOTIVE.

Now who would that be?

This is a summary of everything I remember at the moment. If I remember

anything else, I will add it. If Gary wants to add anything, I suggest that

he post it to the forum or email it to John Simkin.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This latest post by Jack White illustrates the continuation of what must be the biggest waste of time in the whole history of research on the Kennedy assassination. Once again White continues to offer a series of opinions concerning the authenticity of various photos taken in Dealey Plaza of the Kennedy assassination. First, it was the Zapruder film he claimed had been faked. When it turned out that the Nix and Muchmore films matched the Zapruder film in various ways, he claimed they too were fakes. Now he claims that the Moorman photo itself was faked and offers no indication at to how this could have happened. Let’s consider this latest claim for a moment.

Early on the afternoon of November 22nd Mary Moorman and Jean Hill were waiting to be questioned by law enforcement officials. A Dallas journalist who was in the room succeeded in photographing Moorman’s Polaroid next to a Zippo lighter hence the name of this photo: “the Zippo Moorman.” Later that afternoon, Moorman’s photo was purchased by UPI and properly copied. It was on the wire within a few hours of the Kennedy shooting. There is no internal evidence in the photo that it has been altered. It matches every other photo we have of the shooting. It shows Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman standing on the Zapruder pedestal as Zapruder films the moving limousine. In showing this, it matches every other photo of the scene which likewise show Zapruder and Sitzman doing exactly what they and many other witnesses saw them to be doing. Since, for reasons unknown, Jack White believes Sitzman and Zapruder were not standing on the pedestal, he comes up with the truly whacko conclusion that the Moorman photo has been altered by showing them on the pedestal. This is not “research.” It has something to do with rejigging the world around a fixed idea.

Let’s just take three paragraphs where White attempts to deal with one of his most notorious errors:

“6. In the 1980s Geoffrey Crawley and I, USING MARY'S CAMERA, and

jury-rigged Kodak film, took "recreation" photos in Dealey Plaza. When

overlaid over the Moorman photo, they were a perfect match in the

central areas. At the time, I THOUGHT IT ODD that to achieve the

correct line of sight, we had to SIT ON THE GRASS ABOUT FOUR FEET

SOUTH OF THE CURB.

7. In the 1990s, I determined that the line of sight of the Moorman photo

WAS TOO LOW FOR HER TO STAND ON THE GRASS as shown in Zapruder,

but was accurate only if Mary was standing in the gutter about 18 inches

north of the curb. This has been confirmed by many others (see Fetzer et al).

8. A small group disputed this, and produced an image they called the

DRUMSCAN as "proof". It proved nothing except a diversion they called

the GAP. The "gap" is IMMATERIAL to my studies, and is a red herring

to distract from the obvious. Too, the DRUMSCAN IS PROVABLY ALTERED

from the Moorman 5 image...and the quality of the image is distinctly of

inferior quality. The drumscan is worthless as proof of anything.”

Paragraphs 6 and 7 make an irrelevant but true point. In 2000, Fetzer published a section by White in this book of essays, Murder in Dealey Plaza. Fetzer and White trumpeted one section as “MOORMAN POLAROID PHOTO CONTAINS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF ZAPRUDER FILM TAMPERING.” White here made the claim that in the Moorman photo two points line up exactly. These two points were the top left corner of the Zapruder pedestal and the bottom right corner of a window in the pergola behind the pedestal. Since about 35 feet separated these two points, they constituted a line of sight which would also contain the lens of Moorman’s camera. White went to Dealey Plaza, lined up the two points and then trumpeted the result. A few feet back from the curb, the line of sight to Moorman’s camera lens was only about 44 inches above the ground. However, in the Zapruder film she is shown standing on the grass taking the photo and the lens of the camera is about 53 or 54 inches above the ground. QED: The Zapruder film has been faked up.

In Fetzer’s book, White published a photo with a red cross showing how the two points lined up. The only trouble is that the red cross actually covered up the fact that the two points don’t line up! When you remove the red cross from White’s photo, it is easy to see there is a gap and the two points are far from lining up. When this gap is accounted for in the calculations, it turns out that Moorman’s camera lens is right where the Zapruder film showed it to be... about 53 or 54 inches above the turf.

