Jump to content
The Education Forum
Guest James H. Fetzer

SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

Recommended Posts

So Ms. Beckett is offended by BALLS? I watched footBALLS all day yesterday in bowl games.

Tomorrow I will be going to a game where the players will be shooting basketBALLS into

hoops. I guess the word BALLS is now off limits, huh?

I better self-edit:

So Ms. Beckett is offended by XXXXX? I watched footXXXXX all day yesterday in bowl games.

Tomorrow I will be going to a game where the players will be shooting basketXXXXX into

hoops. I guess the word XXXXX is now off limits, huh?

Former Marines like Fetzer take notice!

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Ms. Beckett is offended by BALLS? I watched footBALLS all day yesterday in bowl games.

Tomorrow I will be going to a game where the players will be shooting basketBALLS into

hoops. I guess the word BALLS is now off limits, huh?

I better self-edit:

So Ms. Beckett is offended by XXXXX? I watched footXXXXX all day yesterday in bowl games.

Tomorrow I will be going to a game where the players will be shooting basketXXXXX into

hoops. I guess the word XXXXX is now off limits, huh?

Former Marines like Fetzer take notice!

Jack

Hey Jack how many balls were on the sidelines yesterday to replace the game balls that got to worn out?

I just want to know how much money is being wasted, you know with the players now keeping all the balls that they score touchdowns with

I think we need to look into this more deeply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sure the good doctor can use a different phrase and refrain from referring to male anatomical parts.

Just because he was a marine makes no difference.

Kathy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was sure the good doctor can use a different phrase and refrain from referring to male anatomical parts.

Just because he was a marine makes no difference.

Kathy

How about if he uses the universally acceptable medical term "testicles"?

Or the Spanish "cajones"?

Shakespeare used "stones" or "cod". Would those be better?

Jack

Edited by Jack White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was sure the good doctor can use a different phrase and refrain from referring to male anatomical parts.

Just because he was a marine makes no difference.

Kathy

How about if he uses the universally acceptable medical term "testicles"?

Or the Spanish "cajones"?

Shakespeare used "stones" or "cod". Would those be better?

Jack

Definitions from internet...Ball

Any round or roundish body or mass; a sphere or globe; as, a ball of twine; a ball of snow.

A spherical body of any substance or size used to play with, as by throwing, knocking, kicking, etc.

A general name for games in which a ball is thrown, kicked, or knocked. See Baseball, and Football.

Any solid spherical, cylindrical, or conical projectile of lead or iron, to be discharged from a firearm; as, a cannon ball; a rifle ball; -- often used collectively; as, powder and ball. Spherical balls for the smaller firearms are commonly called bullets.

A flaming, roundish body shot into the air; a case filled with combustibles intended to burst and give light or set fire, or to produce smoke or stench; as, a fire ball; a stink ball.

A leather-covered cushion, fastened to a handle called a ballstock; -- formerly used by printers for inking the form, but now superseded by the roller.

A roundish protuberant portion of some part of the body; as, the ball of the thumb; the ball of the foot.

A large pill, a form in which medicine is commonly given to horses; a bolus.

The globe or earth.

To gather balls which cling to the feet, as of damp snow or clay; to gather into balls; as, the horse balls; the snow balls.

To heat in a furnace and form into balls for rolling.

To form or wind into a ball; as, to ball cotton.

A social assembly for the purpose of dancing.

A pitched ball, not struck at by the batsman, which fails to pass over the home base at a height not greater than the batsman's shoulder nor less than his knee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it.

Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired.

I would basically agree with you Raymond. My initial reaction to SSID was very positive because it alluded to conspiracy and included sketches of a number of the Z-frames, which were more clear than the photocopies in the WC H&E. However, I did find it muddled and puzzling in many respects; it was difficult to determine whether the leads being presented were opening doors to new research or merely rabbit-trails.

Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed.

