Monday, August 31, 2015

Someone, whom I shan't name, made an important observation about bpete's work. It is that he arranged a situation in which the rider's arms were largely horizontal, rather than steeply diagonal.

And it reveals another staggering incongruity in the Moorman photo. Look at the angle that the arms are supposed to be for those Dallas PD motorcycle cops. 

The same was true of Glenn McBride, Mary's friend.

Let's compare the two:
On the left, it's like the image was stretched like a rubber band, and the arm is not rising steeply enough. 

But, in bpete's case, there was hardly any steepness at all. The arms were sloped very little, and they come across as practically horizontal, especially the left one. 

The reason why it's important is because the process of capturing an image of the right arm alone involves cropping the left arm out. You can do it by actually cropping, as I did, or you can do it using the zoom function of the camera, which is a form of cropping. Mary's camera didn't even have a zoom function. 

But, the only way to do it is to somehow raise the bottom of the picture so that it falls between the two arms. Besides zooming in, it also helps a lot if you physically raise your camera up, if you elevate it in the air. And that's why I asked bpete at what height the pictures were taken. 

So, through a combination of zooming-in and also raising the camera, you can get it to where the horizontal bottom of the camera falls between the two arms, and wahlah, you can take a picture of just one arm. But, the only chance of doing that is if the arms are close to horizontal. If the arms are inclined steeply, it doesn't work because as you come up, as you lift the bottom of the picture, you've still got some arm there that you don't want. Look at Glenn McBride again:

There's no way you could crop out his left arm by raising the bottom of the picture because there would still be some left arm showing. So, if you were on his left side (Mary's side) shooting at him, you could never raise the camera high enough to elude his left arm because his left arm is rising with you. You really need a picture like this:

Notice that this image is really ideal for the task at hand because there is very little left arm in it to get rid of. Just the hand, wrist, and a little bit of the forearm. There's much more of the right arm showing, in fact, there is more of it showing there than there is in the Moorman photo.  But there is very little elevation between his left hand and his left forearm, what little there is, all bpete had to do was get above it. And there is a huge gap between those two relatively horizontal arms. In a word, it's perfect, and it's really like stacking the deck in poker. 

Notice something else: this image was taken from a slightly leftward angle, and that's why the right side view mirror is obscured behind the windshield. The alternate picture was taken from a slightly rightward angle, which put the right side view mirror in view.

Similarly, in the above picture, the top of the windshield is in line with the center of the little house. But, in the picture with both arms, the windshield goes slightly beyond the edge of the little house. 

That is a significant difference, and it shows you that the photographer moved. So, this was not a situation in which the pictures are the same except for the amount of zoom. And keep in mind that both pictures are zoomed because without any zoom at all from six feet away, you'd capture the whole bike. But, the photographer didn't just zoom; he moved. He moved the camera, and he relocated himself.

Ultimately, this comes down to cropping: using the zoom function of the camera as a way to crop the picture. But, that, by itself, wasn't enough because he had to have an image that was cropable.

What relevance this has to the Moorman photo is zero. Mary Moorman, from her side of the street, could not possibly have caught just a partial right arm of BJ Martin and nothing else.  

          It is utterly and completely impossible. 

Oh, I see. So, you weren't doing anything that applied to Mary Moorman's specific situation on Elm Street. You were just trying to be an irritant. 

So, you don't want to tell me the elevation of the camera when this picture was taken, and you don't want to tell anyone else either who may be interested.

And I'm not talking about your bros because they don't care the least bit about anything, except if it has harassment value. If it does, they're good. 

But, it really doesn't matter because the instant you touched that zoom button you completely invalidated the whole experiment as far as Mary Moorman was concerned because she didn't have that function. 

Mary Moorman's Polaroid Highland Model 80A instant camera was manufactured in 1957. 

I have checked, and I now know that it did NOT have a zoom function. It had a 100 mm lens, with f8.8 made of 3 element glass. It had 2 shutter speeds. It had scale focus by rotating the front element but no rangefinder. And it had no zoom function. 