Far from being a “red herring,” the existence of the “gap” is simply proof of the fact that White made an error of sloppiness. The drum scan image is probably the most high resolution image we have from the Moorman Polaroid. Its provenance and integrity have been demonstrated on another thread. However, finally it doesn’t matter what copy of the Mooman film you choose since all show the “gap” quite clearly. White throws up a cloud of smoke to cover up the fact that he made a sloppy mistake of observation and will not admit his error.

I’ve posted as an attachment the photo from Fetzer’s book with the red lines and then without. By the way, the photo without the red lines came from Jack White himself. Looking at this photo, one has to ask how honest has been the research of those like White who keep shrilly claiming forgery in the photo record concerning Dealey Plaza. White and Fetzer published a photo which clearly showed White’s error of observation and then covered up the critical area in the photo with a wide red cross. If White can explain this innocently, I for one would like to hear the explanation.

Once one gets beyond the shrill claims it is possible to see that the photo record of Dealey Plaza constitutes a bedrock for research on the case. Nothing has been faked because the tapestry of photos intertwine and are self-authenticating. A discussion of this can be found in an essay I posted on the Mary Ferrell site. If anyone would like to pursue this point farther, they can find the essay at <www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination>.

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[From the Mary Ferrell website:

The observational studies mentioned above show what still can be learned from a careful examination of the films and photos from Dealey Plaza. A shot at Z313 from the right front and a second shot from the north end of Elm Street at Z328 would match exactly what the acoustics evidence tells us.

Josiah Thompson

My compliments to Josiah Thompson for his very lucid article "Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination.

While the extant photos/films are indeed bedrock evidence, I fear the same cannot be said about the accoustics. Robert Blakey was a sucker for "Science" and Blakey himself has now admitted that, at least in the case of Dr. Guinn's bullet lead comparisons, he was suckered by Junk Science. I submit that, as of now at least, the accoustics should be considered as falling into the same category.

Blakey wanted to prove that CE399 could not have been planted, so he bought into Guinn's ridiculous theory. He also wanted to prove that there were three shots from the TSBD, so he bought into the accoustics. The human ear cannot hear gunshots on the dictabelt, so we are left to rely on the opinion of experts. My best guess is that future studies will confirm the findings of the National Academy, and then there is no accoustical evidence of any shots from the TSBD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Raymond Carroll, for your appreciation of my essay arguing that the photo evidence from Dealey Plaza forms a self-authenticating fabric. I continue to expect that additional studies of the acoustics data already in the can will confirm its validity. I'm not persuaded by the various attempts that have been made to critique Don Thomas' recent work. In any case, it was nice of you to read my essay and I thank you for your comment.

[From the Mary Ferrell website:

The observational studies mentioned above show what still can be learned from a careful examination of the films and photos from Dealey Plaza. A shot at Z313 from the right front and a second shot from the north end of Elm Street at Z328 would match exactly what the acoustics evidence tells us.

Josiah Thompson

My compliments to Josiah Thompson for his very lucid article "Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination.

While the extant photos/films are indeed bedrock evidence, I fear the same cannot be said about the accoustics. Robert Blakey was a sucker for "Science" and Blakey himself has now admitted that, at least in the case of Dr. Guinn's bullet lead comparisons, he was suckered by Junk Science. I submit that, as of now at least, the accoustics should be considered as falling into the same category.

Blakey wanted to prove that CE399 could not have been planted, so he bought into Guinn's ridiculous theory. He also wanted to prove that there were three shots from the TSBD, so he bought into the accoustics. The human ear cannot hear gunshots on the dictabelt, so we are left to rely on the opinion of experts. My best guess is that future studies will confirm the findings of the National Academy, and then there is no accoustical evidence of any shots from the TSBD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josiah Thompson' wrote:

Thank you, Raymond Carroll, for your appreciation of my essay arguing that the photo evidence from Dealey Plaza forms a self-authenticating fabric. I continue to expect that additional studies of the acoustics data already in the can will confirm its validity. I'm not persuaded by the various attempts that have been made to critique Don Thomas' recent work. In any case, it was nice of you to read my essay and I thank you for your comment.

dgh: yes, 40+ years have passed, the JFK assassination film/photo [and other DP related evidence] regarding the *slamdunk* WCR, is hotly debated. --

Some would say, "WCR as status quo" is in 'serous' trouble. Whether contributors are persuaded or not, is irrlevant.

