Saturday, August 8, 2015

Lance Upperpunk is now saying that he rarely bothers to follow my actics any more. Fact: that's all he does.

When has he ever addressed anything BUT Ralph Cinque and the Oswald Innocence Campaign in anything he has written? When has he ever blogged about anything else but me? When has he ever made a comment on a forum or Facebook page about anything or anyone but me? 

He claims to be an Oswald defender, but when has he ever defended Oswald? When has he ever attacked anyone who accuses Oswald?

I am his whole reason for being, for the existence of his alias, and for his entire participation in the JFK world. 

So, that was a lie. He follows me, alright. He follows me intensely. And, I have no doubt that he is very much tied in with the people who have committed crimes against me. 

And who knows? His name may come up in court. 

But now, this fool thinks he has come up with a reason why Mary Moorman must have taken the Moorman photo, and it concerns Abraham Zapruder's position in the picture. He put up this diagram from Don Roberdeau. 

I'm not even going to address his "cross" talk until the end. But here, he says that the positions of the people were exactly as shown. Oh really? Let's hone in.

Notice that he has got Moorman's position designated for Zapruder 315.6, the time of the Moorman photo. And he also has Martin's position pinpointed for Z-315.6 as well. He has drawn a line from Moorman to Zapruder, but Mary wasn't trying to take a picture of Zapruder. So, that line has no relevance at all as to where her camera was pointed. He also has a line from Babushka Lady to Zapruder, but again; it says nothing about where her camera was pointed. And that is the most crucial question: Where were the cameras pointed?  You can't tell from looking at that diagram. 

So, he is claiming that the at the time of the Moorman photo, Martin had not quite reached Mary Moorman yet. Hmm. even Robin Unger has Martin past Mary at the time of the Moorman photo. 

You see four motorcycle helmets there, the one in the rear is BJ Martin. Notice that he is in front of Mary. 

Now take a close look at this diagram again.

Because, the Punk actually said this: "Officer Martin is mostly just outside the frame, but this allows his right arm to appear at the bottom of the photo exactly as we see."  

Utter nonsense! Look at it again, and try to figure out how Mary shooting at Martin could capture his right arm alone without capturing his left arm or his shoulders, or his chest, or any other part of him.

Do you understand, Punk, that Martin's right arm is on the inside, and Mary is on the outside? She is shooting from outside to inside. Or you could say, from his left to his right. And his arms were even with each other. 

So, you see Brehm clapping on the right. Mary is just a little down from him. So, Martin reaches her; she takes her picture, and somehow, all she captures is his right arm?

How could she possibly catch that right arm alone? She would have had to be way above him, shooting down from above to evade his left arm, but I'm not sure it would be possible even then. But just standing there, in all of her 5 footery, just taking the picture straight across, there is no way it could happen. How do you limit her camera view of him to just his right arm when she is shooting from the other side? His arms are in the exact same position.

   In other words, maybe if she could get way up high and point her camera like this:

The white line shows that if she were high above, she might be able to capture his right arm alone and exclude his left, but she's still going to catch more than his right arm. Much more. However, the black line represents Mary shooting directly at him from ground level, as she did. I realize that she was farther down the street, but so was he, so you can just move them both down the road together in your mind. But, the relationship would be the same.  There is no way that she, shooting from ground level at her diminutive height, could catch his right arm and not his left. 

Next, the Punk says that Beverly Oliver, who claims to be Babushka Lady, was shooting film. First, Beverly Oliver was NOT the Babushka Lady, and you only have to watch this video by Denis Morissette to get that idea completely out of your head.

Denis Morissette is not a friend of mine, and he is on the other side of the debate. He is a John McAdams person, a lone-nutter. Nevertheless, this video of his is very focused. It deals only with one issue: whether Beverly Oliver was the Babushka Lady. It is neutral on everything else. And therefore, I don't hesitate to recommend it. 

And one of the things Denis shows is that the Babushka Lady (who was definitely not a 17 year old girl) held a still camera, probably a Sears Tower camera.

So, on the left above is the camera that Beverly Arnold claimed to use, and below it is the Sears Tower still camera that Babushka Lady appears to be holding in her hand. 

Then, finally, the Punk provides this diagram of the camera fields of Babushka Lady and Mary Moorman.

What's interesting about this is that the Punk decided that Babushka Lady turned and faced JFK directly, centering on him in her camera's field. In other words: she pointed her camera at him. But Mary, in contrast, and even though the limo had stopped or nearly stopped, was unable to point her camera at JFK. 

