The method of selection and elimination is on display in this latest attack from Josiah Thompson, “Moorman-in-the-Street?”, which seems to be adesperate attempt to preserve the illusion that the assassination films—the Zapruder, the Muchmore and the Nix—are authentic, lest the public become concerned that it has been deceived and recognize deception of this kind had to have involved elements at the highest levels of government, in this case including agents of the Secret Service, medical officers of the US Navy and even LIFE magazine, which was also used to promote a false depiction the death of JFK. There are many forms of lying, of course, some of which involve photographs and films when they are subject to alteration or recreation. That is why the debate over the Moorman photo has been so extensive and so intense, even though it is but one of many proofs that the films cannot possibly be genuine. Thus, the key paragraph to understand his objective is this one:

> Because of the persistent but failing efforts of Fetzer, White and others,
> I can say with considerable confidence that the photo record from Dealey
> Plaza forms a seamless tapestry of what happened on November 22nd. If
> you want to know what happened there, then study the photo record. It is
> a self-authenticating whole that can stand as bedrock in the case. It can be
> used to evaluate both eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. Only by
> the sheerest luck did Abraham Zapruder climb up on that pedestal with his
> camera and Mary Moorman take her Polaroid along that day. Zapruder’s film
> and Moorman’s Polaroid (plus many other films and photos) give us the raw
> material to reconstruct the event insofar as it is possible. Without them,
> we in the research community would have gotten nowhere.

He creates the IMPRESSION of having made his case by the highly creative use of evidence, selecting that which agrees with a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest. One of the first obligations of responsible scholarship, for example, is to offer relevant citations to relevant work by the subjects of your critique, which, in this case, are Jack and me. But the study that he is attacking, "Moorman/Zapruder Revisied", is never mentioned, much less cited. Search through Josiah's http://www.jfklancer.com/moorman_essay.html and you will find no link to http://JFKresearch.com/Moorman/ where our study can be found. The obvious explanation, of course, is that the author does not want the members of his target audience to have their own opportunities to study the work he is attacking. It is in fact a very careful and nuanced study of the major arguments advanced on both sides and does not—even remotely—satisfy his description of it as “tabloid journalism”. On the contrary, it clearly refutes it. Not only that, but it is chock full of logic and evidence contradicting his claim the photographic record of work alleged to have been taken in Dealey Plaza

> forms a seamless tapestry of what happened on November 22nd. If you
> want to know what happened there, then study the photo record. It is a
> self-authenticating whole that can stand as bedrock in the case. It can
> be used to evaluate both eyewitness testimony and physical evidence.

No only does eyewitness testimony take precedence over photographs and films in courts of law—as this private investigator has to be aware—but the extensive research on this subject demonstrates this claim is an outrageous misrepresentation, which must be deliberate. Indeed, “Moorman/Zapruder Revisited” quotes from McCORMICK ON LAW, 3rd edition (1984), Section 214, for example, concerning photographs, movies, and sound recordings:

The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness.

The practice of the Warren Commission and apologists for its findings has been the opposite, where photographs and films—including X-rays—have been used to discount the testimony of eyewitnesses, which is the better legal evidence. Since Josiah has to know better, what he is saying here qualifies as a hoax.

Moreover, “Moorman/Zapruder Revisited” includes multiple proofs that the films of the assassination have been altered, changed, and even recreated, where his position acquires such specious plausibility as it may have only by ignoring everything we know about the films: Jack's studies, Mantik's research, Lifton's investigations, and Costella's proofs! I would have thought that he would be more reasonable, but he is in a corner and has to find a way out or confront the ignominy of acknowledging that, for more than a decade, he has been fighting for a losing cause. I admired his chutzpah during our debate when he concluded claiming, "So the choice is really simple. Either believe Moorman's statement or believe the rest of the evidence." Astounding! As though Mantik had not proven the Muchmore cannot be authentic; as though Jack had not shown that Zapruder might not have even taken the film; as though John had not adduced compelling scientific proof that the Zapruder is a recreation; as though Lifton had not even documented the history of the alteration of the film; as though I had never edited and published THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)!