Anyone can tell by looking at the Z-film, for example, that it was altered. It was spliced in at least two critical places. So then the question becomes not whether it was altered but how maliciously it was altered.

I had a chance to see the Z-film once in a movie theatre in NYC in December 1964. It made an indelible impression. How different would my or any other researcher's perceptions have been if they had had access to it on a daily basis back then. Why, then, are so many now recognized anomalies glossed over in SSID?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why, then, are so many now recognized anomalies glossed over in SSID?

I think the answer is contained in your question, and the answer is HINDSIGHT BIAS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of >limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed.

I must say I am somewhat taken aback by the accusations being leveled at Josiah Thompson on this board over the past several days. Pamela, are you actually suggesting that Thompson intentionally tried to deceive his readers with "Six Seconds in Dallas?" What could possibly be the point of giving "new information but concealing more than it revealed?" What a waste of time! And do we really expect him to have to stand by every claim or theory he espoused 40 years ago? Isn't it possible that he simply made some mistakes, without there being some sinister overtone in play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this might be relevant to your post, Mr. Cohen.

Professor Fetzer concludes a confused blast against me on another thread by writing, “How could he possibly conclude his book by asserting, ‘It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy?’ I think Tink owes us an explanation.”

Here’s the explanation.

The quote does not come from the conclusion of Six Seconds but from a catch-all chapter entitled, “Answered and Unanswered Questions.” He pulled one sentence out of a larger quote that makes clear what is being said.

The book ends with a chapter called “The Warren Report.” This chapter summarizes the points made earlier against the background of the Warren Report. The book ends with this summary paragraph:

"This book has attempted to perform a task of archaeology, to lay bare a whole level of contradictory evidence buried beneath the facile conclusions of the Commission’s Report. This evidence (much of it never published) was either ignored, disregarded, or misrepresented by the Commission. Now it has been brought to light. If its introduction makes necessary the emergence of new conclusions, then so be it." (213)

This was then followed by a catch-all Chapter X entitled “Answered and Unanswered Questions.” This chapter picked up the various pieces of information learned over the course of writing the book that could find no place in the books structure. The questions were things like, “Are the ‘missing frames’ from the Zapurder film still missing?” “Was the rifle found in the TSBD a Mauser or a Mannlicher-Carcano?” “Were the President’s coat and shirt bunched at the time he was struck in the back?” “Does the Altgens photo show Oswald or Billy Joe Lovelady in the doorway of the TSBD?” “Who is the ‘umbrella man’?” “Who owned the jacket discarded by Officer J.D. Tippit’s assailant?” “Which shot caused the ‘Tague hit.?” This chapter then ends with a sixteen-page discussion of whether Oswald shot the President. Included in this section are numerous witness reports I discovered in the Archives detailing movements of various people near the Depository. The last several pages of this section are devoted to enlargements from the Hughes film and Weaver photo concerning the vexed question of whether in the film and photo the outlines of two people can be seen near the sixth floor corner window. The chapter ends with a short paragraph commenting on the miscellaneous evidence put forward in the final sixteen page section:

What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald’s innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. It also shows that the question of Oswald’s guilt must remain – nearly four years after the event – still unanswered. (246)

The sentence that Professor Fetzer wants to make much of could have been written just as well as “It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy because two men were together on the sixth floor of the of the Depository at the time the shots were fired.” Then this closing paragraph of the section refers back to the topic of the section, “Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot the President?” The last sentence of the paragraph affirms that that question “must remain – nearly four years after the event – still unanswered.”

By cutting off the front of a sentence from its tail, Fetzer wants to press the idea that I said in Six Seconds that I hadn’t shown a conspiracy in the death of John Kennedy. What I said was that the photo and ancillary evidence concerning two men at the sixth floor window was not dispositive whether a conspiracy existed and whether Oswald was innocent. This statement remains as true today as it was in 1967.