So, there was no way that 5 foot Mary, whose camera was less than 5 feet high could have avoided capturing the left arm of BJ Martin, just as Marie Muchmore couldn't with her movie camera. 
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: I DEMAND to know what height the camera was when this picture was taken. 

One thing is absolutely certain: if 5-foot Mary Moorman was 6 feet away from this guy, and she raised her camera to her eye and snapped the picture (as she did on 11/22/63) she most most certainly would have captured his left arm.

At that distance, that's a must for her. And remember what she said, that they were not a photographic family, that they just pointed the camera and snapped pictures. She definitely did not do any zooming, and I don't even know if her camera had that capacity. It doesn't matter. She didn't do it. 

Below I put an "x" to identify Martin's so-called windshield, and I typed "arm" over his arm.

If that's just the distance to get from his windshield to his lower arm, how much farther do you have to go to get to his head and torso? It obviously can't be that long. It obviously is a bogus image. It obviously is art. It's obviously time for everyone to admit this. 
Hmmm. This is weird. Go to bpete's site, and on each of the two images of the guy on a motorcycle, right click your mouse over the picture, and then click "Open in New Tab". It's at the top of the window that opens up. And that will give you a tab at the top which you can click on to view the image in a new browser. And when you do that, you'll get to see each image in its original size, and you'll see that one image is vastly larger than the other.

This one is small: 

And this one is extremely large:

 In fact, it is so large, that I can't view it all in one browser display. A horizontal scroll bar appears at the bottom, along with a vertical scroll bar on the side.

So, if the only difference between the two images was backing off a zoom, why the difference in size? On my camera, I can play around with the zoom all I want, but it will still produce the same size image. The zoomed image is just as big as the unzoomed image. 

So, this makes me think that he cropped this image:

So, what did you crop out, bpete? And isn't it patently obvious that you are not allowed to do that since Mary couldn't do it? 

OIC Chairman Larry Rivera, in response to my latest work on Moorman, has sent me a letter from Beverly Brunson to Harold Weisberg in which she detailed alterations she found in the Moorman photo.

She points to the unusually long neck on Jackson, the distant motorcycle cop.

Yeah, I see what she means. It is pretty freaky the way that guy is built. It's like he's got this huge trapezius muscle. 

Then, she says that Hargis seems to have "a number of arms." Well, that is no surprise to me since there were two men there. And she says his left arm seems to be going to the center of the bike rather than the grip.

Exactly why is that so garbled? There was nothing obstructing the camera's view of his left arm- supposedly. Why is that such a mess? Oh, that's right, the thumbprint. The accidental thumbprint. Of course. Accidents do happen. Nothing to see here, folks; move along. But, you know, the thumbprint is actually pretty thinned out in that area, where his left hand would be grabbing the grip. In fact, I'm not sure there is any thumbprint at all in that spot. I don't think you can blame the thumbprint. 
bpete said that each of these pictures were taken from a distance of 6 feet. But, at what height was the camera above the ground? Cite the height. 

Since we have such a clear view of Martin's supposed right arm, I decided to fill in the rest of him, to extend his arm back. This is how it would look if the camera field was wider. 

Isn't that an awfully long way to go? Isn't that span from the windshield to the rider ridiculous? But, how could it be less? His arm was straight, and it had a certain length. We're seeing only a part of it, no more than half of it, in the Moorman photo. So, you've got to give him the rest of his arm. And then you have to give him his head and torso. And this is what you get. It's way too far. It goes on for way too long.  It's way out of proportion. And it's more evidence that what we see of BJ Martin and his motorcycle in the Moorman photo is completely bogus.  
I came upon this very clear rendering of the Moorman photo. This may be the clearest I have ever seen.  What's crystal-clear is that the tool box is deeper than the front wheel. If not, then that bike is being driven into the curb. 

Compare it to the line of the limo or the line of Chaney's bike (although granted, his, lacking a tool box, looks more like a riding lawnmower). 

