Friday, 7 August 2015

Ralph Cinque - crucified on the Moorman "Cross"..UPDATED! Plus FURTHER UPDATE!


These days I can rarely be bothered to spend too much time following the comical antics of Ralph Cinque and the Oswald Innocence Campaign. To all intents and purposes the word is out and they are recognised in JFK circles as clowns and disinfo junkies. Since the resignation of former chairman Professor James Norwood, we now know that only a very small group of the "senior" members listed on the OIC's website play any active part - and that founder Ralph Cinque doesn't even have contact details for around a third of the senior members listed. To put it bluntly the Oswald Innocence Campaign is considered irrelevant by the vast majority of researchers - and, well...there are much more interesting things to do.

The ramblings of Ralph Cinque of course continue unabated. The normal pattern of things is that Ralph will cycle through every one of his long debunked fantasies as if they are in some way new or important, forcing people to debunk them all over again. This has been going on for years now - same tired old nonsense, wash, rinse, repeat. I refer to it as the circle of bullshit.

Just occasionally though, Ralph will come up with a new way to demonstrate his ignorance of the photographic record in the JFK assassination. Case in point, the Moorman photo...

Mary Moorman was a witness to the assassination who is best known for the famous polaroid photograph that she took very close to the moment of the fatal head shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Moorman

https://jfkplayersandwitnesses.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/the-mary-moorman-photo/

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmoorman.htm

Mary's photo was damaged by the FBI during the course of the investigation and as a consequence many of the versions we see now are partly obscured by an ugly thumbprint.

Mary Moorman's famous polaroid
LARGE Moorman Drumscan ( Credit: Josiah Thompson ) Craig Lamson Version
(Image from 
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/



Information on the various versions of the Moorman photo that we see today can be found here -


Now, enter the idiot...

Ralph Cinque, in his latest attempt to appear important, has taken to claiming that Moorman's photo was not in fact taken by her but by the "Babushka Lady" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babushka_Lady ), who at the time the photo was taken was situated further up Elm Street somewhere between 15-20 feet to Moorman's right and a little further away from the curb. To support his claim he produced a photo of some impressive looking equations scribbled on a piece of paper by a physics professor, no less, who was apparently staying at Ralph's starvation camp for a while. 

I'm not saying I bothered to look though them because the thing is, they're wrong. And there's zero possibility that they are even worth consideration. Why? Well, let's see.

It's never been seriously suggested before that the Moorman photo was taken by anybody but Mary Moorman - and as it turns out there's a very good reason for this. By chance, the photo contains a reference point that makes it possible to determine with certainty where it was taken from. It's a feature which the late Jack White referred to as "the cross". And it's formed by the apparent intersection of two angles - the corner of the pedestal on which Abraham Zapruder stood to take his famous film and the corner of a window in the pergola behind him. I've marked them on a crop of the photo in red and blue respectively -

Zoomed in portion of the famous Moorman photo showing the "cross" alignment


Two things here - firstly, it's been argued that the alignment doesn't form a true "cross" as defined by White. The exact alignment has been the subject of intense study mainly due to a proposition put forward by White and Jim Fetzer that Mary Moorman stepped into the street to take her photo. Because of this it has been tested - on more than one occasion. Links to information on the various studies are here -



A very detailed paper from Ralph's former mentor Jim Fetzer concerning the argument about the alignment and the so-called "gap" between the cross points can be found here -


It's well worth taking the time to read all the information in these links, but in the final analysis the argument over the "gap" comes down to this -

Image - jfklancer.com

For the scope of this piece it really doesn't matter if Fetzer and White were correct in their proposal. What IS important to notice is that the adjustments required to reconcile the difference between the White "cross" and the "gap" alignment  are measured in inches. That is the full extent of any argument there has been over Moorman's position. Ralph's suggestion of the Babushka Lady position requires a lateral shift of approximately 17ft, which would utterly destroy the perceived alignment of the features in the photo and consequently rules out any chance that he's correct, as we'll see in a while.

When the percentage proportion taken up by two horizontal distances in the various photographs is compared, ALL of the results, including White's, fall within a percentage spread of 1%. In other words, there's very little room for error - and every study done on the subject has used this reference point within the photo. ( Refer to this link to see the table of results and an explanation of what was measured in the various photos - http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/moorman2.htm ). One example here showing the measurements taken in all the tests -


Image - http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/



Notice how the "cross" alignment puts you in a position directly across the street from the Zapruder pedestal. It HAS to - it can't put you anywhere else. If you have visited the link above you'll have seen how this is true for all of the different tests conducted. On November 22nd 1963 that was Mary Moorman's position.

So,what we can say with absolute certainty is that any attempt to recreate the Moorman photo MUST show the "cross" alignment - or something VERY close to it. From the Babushka position this is impossible, as we'll see.

Secondly, it's important to realise that the "cross" is not an actual thing but an illusion created by the alignment of  objects in three dimensional space. That's the cool thing though - because if you're not in the correct position the "cross" doesn't exist. Therefore if you attempt to recreate the Moorman photo and you can't produce that alignment, you're in the wrong place. It can only be seen from one spot. Here's a little 3d video which demonstrates the concept ( not to scale ). As you watch it, remember that the objects themselves are not moving and that the spatial relationship between them does not change. All that changes is the point from which they are viewed -




It makes no difference if you go left or right, up or down - there's only one possible viewpoint from which the "cross" is visible.