Remember, the assassination films are authentic only if the events which they depict corresponds to what actually happened at that time and in that place. It is not enough for the Zapruder, Muchmore, and Nix to be consistent with one another, since Muchmore and Nix could have been altered to conform to the Zapruder. What happened to the unresponsive spectators? the Greer head turns? the "blob" and the blood spray painted in? the absence of brains and debris being blown out the back of his head? the absence of brains and debris on the trunk of the limo? the publication of 232 in LIFE with physically impossible features? the rapid dissipation of the blood spray? mistakes made inserting the Simmons Freeway sign into the film? mistakes in introducing the lamppost into the film? the removal of Connally’s turn to his left? Irwin Schwartz’ report of seeing JFK’s brains blown out to the left rear? the visible blow-out to the back of his head seen in frames around 374? Homer McMahon’s report of observing 6-8 impacts on bodies? reports from William Reymond, Rich DellaRosa and others of having seen viewed the film with features that we had predicted based on medical evidence and eyewitness accounts? the absence of witnesses reporting the back-and-to-the-left motion that is the most conspicuous feature of the extant film? the missing limo stop? the absence of Chaney's motoring forward to notify Chief Curry JFK had been shot? Each of these impeaches the Zapruder film.

Josiah has adopted the pose that there is a simple choice between accepting Mary's testimony that she was really in the street—which “Moorman/Zapruder Revisited” documents, but which this new piece misrepresents; indeed, a new find is a video of Mary explaining how she stepped into the street to take her photograph, "Moorman In The Street - JFK Assassination", on YouTube—and the alleged consistency of all of the films and photographs, when consistency is not enough to establish authenticity. He writes as though Costella were on his side, when he is actually Tink’s greatest nightmare. It is as though he has not read "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" (OpEdNews), presenting John's latest proof, much less THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. Indeed, none of what I have said here even reaches to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, (b) the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and (c) the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the right-front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten after twice breaking the plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that night (HOAX, page 435)! In fact, none of it is true. Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back of his head. Not one of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the mortician! It's not just that Tink’slittle boat has sprung a leak. It has sunk like a sieve into the ocean of truth!

Since he doesn't offer a link to “Moorman/Zapruder Revisited”, based upon what he presents here, you would never know. He shows his hand early on, with an assault on ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), where I brought together contributions by eleven experts on different aspects of the case. While it would not be surprising if he were to take exception to some of their work, he instead trashes them all regardless of their quality and independent of their authorship.

> No longer was there a small community wherein opinions and theories
> could be vetted before publication. With a penchant for the tabloid style,
> Fetzer gave voice over the years to a number of researchers who competed
> with each other to produce dramatic (often outlandish) claims.

Such a depiction, however, does not appear to fit the extremely careful and meticulous work of David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who published the studies of the autopsy X-rays that shattered the cover-up and exposed the charade that had passed for serious research on the medical evidence. Nor does it fit the observations of Robert B. Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain, who concluded, on the basis of his review of the reports from multiple competent physicians at Parkland Hospital that two kinds of brain tissue—cerebral and cerebellar—were extruding from a massive wound to the back of the head that a brain shown in diagrams at photographs at the National Archives cannot possibly be that of JKF. Nor my exchanges with the Department of Justice to bring their new findings to the attention of the authorities in the department with responsibility related to investigations of his death. Even apart from the other excellent contributions to this book, these were historic developments that shattered the back of the cover-up.