The front wheel is the the front wheel of Martin's bike, and that's why it isn't in line with the tool box of Hargis' bike. 
When I consider how a thumbprint such as this might have occurred "by accident", all that comes to mind is that the person picked up the photo by pinching it between his thumb and index finger. 

Can you think of anything else? If it wasn't that, then we're back to the fingerprinting as per police fingerprinting, and there is nothing accidental about that.

But, the picking it up scenario doesn't work either because this was a Polaroid with a huge tab on the right.

Actually, there was a sizable margin all the way around the photo that would have enabled a person to handle it easily without touching the photographic area at all. And we have all been handling photographs our whole lives and are used to doing it. But, if one were going to pick it up by pressing one's thumb into it with one's index finger behind, there is that huge area on the right which allows that. One might even say that that's what it's for. And remember that the photo is extremely light- to the point of being, for all practical purposes, weightless. Therefore, there is no issue about picking it up asymmetrically. It's not going to be a problem. 

So, who would be stupid enough to plant his thumb right into the body of the photo?????  And again, his thumb would have to have been coated with something to produce the effect that we see. A dry thumb, meaning just a regular normal thumb, wouldn't do it. 

But, getting back to this other one:

Robin Unger says that this is the original. But, he means that it's a photograph of the original. Well, it could not have been Mary Moorman's because she didn't take a photo of her own photo. So, that would mean that somebody else did, presumably someone in law enforcement. In that case, why did they have to go back and get hers? Undoubtedly, they had copies that were enlarged and enhanced, and hence, better than the original. So, why did they need to see hers again? 

It was reported that law enforcement definitely made a copy of her photo before they sent her home with it on 11/22/63, and they also made a negative of it. So again: why did they ever need to see Mary Moorman's original again?  

As I said, one would have to be extremely gullible to believe that this photo got accidentally damaged because once it was dry, it was darn hard to do. It would certainly take more than a dry thumb.

Furthermore, how exactly does one "accidentally" do that? An accidental contact would be like glancing it or brushing it, but there you are talking about a direct downward plant of the thumb, rather like getting fingerprints made.

That is what we are talking about here, and I demand that people stop being stupid, stop behaving like children, and start calling a thing what it is. 

You know my opinion about JFK "coincidences" and now I'm telling you that I have got the exact same attitude about JFK "accidents". I DON'T BELIEVE IN THEM!

So, the only question is WHY did they deliberately damage this photo? 

Well, to answer that, think about the answer to this: Why did they keep getting Mary's photo back from her, the original? It's well established that they made a copy of it on the very day it was taken. In fact, it's well known that they made a negative of it so that they could, thereafter, produce as many prints of it as they wanted. Therefore, WHY did they have to keep going back to get hers? 

Sunday, August 30, 2015

You know that the big thumbprint in the Moorman photo was not an accident. And that's because you know the photo was long dry and long stable when it happened. It was dry as a bone. Therefore, pressing a clean, dry thumb to it was not going to phase it at all.

Therefore, the only way that could have happened is if the thumb was coated with something. And I hope it isn't necessary for me to tell you that it was deliberately coated with something.

Because otherwise, what we've got here is an episode of Seinfeld, and I don't mean the JFK episode with the Magic Loogie, although that's a good one. 

I mean the episode in which George decides that he is going to leave the New York Yankees to go to work for the New York Mets, except that he has to get fired first. So, he decides to go out in style. Showing up for an important meeting: 

GEORGE: Sorry I'm late, but look what I found in the Yankee Hall of Pride display case.

WILHELM: Isn't that Babe Ruth's uniform you're wearing?

GEORGE: Is it? (reaches into bag)

Wilhelm looks disturbed by George's actions.

GEORGE: Huh, strawberries, anyone? (eats a strawberry) Ah, that's good. Ooh, so juicy this time of year.

He wipes strawberry juice from his fingers onto Babe Ruth's jersey.

GEORGE: Gotta get the good ones.

He fetches another over-ripe strawberry from the bag, and drops it onto the front of the jersey leaving a large, pulpy stain.