A final word. It is difficult now to get back into the ambience 1967. I can say only that I made a determined effort to write toned-down prose with a scholarly edge to it. Given the temper of the times and the often shrill claims of assassination related writings, a quieter, more objective, more scholarly approach seemed better. But that tone should not mislead anyone as to the robust and serious aim of the book. It was to show that the best reconstruction that can be made of the event shows that shooters fired from three locations. Does this mean a conspiracy was involved in the assassination? Are you kidding?

Josiah Thompson

>Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of >limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed.

I must say I am somewhat taken aback by the accusations being leveled at Josiah Thompson on this board over the past several days. Pamela, are you actually suggesting that Thompson intentionally tried to deceive his readers with "Six Seconds in Dallas?" What could possibly be the point of giving "new information but concealing more than it revealed?" What a waste of time! And do we really expect him to have to stand by every claim or theory he espoused 40 years ago? Isn't it possible that he simply made some mistakes, without there being some sinister overtone in play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was to show that the best reconstruction that can be made of the event shows that shooters fired from three locations. Does this mean a conspiracy was involved in the assassination? Are you kidding?

Tink this is the reply that I was hoping to hear from you

Thank you for letting us know you still believe in your work back in the 1960s

This might not mean anything to you coming from me but that makes me feel alot better about you and your work

I still dont agree with you going back on the double head hit, but thats ok, I still believe you were right about it and I will still use it in my overall theory

Thanks Tink

Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You write: "It was difficult to determine whether the leads being presented were opening doors to new research or merely rabbit-trails. Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed."

If I understand you at all here, you are supposing that I scattered a lot of "rabbit trails" out there as part of a conspiracy to give new information by "concealing more that it needed." In other words, I'm the arch agent of some conspiracy that is trying to manipulate investigation of the Kennedy assassination.

Coming from Fetzer this would be simply "same old... same old." But coming from you, Pamela, it bewilders me. You must recognize that what you are saying is profoundly insulting. What on earth are you talking about?

Josiah Thompson

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it.

Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired.

I would basically agree with you Raymond. My initial reaction to SSID was very positive because it alluded to conspiracy and included sketches of a number of the Z-frames, which were more clear than the photocopies in the WC H&E. However, I did find it muddled and puzzling in many respects; it was difficult to determine whether the leads being presented were opening doors to new research or merely rabbit-trails.

Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed.

Anyone can tell by looking at the Z-film, for example, that it was altered. It was spliced in at least two critical places. So then the question becomes not whether it was altered but how maliciously it was altered.

I had a chance to see the Z-film once in a movie theatre in NYC in December 1964. It made an indelible impression. How different would my or any other researcher's perceptions have been if they had had access to it on a daily basis back then. Why, then, are so many now recognized anomalies glossed over in SSID?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the poster please explain what movie theater showed the Zapruder film in 1964?

According to the record (as we now know it), the Z film was locked up tight as a drum at the offices of Time Life.

So I would be very interested in knowing the circumstances of its alleged projection at a New York City theater in 1964. Certainly, there was no media coverage of any such event.

Thanks.

DSL

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it.

Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired.

I would basically agree with you Raymond. My initial reaction to SSID was very positive because it alluded to conspiracy and included sketches of a number of the Z-frames, which were more clear than the photocopies in the WC H&E. However, I did find it muddled and puzzling in many respects; it was difficult to determine whether the leads being presented were opening doors to new research or merely rabbit-trails.

Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed.

Anyone can tell by looking at the Z-film, for example, that it was altered. It was spliced in at least two critical places. So then the question becomes not whether it was altered but how maliciously it was altered.

I had a chance to see the Z-film once in a movie theatre in NYC in December 1964. It made an indelible impression. How different would my or any other researcher's perceptions have been if they had had access to it on a daily basis back then. Why, then, are so many now recognized anomalies glossed over in SSID?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will the poster please explain what movie theater showed the Zapruder film in 1964?