Indeed, his depiction of "tabloid style" journalism does not fit any of the contributions to this book at all, which Josiah reviewed for amazon.com without actually reading it! Most scholars would find that practice to be a violation of the most basic principles of scholarship, but it appears to be par for the course for Thompson. Indeed, Vincent Bugliosi, RECLAIMING HISTORY (2007), describes the books I have edited as the only exclusively scientific books (three) on the assassination (p. 947). Indeed, the “tabloid style” that he would force upon the contributions to my book appears to be the approach that he himself adopts. For example, Josiah offers a grossly exaggerated assault on MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) as follows:

___________________

For some thirty-seven years, we all thought of Mary Moorman as the young woman seen in the Zapruder film snapping her Polaroid photo of JFK with the knoll in the background. Fetzer’s second book, "Murder in Dealey Plaza," made the astounding claim that she had actually taken her photo from the street. In tabloid style, Fetzer’s book proclaimed in headlines:

“ MOORMAN POLAROID CONTAINS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF ZAPRUDER FILM TAMPERING.... MARY AND JEAN WERE NOT ON THE GRASS; THEREFORE, THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS FAKED”

Unchecked by anyone before publication, the claim was immediately challenged and shown to be simply another example of Jack White’s careless analyses.

____________________

For all the hype, you would think this heading was emblazoned on the cover of the book. In fact, you have to search carefully to find it, where it appears as the somewhat obscure—you have to turn the book on its side to even read it—heading of one eight sections in Jack’s color photo section entitled, “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax”. Indeed, the second part of his title is actually on another page than the first. Precisely why this should be an “astounding” claim, given that Mary has been saying the same thing since her first interview only three hours after the assassination in 1963 through a subsequent interview in 1997 and has been captured saying the same thing in a video, “"Moorman In The Street - JFK Assassination", which is available on YouTube, is the question. If you only listen to Mary, she was standing in the street, where the fact that she is shown on the grass is simply one more proof that the Zapruder film was altered.

He not only contests Mary’s own statements, unedited versions of which can be found in “Moorman/Zapruder Revisited”, but makes other misleading allegations, such as, “With respect to Moorman-in-the-street, earlier believers in the claim, David Mantik and John Costella, threw in the towel long ago.” This, however, is simply untrue. I called David Mantik and asked him, “Did you throw in the towel on the Moorman?”, explaining that Josiah was asserting that he had. He told me that Josiah had his latest communication on the matter and that, if he was saying anything like that, he was being misquoted. For clarification, I asked David if he had changed his mind since we conducted our experiment in Dealey Plaza, and he told me that he had not. What this reveals is that Thompson is willing to make any statement, no matter how distorted or removed from the truth, if he believes it will advance his cause, especially when making a public pitch to the unwary.

Indeed, for more proof that Mary was in the street at the moment she took the Moorman, consider what she said during an interview with KRLD in 1997 with a host by the name of Charlie Jones, which David Mantik included in his study of the Zapruder film in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA on page 346 as follows:

Moorman: Uh, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know, there was tremendous excitement. And my friend who was with me, we were right ready to take the picture. And she’s not timid. She, as the car approached us, she did holler for the president, “Mr. President, look this way!” And I’d stepped out off the curb into the street to take the picture. And snapped it immediately. And that evidently was the first shot. You know, Icould hear the sound. And . . .

Jones: Now, when you heard the sound, did you immediately think “rifle shot”?

Moorman: Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up on to the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know. Knowing something was wrong, I certainly did not know what was wrong.

As David observes, these are her own words—she stepped into the street to take her Polaroid picture. As if for emphasis, she also recalls not just stepping back onto the grass, but precisely when she did so. “In fact,” David writes, “based on our reenactments and without the additional layers of blacktop, it is likely that Moorman could have stood erect in the street, with her camera to her eye, while taking the photo, just as she recalled. It is unusual in this JFK case to make a prediction, and then later to have it verified so precisely by a statement directly from the mouth of the pertinent witness.” Moreover, unlike our words, the actions we’ve taken are almost impossible to forget.