So, even though Mary had her finger on the shutter since the limo rounded the turn at the top of the hill, and even though she claimed to watch the motorcade through the viewfinder of her camera, that when he finally reached her, she let JFK pass her and shot the back of his head. Why would she do that?

And note that Mary Moorman has never said that she let JFK pass her and shot him from behind. She has always claimed to have faced Elm Street squarely and and shot him when he reached her.

  Then in response to this picture which I put up:

The Punk said (and by the way, I call him the Punk because Lance Uppercut is not his name. It is an alias. Lance Uppercut is a name from the Simpson's, an alias that Homer Simpson used. I do not respect such an alias.) that this guy couldn't establish anything "pointing his camera in the distance." 

But, this was a study that was intended to identify Mary's location and line of sight, and that man is demonstrating where Mary was, at the height her camera was, and the direction her camera was pointed. I didn't say he was establishing Mary's direction that way. There was a scientific team there, and it was their work, taking measurements on the photo, that established the result, and he was just demonstrating it.  There was was someone behind him taking his picture, obviously, and there was a team there who determined his setup. So, it was their conclusion, not his. And it is a conclusion that the Moorman photo was taken on an angle to Elm Street. It was shot on a diagonal. A rather sharp diagonal. The photographer was turned- a lot. He is not facing Elm Street squarely, and neither was the woman who took the Moorman photo.   

Now, as far as all the stuff about Jack White's "cross" etc. which occupies most of the Punk's paper, that is pure smokescreen. It isn't even recognized. It is highly disputed. It is highly controversial. This is what Craig Lamson wrote about it:

"But Jack White made a mistake. 

The two points he described do not line up in the Moorman photo. There is a gap between them. The nearer point (the top left corner of the pedestal) is below and to the right of the farther point (the bottom right corner of the lowest window). 

How big is this gap? How much below and to the right is the top left corner of the pedestal? 

Here you have to look at the Moorman photo itself. Please examine the full frame Moorman photo and an enlargement.

The dispute, then, is quite simple. If the two points White's talking about line-up in the Moorman photo, he's right. If they don't, he's wrong. The three tests cited above and the summary of their results contained in the Lamson graphic and Hepler's measurements show he's wrong.

What makes no sense at all is what has been called the White-Fetzer-Mantik "experiment." They set up a transit on White's "cross" and then measured the vertical elevation of this line-of sight at various points. Months ago it was emphasized that this line-of-sight was both non-controversial and irrelevant. It is simply one of an infinite number of lines-of-sight which don't exist in the Moorman photo. It may appear you're doing something scientifically important when you distribute photos of a transit with David Mantik earnestly looking through it. But you really aren't. You're simply dodging the central issue. Do the points line up or don't they? To answer this question it was unnecessary even to go to Dealey Plaza. All you had to do was look at the Moorman photo. The much vaunted White-Fetzer-Mantik "experiment" was an exercise in irrelevance."

So, I am not going to venture down that rabbit hole at all. I am going to stick to the large elements of the photo. I am not going to be drawn into a discussion about something that is as mired in controversy and disagreement as that is. The whole claim about the "cross" is not part of my thesis, never has been, and there is nothing that anybody can say about it that is free of controversy and speculation. I am not going to defend it, and I am not going to complicate my presentation with it. No claim about it can be separated from opinion, and that includes the Punk's. 

So, just forget it, Punk. I am not interested in that. If you want to talk about that side of the photo, explain why Newman's arm is missing. Explain why we can't see the back of Chaney's motorcycle, making it look more like a riding lawnmower. And explain why that ride edge is so sketchy and washed out to the point of not even looking photographic. 

There should be a tool box behind Chaney just as there is behind Hargis. And not only his Newman's arm missing but so is part of his chest. He didn't actually have a vee-shaped build as he appears to have. He was more a portly guy. And that sketchy stuff behind Chaney looks sketchy because a sketch is what it is. Somebody drew that in. And if you don't think so, then submit to me any other Polaroid photo which looks like that, that has that degree of photographic abnormality in a small part of the picture. It's no wonder the UPI cut it out completely, even at the expense of severing Chaney.

Do you see what they did? They cut it right out. No fools. 

Now, I am hoping that Lance wants to continue this battle, that he will respond to this, and then I'll respond again. Let's really fight it out. I'm willing. The Moorman photo is just as corrupt as the Altgens photo, and the more light that can be shone upon it the better. I'm delighted that he wants to go to war about this, and I'm delighted that we are doing it in public. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.