According to the record (as we now know it), the Z film was locked up tight as a drum at the offices of Time Life.

So I would be very interested in knowing the circumstances of its alleged projection at a New York City theater in 1964. Certainly, there was no media coverage of any such event.

Thanks.

DSL

It wasn't, at least not initially, even in the hands of Time-Life: UPI, Helms' pre-war outfit, had it.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;hl=Muchmore

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might I suggest those questioning Tink's motives go back and read the early assassination literature? Lifton was questioning the order of the Z-film frames published in the Warren Report. Weisberg was questioning the frames not published by the WC. But no one was questioning the veracity of the film itself. In fact, most everyone assumed that a public display of the film would convince the public JFK had been killed by more than one gunman. (And, strangely enough, they were right.)

In SSID, Thompson published Z-312, Kennedy's position before the head shot, on the same page as CE 388, the drawing created for the WC depicting this shot. This proved that either JFK was shot from the trunk of the limo, or that CE 388 was a lie. It seems more than a coincidence that the next Government panel to inspect the autopsy photos moved the head wound, and that the leader of this panel said his panel was convened to refute the "junk" in Thompson's book.

So, with SSID, Thompson used the Z-film to mortally damage the government's position that the medical evidence was above reproach. This was what the research community had been trying to accomplish since day one. As a result it's hard to believe that Thompson, even if he'd noticed that the wounds in the Z-film failed to match the descriptions of the Parkland witnesses, would have spent much time on this.

I mean, the focus of most everyone at the time was to show how the (mostly suppressed) Z-film demonstrated a likely conspiracy. Thompson did just that.

He was under no obligation to discuss reasons to doubt the accuracy of the film, even if he had such doubts.

I mean, say someone edits a book about an historical event, which includes chapters by a number of writers. Say that one or more of these writers doubts the veracity of a theory that this editor holds dear, like, I don't know, evolution. Is the editor then obligated to point out that he questions the reasoning ability of this writer, as an afterward to the chapter submitted by the writer. Of course not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer
My answers will be in bold-face.

My replies are underlined.

Well, they talk about lies, damn lies, and statistics--and then we have Josiah Thompson, who is in category by himself! My argument is (1) that Josiah has no foundation in statistics or probability for his purported quandary, (2) that the convergence between his original finding and that of Richard Feynman makes it improbable they were both wrong, (3) that he has no basis to claim a simultaneous "startle reaction" at the time of the hit, (4) that his alleged "explanation" implies that the limo was not brought to a halt and that the film is genuine; and (5) that his position contradicts the conclusion of his book.

(1) The Statistical Argument:

Let me start out by saying that an obvious fact has bothered me from the beginning with respect to the double-shot (Z312-Z314) scenario. Whether you have two or three people shooting at the limousine, the likelihood of two shots arriving on target within one-ninth of a second of each other is very slim. This is simply a statistical fact and it has bothered me from the beginning.

As it happens, the interpretation of probability is one of my areas of philosophical specialization. There are two conceptions of probability that might apply here, the propensity and the frequency. On the propensity view, probabilities are measures of the strength of a causal tendency. On the frequency view, probabilities are measures of the relative frequency with which events happen to occur.

In order to be dealing with "statistical facts", as Josiah claims, we would need to know the relative frequencies with which one shooter fires relative to another. Indeed, since it would appear to make a difference, since they are participating in an assassination of the President of the United States, we would need to know how often one shooter fires at a President of the United States in relation to another.

It should already be apparent that Josiah has no basis to claim the chance of two shots hitting JFK within one-ninth of a second of each other was "very slim". Suppose they had both been instructed to fire when the limousine was opposite the concrete steps leading up to the pergola, but their perspectives were slightly different. Then a one-ninth second difference could have had a high propensity to occur.