[From the Mary Ferrell website:

The observational studies mentioned above show what still can be learned from a careful examination of the films and photos from Dealey Plaza. A shot at Z313 from the right front and a second shot from the north end of Elm Street at Z328 would match exactly what the acoustics evidence tells us.

Josiah Thompson

My compliments to Josiah Thompson for his very lucid article "Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination.

While the extant photos/films are indeed bedrock evidence, I fear the same cannot be said about the accoustics. Robert Blakey was a sucker for "Science" and Blakey himself has now admitted that, at least in the case of Dr. Guinn's bullet lead comparisons, he was suckered by Junk Science. I submit that, as of now at least, the accoustics should be considered as falling into the same category.

Blakey wanted to prove that CE399 could not have been planted, so he bought into Guinn's ridiculous theory. He also wanted to prove that there were three shots from the TSBD, so he bought into the accoustics. The human ear cannot hear gunshots on the dictabelt, so we are left to rely on the opinion of experts. My best guess is that future studies will confirm the findings of the National Academy, and then there is no accoustical evidence of any shots from the TSBD

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Raymond Carroll, for your appreciation of my essay arguing that the photo evidence from Dealey Plaza forms a self-authenticating fabric.

Always a pleasure to read anything by the author of the detective classic "Gumshoe." Who knows, someday I hope to read Thompson's book on Kierkegaard.

I continue to expect that additional studies of the acoustics data already in the can will confirm its validity. I'm not persuaded by the various attempts that have been made to critique Don Thomas' recent work

To me, as a layman in matters accoustical (like nearly every one of 200 million adult Americans), the opinions of Don Thomas carry a great deal less heft than the consensus of a panel of independent experts selected by the National Academy of Science (I am well aware that one member of the panel, Arthur Alvarez, was heavily biased).

If I am not mistaken, Josiah Thompson was one of the first, if not THE first assassination author to suggest that CE 399 and the limo fragments could have been planted. Prior to the HSCA no one could didprove the theory that 399 WAS planted, and Blakey set out to do the job. His method? blind them with "science." Blakey does not have a good track record when dealing with novel scientific arguments.

I tried to listen to Don Thomas's presentation at the Wecht conference, but the screeching noise his machine produced sent me scrambling out into the glorious Indian Summer.

If the accoustics are DIS-confirmed it will NOT be a victory for John McAdams et al, because it may just reopen Pandora's box-- three shots were NOT fired from the Sniper's nest and maybe none were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve posted as an attachment the photo from Fetzer’s book with the red lines and then without. By the way, the photo without the red lines came from Jack White himself. Looking at this photo, one has to ask how honest has been the research of those like White who keep shrilly claiming forgery in the photo record concerning Dealey Plaza. White and Fetzer published a photo which clearly showed White’s error of observation and then covered up the critical area in the photo with a wide red cross. If White can explain this innocently, I for one would like to hear the explanation.

Once one gets beyond the shrill claims it is possible to see that the photo record of Dealey Plaza constitutes a bedrock for research on the case. Nothing has been faked because the tapestry of photos intertwine and are self-authenticating. A discussion of this can be found in an essay I posted on the Mary Ferrell site. If anyone would like to pursue this point farther, they can find the essay at <www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination>.