Under these conditions—when Mantik has consistently held to the position that the films have been altered and that Mary was in the street—it is all the more remarkable that Josiah would so grossly misrepresented him in this forum. He similarly misrepresents John Costella’s position, but in a more subtle fashion. While Costella does not believe that features internal to the Moorman photograph place her on the street, he actually believes that she was in the street when she took it, which means that, if Jack and I are wrong in our argument that features in the photograph place her in the street, then Mary’s photograph, like so much else of the photographic record, has to have been altered. But here is what he says:

John Costella recently lectured Fetzer on Fetzer’s mistakes of interpretation pointing out on 12/17/08 that “it has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street... It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film’s location of her lens.” [NOTE: Emphasis in original; see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6147]

Those who actually read this post, however, will find a nice example of Josiah’s method of selection and elimination, since John’s conclusions contradict his:
______________

Re: FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID ON NOVEMBER 22ND.

Josiah,

I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you. I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source wasn't Gary Mack. But at that time I thought you were going to reveal that she didn't say she stepped into the street at all.

As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the assassination, she said she stepped into the street. Given that this is damaging to your case (and his), I now agree that his authority is impeccable.

Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:

1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact, completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens.

2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has repeated to this day, that she stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE PHOTO FROM THE STREET.

3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the President's or Jackie's attention.

4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like frozen turkeys:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/clip_C.mov

5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.

6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.

The net results are:

A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as presenting a consistent depiction of the assassination.

B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete liar, or the photographic evidence is fraudulent.

C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is impeached as evidence -- its admissibility relies on the testimony of the photographer.

D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can see for no one else seeing her step into the street is that she did it AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.

As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman Polaroid as telling us anything at all. What surprises me the most is that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of WHETHER SHE STEPPED INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from, is the key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder film. The Polaroid is irrelevant in all this.

My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and has tried to make me understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't read his section in "Pig on a Leash" should do so. (And let me also say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006, when he dug out his transcript.)

I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it as vehemently as Jim, past behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving us this explosive and unequivocal evidence confirming Lifton's transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun. I think we've all learned a lot in the past week.

John
_______________

When you actually consult the sources cited, however, you will find that John is expressing his amazement that Gary Mack has just confirmed that, during her interview three hours after the assassination, “I stepped into the street”, which he had not expected from this source. Moreover, he skillfully sidesteps the fact that Costella believes the Zapruder has been massively altered—where the title of his major chapter in HOAX is “A Scientist’s Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication” — but you would never know from Thompson’s selective use of quotation. Here is another example of his technique, which violates the standards of scholarship. On page 3, he cites http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6048 , giving the impression Costella is entirely on his side, unless you read to the end:
_______________

I can't say you've proved that, as I haven't checked it. But it sounds like a valid argument.

Now wait on a minute: here's something I just thought of. (Research on the fly --dangerous. What the hell ...) The Moorman was taken after the head shot --around Z-315 or so, from memory. That means that the blood and brain matte that was blasted out the back of the President's head must be somewhere. If it'snot already splattered over Hargis, then where is it? I don't see it in mid-air, halfway to Hargis ...

John
_______________

Ironically, although I would ordinarily defer to an expert who possesses greater competence than I, in this instance, for reasons that I have explained in the study Josiah does not cite, I believe that Costella is wrong and Jack is right about the line of sight. I even observed there that, while Josiah might like to cite John’s Ph.D. in physics with his specialization in electromagnetism, including the properties of light and the physics of moving objects, to make his case against us, that would be to concede that qualifications make a difference, which he still insists is not the case in JFK research! If there has ever been a more bizarre attitude toward expertise—-as though competence in investigations were inversely proportional to qualifications—-I have never encountered it. In the case of this new presentation, in order to conceal John’s complete beliefs, Josiah cites his conclusion that the Moorman puts Mary on the grass while concealing his belief that Mary was actually in the street! This is about as duplicitous as it gets. In his zeal to impeach me over the Moorman, he succumbed to the temptation to suppose that John was completely on his side, when in fact that was far from the case. Indeed, when I asked him what we would see if we had an authentic film, John replied with a vivid description, with which Rich DellaRosa—who has seen (what appears to be) the unaltered film on three occasions—has agreed:

> I've already said here that I'd give better than even money odds that a
> genuine film of the assassination would show Mary stepping into the street.
> But it would also show her taking a photo of JFK slumping after the FIRST
> shot (there being no previous ridiculous "chicken dance" reaction of JFK as
> shown in the Z-toon; the throat entry shot most likely occurred later, when
> the limo was stopped and there was a barrage of bullets); it would show Jean
> Hill reacting more like an excited girl than a frozen turkey; it would show
> the limo stopping and the motorcycles scattering, Chaney going forward to
> the lead car; it would show Clint Hill actually push Jackie back down in
> the seat and cover her and the President with his body (not get stuck on
> the back foothold as the limo speeds out of the Plaza, as the Z-toon also
> shows); and, most importantly (and gruesomely), it would show the blood and
> brain matter of the President flying through the air and over the shiny
> trunk of the limo, over Hargis—indeed, over everything in its path—-instead
> of disappearing into nothingness, as the Z-toon shows, leaving Hargis and
> the limo as pristinely clean as Senator Specter's magic bullet was undamaged.

What then can be said of “Moorman-in-the-Street?”? For those who have lived through the past four months on the jfk-research.yahoogroups.com forum where this subject has been dissected in excruciating detail, it must be very strange to discover that one of the participants is providing such a lop-sided and completely baised presentation. Having suffered a humiliating defeat, Josiah Thompson has now resorted to a massive smear, which distorts the issues and manipulates the evidence. Indeed, having taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, this is an excellent case study to test the ability to find and analyze misleading arguments and “special pleading”, which is the standard designation of the practice of selection and elimination he so skillfully deploys. But violations of logic and evidence of this magnitude come at a certain cost. Anyone familiar with our past debate is unlikely to be taken in. By pulling out all the stops, he has revealed himself as a person who is willing to take any measure, no matter how unscrupulous, to defeat advances in understanding the death of JFK. And those who may find this surprising really should appreciate that, in this regard, Gary Mack, the custodian of The Sixth Floor Museum, Josiah Thompson and their allies are engaged in a systematic and sustained effort to keep the public from knowing the truth about the death of our 35th president. This is not new to them and this instance will not be the final installment in deceit and deception.

During a conversation about this exchange, David Lifton reminded me that he discussed attempts to "revise history" in relation to Mary Moorman in his chapter, " Pig on a Leash", in HOAX. And, indeed, on pp. 420-421 he reports on the making of a recent documentary involving The 6th Floor Museum, which I also discuss in "Distorting the Photographic Record", pp. 427-435. As Lifton writes,
_______________

Consider what happened on a recent documentary shoot in Dealey Plaza. Here was an important issue for The Sixth Floor Museum, which controls both the Moorman copyright as well as the Zapruder. Mary Moorman was being interviewed for a documentary to be broadcast on national television.

Mary told major media interviewers as recently as a few years ago how she stepped into the street to take President Kennedy's picture and then, after the shots were fired, stepped back on the grass. She was most specific about these two events: the step into the street, the step back onto the grass. Here are here exact words:

Moorman: Uh, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my friend was with me, we were right ready to take the picture. And she's not timid. She, as the carapproached us, she did holler for the president, "Mr. President, look this way!" And I'd stepped out off the curb into the street to take the picture. And snapped it immediately.And that evidently was the first shot. You know, I could hear the sound. And . . .

Jones: Now when you heard the sound, did you immediately think, "rifle shot"?

Moorman: Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up on the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know.Knowing something was wrong. I certainly didn't know what was wrong.

The trouble is the Zapruder film shows no such thing. And if this actually happened, then Mary's account is further evidence—just like the car stop—that the film was altered through professional optical editing, where Mary was put up
on the grass.

But now, some years later, at a time when The Sixth Floor Museum controls Mary's copyright, she is being interviewed by the Museum's Gary Mack. Mack has learned she should not say she stepped into the street, but she still says she stepped forward. And she says so again and again, on each successive take. The problem is: Mary doesn't even do that on the Zapruder film. She just stands there.