Since there is no evidential basis for drawing the inference that two shots hitting their target nearly simultaneously was at all improbable--where, in fact, on some scenarios, it would have been probable and, within some intervals of time, even highly probable--Josiah is making a claim that he cannot justify. He has in the past had an inclination to use a phrase that fits here: this is pure bloviation!

Strangely enough, I have to agree with what you say here. So let's give more detail to the hypothetical we are talking about. Let's say you have three shooters at three separate locations. Let's also say that there is "free fire zone" that lasts about eight seconds. The shooters are told they can fire anytime in that eight-second interval. Let's also say that a shooter can fire a second or third shot 2.3 seconds after he pulls the trigger for shot one. Now with all these details put out there, what is the chance that any two projectiles will land on the target within 2/18ths of a second. I don't know the answer but have a go at it,

But there is no reason to assume any "free fire zone" was taking place. Based upon David Mantik's work on the medical evidence and other related research, there appear to have been as many as six shooters who fired a total of eight, nine, or ten shots. We know JFK was hit four times--once in the neck from in front, once in the back from behind, and twice in the head (from behind and from in front), while another shot missed and hit the curb, injuring James Tague, another missed and hit the chrome strip above the windshield, and another was picked up from the grass, while Connally was hit from one to three times. Since the "three shot" scenario had rather obviously been settled upon in advance, it appears far more plausible that the plan was for three salvos of shots, a few seconds apart, each involving multiple shooters.

Under those conditions, that two shots might have hit his head closely together is rather probable. It is also probable that we are viewing in the extant Zapruder film, which has been faked, is an attempt to conflate two shots--the one to the back of the head and the one to the right temple--where JFK actually fell forward and Jackie eased him up and was looking at him when he was hit by the right-temple shot--which were merged to create the impression of one shot but where those who were fabricating the film overlooked the motion from 312 to 313, which you and Feynman detected independently. In effecting the merge, the fabricators were not quite successful in turing two shots into one. I am sorry to say, but your efforts to disavow this finding appears to be a stage in your efforts to dilute the evidence of conspiracy.

(2) The Improbable Convergence:

Like most students of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), I was impressed by the mathematical sophistication of Josiah's demonstration of the near-simultaneous hits to the head, one of which drove him forward, the other--one-ninth of a second later--driving him backward with great force. The precision and detail with which it is laid out in the book between pages 86 and 98, still impresses me to this very day.

When David Lifton consulted with the world famous physicist, Richard Feynman, at CalTech, Feynman made the same discovery. He told Lifton that the head goes forward. At first, he (Lifton) thought it was because frames 314 and 315 had been published in the wrong order. But Feyman corrected him and explained that the frame he was studying was 312! See BEST EVIDENCE (1980), pages 48 to 51.

What I find fascinating about this convergence in inference to the occurrence of a near-simultaneous "double hit" is that one of the students of this case, Josiah Thompson, displayed admirable pecision and detail in his analysis, while the other, Richard Feyman, a world famous physicist, concurred in arriving at the same conclusion. This is a matter of reasoning, where one was meticulous, the other brilliant.

Now this finding was not incidental to SIX SECONDS but one of its most important contributions to understanding the assassination of our 35th president. Can anyone doubt that Josiah was highly motivated to make sure that he was right before it would be published and the world had the opportunity to consider it? Surely, he would have taken every measure to insure that a major argument like this one did not blow up in his face.

Under these conditions, the propensity for Josiah Thompson to have published a faulty argument would have been quite small. Similarly, the propensity for Richard Feynman to make a mistake in an argument involving physics would have been miniscule. So the probability that these students of this case could come to independent but convergent conclusions about this event and both be wrong is a miniscule faction of a small number.

ITEK and Richard Feynman (if you say so) independently verified a forward movement of JFK's head of about 2.2 inches between Z 312 and Z 313. Why? Because neither I, ITEK or Feynman allowed for smear as causing part of the purported movement. If Feynman had allowed for smear, his measurement would have been different. This is pretty obvious.