And when you start looking, these types of alignment between objects can be found everywhere. I stepped outside when typing this piece and found a perfect one immediately -

demonstration of the "cross" alignment concept seen in the Moorman photo

You'll notice if you look for a few examples yourself how much the alignment of the objects is altered with very small changes in the viewing angle. In the next photo a substantial move to the   right of approximately 6ft completely destroyed the perceived arrangement -


So, to summarise ( and sorry to labour the point, but it's important ), the Moorman photo contains a built  - in alignment which allows us to show with certainty where it was taken from. EVERYBODY who has looked at the Moorman line of sight issue is in agreement on this. The only serious argument has been whether or not she stood in the street to take it.

Now, let's look at this on a map of Dealey Plaza. I've used the Don Roberdeau map and removed annotations which aren't relevant to the discussion - so the positions of the people we're talking about are exactly as shown on that map.

Graphic demonstrating that only Moorman's position gives the necessary line to produce the "cross" alignment seen in the Moorman photo



We can see that the blue line drawn from Moorman's position does exactly what we know is required to produce the "cross" seen in the photo - it hits the corner of the Zapruder pedestal and passes through the front and side entrances of the cupola shelter to intersect with the window beyond.

The red line drawn from the Babushka position however, just doesn't work. It hits the corner of the pedestal ok but finishes in the corner of the shelter and therefore cannot possibly produce the necessary alignment with the window.

It's case closed at this point - but there's more. When we add in the field of view from Mary's camera as seen in the photo, we can see that everything is exactly where it appears in the image. JFK is to the left of the frame, as required. Motorcycle officers Chaney and Hargis are in their correct positions. Officer Martin is mostly just outside of the frame, but this allows for his right arm to appear in the bottom of the photo exactly as we see. Zapruder and Sitzman are correctly placed on the pedestal. The people on the steps are visible in the location we see in the photo. In short - everything is correct.

graphic showing the Field of View in the Moorman photo

Since 1970 Beverly Oliver has claimed to be the Babushka Lady. Her claim is disputed, and that's not an argument I want to address here, but Beverley claims that she was filming with an 8mm movie camera. Of course this presents an obvious problem - we know that the Moorman photo is a polaroid image and Mary Moorman was one of only two people in Dealey Plaza with a polaroid camera that day ( the other was Jack Weaver ).

But, whoever she was and whatever camera she used, we have never seen any images captured by the Babushka Lady. If however we assume that she was attempting to centre the limo in the frame using a camera with a comparable field of view to Moorman's....the pergola and Zapruder's pedestal would not even have appeared in the shot.


Moreover, her picture would have contained Charles Brehm, Jean Hill, Officer Martin...and maybe a glimpse of Mary Moorman.

I can feel a small tinge of sympathy here for Ralph's physics professor, who wasn't given anywhere near the amount of information required to make a meaningful judgement on the issue. As it's obvious that Cinque was blissfully unaware of any of the prior work done on this subject I suppose that's hardly surprising. When I tried to press him on the issue in a recent Facebook exchange I got this response -

Ralph demonstrates that his knowledge of the case is zero...


This is a stunning display of stupidity even by Ralph's standards. A photo of a man pointing a camera into the distance doesn't of course establish a thing about the line of sight in the Moorman photograph, but it does confirm what many people have been saying for years - Ralph Cinque doesn't know a goddamned thing about the JFK case.

The Moorman photo - taken by Mary Moorman.

Ralph Cinque - still eternally clueless.

All is well...


UPDATE!

Ralph has responded in a rambling and incoherent piece which shows that he either hasn't properly read my post or fails to understand the issues involved. Only a few points are worth addressing.

Proving he has no idea about the concepts under discussion, he rambles for a while about Mary Moorman not trying to capture Zapruder. Duh..really Ralph? Nobody suggested that she was and Zapruder himself isn't relevant to the argument. It's about the pedestal he stood on. You have a reading comprehension issue.

Further proof is provided by Ralph's feeble reference to the fact the the exact alignment of the cross has been disputed, as if it in some way helps him. You need to read what I wrote again Ralph, because I covered the dispute to make the point that in dismissing YOU it's irrelevant. 

THE STUDIES DONE TO REFUTE WHITE AND FETZER STILL USE THE SAME REFERENCE POINT YOU DUMB SHIT. IT'S JUST ALIGNED IN A VERY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY. THE ARGUMENTS IN NO WAY ALLOW FOR A POSITION ALMOST TWENTY FEET AWAY.

Did I not spend a LONG time making the point that the arguments were about very small differences?

Ralph, as usual hoping that nobody bothers to check up on the links I provided and verify the information for themselves decides that his best course of action is to 
a) lie about the previous studies of the photo, and
b) put his head in the sand and refuse to confront the facts proving him wrong -


Once again, EVERY study recognises that this alignment is a crucial part of the Moorman photo. It doesn't complicate anything, IT IS CRUCIAL TO PINPOINTING MOORMAN'S POSITION. There is absolutely NO controversy about that. Read the links and try for once to understand the concepts involved Ralph. Or go ask Jim Fetzer to explain it to you...

I swear to God you couldn't make this stuff up.

Finally, this -


There is no battle Ralph. You just lost, but you're too stupid to understand why. If at any point you want to confront the irrefutable evidence proving you wrong, maybe we'll talk...

The "cross" alignment or something that is very close to it is an undeniable feature of the Moorman photo and crucial to pinpointing Moorman's position because it's an easily identifiable visual reference.  It cannot possibly exist in a photo taken from Babushka Lady's position.


FURTHER UPDATE - RALPH CONCEDES

Ralph admits he has no rebuttal

It's neither new or my thesis Ralph. But thanks for your admission that you are incapable of either understanding or arguing the point.

Game over - Thanks for Playing...