GEORGE: Oh, that's bad. That's bad.

Eureka! We have a comparable situation in the Muchmore film to the Moorman photo. The motorcade was leftward of the photographer as they passed her, and she was shooting the Kennedys from behind.

Do you see that black crescent in the lower right corner? That is BJ Martin's left arm. Not his right arm, but his left arm. And I can prove it by inching the motorcade forward for a tiny fraction of a second. This is as fast as I can left-click the mouse. 

Then, as Hargis comes into view, we get our first glimpse of a right arm- barely.

It's just barely peaking out there on the right side of Hargis. We're not getting much. Why does Martin seem so far forward compared to Hargis when he was actually behind him? It's because of the perspective, the angle from which the photographer was shooting. The same thing happened to Marie Muchmore when she filmed towards Elm Street; she showed Martin leftward in the picture there too.

Notice that that is Martin's motorcycle we're seeing. He was behind Hargis, yet his motorcycle is completely covering up the bike of Hargis from Marie's perspective. 

And the same thing happened in the Moorman photo. The front bike wheel that we see is that of Martin's bike. 

Here is a link to Google Images showing people riding motorcycles. You will see that in no instance did the photographer capture just the distant arm of the rider. Not once did it look anything like bpete's image.

And in Mary Moorman's case, we know she didn't capture just the distant arm of any motorcyclist either. 

YOU DECEITFUL FOOL! What you did was, in effect, to use the zoom function to crop the photo.

Those are obviously two different camera fields, and the one on the right is no more than 1/3 of the one on the left.  But we are talking about just one camera field, the one below. So, for I, or anyone else who goes to Dealey Plaza to try to capture BJ Martin's lone right arm from the left side of the grass, you still have to capture this field, the whole field: 

And if you don't capture that whole field, it doesn't count. 

Again, what bpete did was effectively crop the photo. I cropped it directly and produced about the same thing:

Let's compare his crop to my crop.

They're about the same, but oh so very different. More of the travel trailer got cropped on his. I couldn't go in that far because I was trying to match the capture of the arm. Notice the big difference in the location of the side view mirror. On the original, it is rather obscured by the windshield, but you can still see it. On his version, it is not obscured by the windshield and is in plain view with green over the mirror. 

 Hmm. That's a weird reflection to have in a mirror, with the grass below and then black above. Black? What black object is being reflected there?  But, getting back to the comparison:

So, obviously, the images were taken from different perspectives, since we are getting a different perspective of the side view mirror in relation to the windshield. I suspect he stepped to the right and turned the camera to the left to take the picture on the left, and that's what put the side view mirror in view and cut off the travel trailer.  

But look at his original again. Notice that it captured as little of the left arm showing as possible, so as to reduce his burden.

Obviously, he was not standing perpendicular to the guy when he took that. If he had been, he would have caught both his arms about the same length. And notice that the picture was taken at an angle so that the arms were captured at different heights.

And, that made it easy not only for him but for me. How could I effect a crop if the arms were close together? So, he started with the most advantageous positioning to effect the removal of the left arm. 

But now, let's try to duplicate Mary's situation. The bicycle represents Martin's motorcycle, and the white SUV represents the limo.

Note that I was standing 6 feet away from the bicycle, camera held 5 feet high. Now, let's try it again with a rider.

Now that is about what we're talking about, and as you can see, it is utterly impossible to capture just the right arm alone. 

This isn't about tricks. It's about trying to duplicate the Moorman photo. And the fact is that we have another image from Mary Moorman to go by.

Obviously, Mary photographed Glenn before he reached her, so as to capture his face, as any normal person would do. However, if she had waited, she would still have caught more than his right arm. And although his right arm can't be seen, you can tell that it's at the same height in the picture as his left, just as my two arms are.

The bottom line is that this is the field that has to be captured:

For Bpete to represent his devious work as corresponding to the Moorman photo is an outrage. and it is also an insult, a blatant attempt to mislead, confuse, and confound. It is pure disinformation.