But there appears to be no basis for the purported "smear". In particular, you appeal to the occurrence of a "startle response" by Abraham Zapruder that caused the alleged "smear", when even Luis Alvarez did not find any instance in which a "startle response" and a bullet hit took place at the same time. Your suggestion that the shooter was closer to Zapruder is unpersuasive. The bullet was traveling much faster than sound, even if that had been the case. The neurological response itself would have taken time. The hit and the response cannot have happened at the same time. Your argument is clearly based upon a false premise.

(3) The Appeal to the Blur:

Frame 313 is unique among the various Zapruder frames since it demonstrably shows the impact of a bullet at the same time the camera is being moved by the startle reaction of Zapruder. In all other instances, where we believe we can see the effects of a bullet strike, the horizontal smear introduced by Zapruder’s startle reaction follows two or three frames later.

The fact that 313 shows large horizontal smearing is critical. The effect can be seen by noting the horizontal smearing of the light reflections from the chrome strut over the passenger compartment. Measurements of the position of JFK’s head were made against the background of the light-colored south curb of Elm Street. The effect of the smear was to elongate this horizontal light-colored area.

These passages strike me as very odd and highly misleading. From SIX SECONDS, we read about plots of the president's head from the rear handhold and of the distance of the president's head from the top of the back seat. I do not believe the explanation we are being given here. The original study appears to have been done with great precision, where virtually no element of subjective judgment was involved.

"Great precision"? I take an 8" by 10" B & W print and stick a pin in it where I believe the back of Kennedy's head can be seen... And you call this "great precision?"

I am talking about the graphs that were published in SIX SECONDS. Are you now telling us that they were done in a sloppy fashion? Is "sloppy research" Josiah Thompson's defense? And how could this possibly account for Richard Feynman having reached the same conclusion?

There are at least three problems with Josiah's argument. The first problem is that the speed of sound is considerably slower than the speed of a bullet. It is therefore highly unlikely that Zapruder would display a startle reaction at the same time the bullet hit the body. The second is that, in fact, it did not happen in the other cases. The third is that Josiah's claim that they occurred at the same time contradicts the analysis of Luis Alvarez.

This has all been worked out mathematically in exquisite detail by Don Thomas. Alvarez's argument is incorrect and Thomas shows us why.

I have had conversations with Donald Thomas. He observed that the work they did on the acoustics did not even differentiate between shots fired from the Dal-Tex and fired from the Book Depository. If you have an argument to make, then make it. They cannot have occurred at the same time.

David Mantik pointed that out to me. In his chapter in HOAX (2003), Mantik also demonstrated that Alvarez' analysis is seriously flawed and is not consistent with results from David's study of the Muchmore film. Mantik concludes that the Zapruder and the Muchmore cannot both be authentic but could both be faked. If Josiah wants to discredit Alvarez, who contradicts his claim, he always has the option of acknowledging that the film is a fake.

So what?

(4) The Explanation:

The explanation: When Greer turned to look in the back seat at circa Z302 his foot tapped the brake, decelerating the limousine and throwing forward all the limousine's occupants. There is no longer any clear evidence in the Zapruder film of Kennedy being hit in the back of the head. (I say "clear" because there may be some evidence of a hit from the rear at Z327/328) The Z312-Z317 sequence... the bowling over of JFK to the left rear.... is the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front.

Careful study of the Zapruder film shows that Bill Greer turned around at about Z 302 (again from memory). In doing so, he either took his foot off the accelerator or tapped the brake. The result is that at about Z 308 all the occupants of the limousine (JFK, Jackie, Connally, Mrs. Connally, Gov. Connally, Roy Kellerman and William Greer) begin sliding forward. This forward movement continues to about Z 317 or Z 318 (again from memory) for all the occupants of the limousine except JFK who is bowled backwards and to the left. The result of this analysis is that it is impossible to label any part of JFK’s forward movement as due to the action of a bullet striking his skull rather than due to the deceleration of the limousine.