And Mary apparently remembers something else—how slowly the car was moving. Just the way she told me when I visited her back in November 1971 and she told me that it stopped. Now she simply says it "wasn't going that fast."The film shoot stops.

Mack cuts in. HE turns to the cameraman and says, "That's it", indicating thecamera should be turned off.

Someone says "going that fast". Gary Mack looks down at the grass and fidgetsat Mary's blooper. HE turns to Mary and says, "They will or will not use that. That's OK."

A senior producer walks over, in a casual manner: "Wasn't going that fast"? hesays, mimicking her. Then he continues, "Mary, you're so cute!" The implicationis clear. She should be careful about what she says and stick to the script.

Mary Ann puts her head in her hands, like a child who has made a mistake. Mack says, "We're going to do one more take. We'll have it go 'slowly'."

Meanwhile, before the shoot resumes, Mary keeps saying that she "stepped forward". This is clearly a troublesome phrase, because if Mary "stepped forward" that raises all sorts of problems, one being that she must then "step back" when the Zapruder film shows neither.

During one take, the one actually broadcast, Mary tells it this way and uses the troublesome phrase:

I just stepped to the, uh, to the edge here, and Jean is hollering, "Look Mr.President, look our way!" and then I snapped the picture, which was at the same instant, evidently, as the bullet hit him, not realizing that's what had happened. But I did hear a noise.

[And then I stepped back, and then, two more noises,] and then I could see people around me falling to the ground, or running, and doing—and that let me to know that something was happening.

I put the ten words in brackets above because—as actually broadcast—these particular words were deleted. As actually broadcast, Mary's account was as follows:

But I did hear a noise, and then I could see people around me falling to theground, or running, and doing—and that let me know that something was happening.

By the deletion of the words ("and then I stepped back, and then, [I heard] twomore noises"), two critical matters were omitted from Mary's account, namely:(1) the implication that she had stepped forward, very possibly into the street,especially if she was already standing at the edge; and (2) the fact that MaryMoorman believes that she heard three shots—the first as she took herpicture and then two more!

This is quite different than the official version, but it is the one Mary has always given as her version of this event. Mary always says that in her various interviews—both during this filming and elsewhere—and it's plain as day that what she calls the "first shot" occurred the instant she took her picture, and then there were two more. But that raises complications and contradicts the official version, so the problem was dealt with by making a silent edit (omitting the bracketed words above). Obviously, when the witness' account came up against the official version, there was no contest—it was the official version that prevailed.

Discovery Channel personnel say, with reasonable self-mocking wit, that they are not scholars and historians but popularizers, that their speciality is "history-lite". But I wonder if this even qualifies in that category. It seems to me it is simply false, and manipulative—and all of it is happening under the auspices of an interview being conducted by someone from The Sixth Floor Museum. Is this valid history? I would like to see a full dress interview of Mary Moorman by an objective investigator in which no attempt is made to edit or guide her; and thematter of when it was first pointed out to her that she should be careful about thisissue of whether or not she "stepped forward" is discussed in detail. Who communicated to her the fact that, her memory notwithstanding, the Zapruder film showed something else, so perhaps she should tailor her story accordingly? At another point, the matter of Mary's medical bills comes up. Something that costs almost a thousand dollars. In what appears to be innocent small talk, Mack says that she'll be able to take care of that easily in view of the payment being made to her that day. Then they all get down to business.

The whole thing is so unsavory. It's not even that there is a deliberate effort to promote lies, but certain people have made up their minds as how what happened has to be presented—how many shots were fired, whether the car stopped, whether Mary stepped into the street, etcetera—and that provides a criterion for what is acceptable, for what should or should not be said. For what is and is not correct. Politically correct. I don't know exactly what to call this, but it is certainly not the proper way to approach documentary film making in the area of history.
__________________

5 March 2009