Josiah Thompson

Does tihs sound like an innocent mistake .... Jack said that Moorman and Hill were in the street ... Jack went so far as to post a carefully edited clip of Jean Hill saying, "I stepped into the street", but Jack left out Jean saying that she had gotten back out of the street BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT HAD BEEN FIRED. Mark Oakes, JFK assassination researhcer who sells autographed Moorman prints asked Mary what she thought about White's "in the street claim" about her and Mary said, "The whole thing is just silly". Then there is Altgens #6 which Jack says is a genuine image "and can be used for comparisons with the official story depicted by Zapruder"

..... and that photo taken after JFK and Connally had been shot and just seconds before the fatal shot to JFK shows both Moorman and Hill to be standing EXACTLY WHERE THE ZAPRUDER FILM SHOWS THESE WOMEN TO BE. You can also add the fact that Moorman's 54" camera lens height is looking over the top of the 58" motorcyles windshield in relation to the ground and that Mary Moorman's photo (showing two people on the pedestal) was filmed for TV not 30 to 35 minutes after the shooting and while still in Mary's possession proves beyond all doubt that White and Fetzer were way off base and yet they continue to push a proven lie to this day. One can hardly call this an innocent mistake that is still going on all these years later!

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has happened on this thread is a symptom of a strain of dishonesty that runs through the continued postings of Jack White and his friends. He puts out a kind of statement concerning the Moorman photo which mixes factual reports with opinions. In the center of this statement is yet another defense of one of his great crash-and-burn claims --- the claim that Mary Moorman was standing on Elm Street when she took her famous photo. The falsity of this claim has been demonstrated over and over again since it was made in 2000. Bill Miller and I put up some of the salient debunking reports and what does Jack White do: He simply ignores the whole thing! He starts a thread by making a number of statments. When some of these are shown to be false, he simply ignores the whole thing and then whines about other people whom he calls "provocateurs" sending him emails. There are rules to intellectual discussion and debate. You make a statement. Someone else disagrees with it and offers reasons for the disagreement. You reply and show how your disputant's statements are incorrect. This is the way discussion goes. With White, Fetzer and company, it never goes that way. When your view is clearly shown to be wrong you do one of three things: (1) Simply ignore what has been shown -- that is, shut up. (2) Change the subject to something else. (3) Accuse whomever disagrees with you as being a government agent or provocateur of something.

I would just like to point out that we've seen Jack White's essential dishonesty right here in living color on this thread. I understand Jack is in his seventies. I am seventy-one. Becoming an old codger is no refuge for dishonesty. The same rules apply to all of us... independent of our age.

I’ve posted as an attachment the photo from Fetzer’s book with the red lines and then without. By the way, the photo without the red lines came from Jack White himself. Looking at this photo, one has to ask how honest has been the research of those like White who keep shrilly claiming forgery in the photo record concerning Dealey Plaza. White and Fetzer published a photo which clearly showed White’s error of observation and then covered up the critical area in the photo with a wide red cross. If White can explain this innocently, I for one would like to hear the explanation.

Once one gets beyond the shrill claims it is possible to see that the photo record of Dealey Plaza constitutes a bedrock for research on the case. Nothing has been faked because the tapestry of photos intertwine and are self-authenticating. A discussion of this can be found in an essay I posted on the Mary Ferrell site. If anyone would like to pursue this point farther, they can find the essay at <www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination>.

Josiah Thompson

Does tihs sound like an innocent mistake .... Jack said that Moorman and Hill were in the street ... Jack went so far as to post a carefully edited clip of Jean Hill saying, "I stepped into the street", but Jack left out Jean saying that she had gotten back out of the street BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT HAD BEEN FIRED. Mark Oakes, JFK assassination researhcer who sells autographed Moorman prints asked Mary what she thought about White's "in the street claim" about her and Mary said, "The whole thing is just silly". Then there is Altgens #6 which Jack says is a genuine image "and can be used for comparisons with the official story depicted by Zapruder"

..... and that photo taken after JFK and Connally had been shot and just seconds before the fatal shot to JFK shows both Moorman and Hill to be standing EXACTLY WHERE THE ZAPRUDER FILM SHOWS THESE WOMEN TO BE. You can also add the fact that Moorman's 54" camera lens height is looking over the top of the 58" motorcyles windshield in relation to the ground and that Mary Moorman's photo (showing two people on the pedestal) was filmed for TV not 30 to 35 minutes after the shooting and while still in Mary's possession proves beyond all doubt that White and Fetzer were way off base and yet they continue to push a proven lie to this day. One can hardly call this an innocent mistake that is still going on all these years later!

Bill Miller

Edited by Josiah Thompson
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...