Now Josiah observes that his abandonment of his argument does not mean that JFK was only hit in the head from the right front. "In fact," he remarks, "the dispersion of brain matter and the hit on the interior of the windshield and the chrome strip certainly indicate a strike on the skull from the rear. All this means is that the Z313 effect was solely from a bullet striking his skull and fired from the right front." The problem is not only that he assumes the film is authentic but that, as Dean Hagerman shows, it does not support him.

We have multiple witnesses to the limo stop and corroborating evidence, including that Officer Chaney motored forward to inform Chief Curry that the president had been hit and that Jean Hill and Mary Moorman had stepped into the street. Moreover, the "blob" bulges out to the right front, which is not only inconsistent with the McClelland drawing but with new proofs by Hollywood film experts. So is having it both ways: trying to deny the double-hit and to explain away forward motion by the passengers while insisting that the film is authentic.

Whatever you are trying to say here it is so confused that I can't reply to it.

OK. Let me make it simple. The film itself does not appear to support you. More importantly, the McClelland diagram, which you published, contradicts the Zapruder film, which you studied. You omitted detailed sketches of 314, 315, and 316, and even your sketch of 313 is missing the "blob". In retrospect, this appears to have been a deliberate effort to obfuscate the medical evidence of a blow-out to the rear, which contradicts the blow out to the right-front seen in the film. This inconsistency cannot have escaped your attention, since you discuss the distribution of brain matter, noticing that some of the debris is consistent with a shot from behind but that even more debris and the testimony of Officer Hargis is consistent with a shot from in front. You had to be consider this corroboration of your "doubt hit" scenario. Since medical evidence published in your book contradicted the sequence of events shown in the Zapruder film, you should have made this inconsistency a focus of your book. How could you not have accented this conflict and rigorously pursued the tension between them, when your not doing so had the effect of obfuscating crucial evidence?

(5) No proof of conspiracy:

This is wonderful progress by careful research. Because of it, I am delighted to admit... even proclaim... that I made a mistake in 1967. This kind of research requires more than the National Enquirer method of research espoused by Professor Fetzer. In fact, such research would never have have been undertaken had anyone paid any attention to Fetzer's now bankrupt obsession with proving the Zapruder film a hoax.

Well, as we now know, Doug Horne, following Noel Twyman's lead, consulted with Hollywood experts who viewed a 6k version of the film, where each frame was translated into 6,000 pixels. They were astonished by the amateurish quality of the fabrication, where the massive blow-out to the back of the head was covered over by being painted over in black and the "blob" and the blood spray were painted in, just as Roderick Ryan had told Noel.

When he wrote SIX SECONDS, Josiah was obviously aware that the brains bulge out to the right-front. He was also aware that the physicians at Parkland had reported a massive blow-out to the back of the head and that his brains were blow out to the left-rear. Here he concedes that the motion of the body back-and-to-the-left was "the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front". But then why are the brains bulging out to the right-front?

He had to know there was a profound inconsistency between the film and the medical evidence, which he never addresses but instead finesses--not only by not confronting it, even though its existence had to be apparent, but by obfuscating the evidence by not even including sketches of frames 314, 315, and 316, where even the sketch of frame 313 he does use is opaque and does not even show the way in which the brains were bulging out.

We know when he published his book he was convinced of a near simultaneous double-hit to the head, which could only have occurred by shots fired from at least two gunmen. He also describes the back-and-to-the-left motion of the body as "the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front". Since Oswald was above and behind, how could he possibly conclude his book by asserting, "It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy"? I think Tink owes us an explanation.

This quote does not conclude Six Seconds and, dishonestly, you cite only part of the quote. See separate thread.

Elsewhere, I published the whole paragraph, but here just the key sentence. I am not surprised you don't know that, since you usually don't actually read what appears on these posts, even when they are written about you. Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not the paragraph that convince Vincent Salandria that you were a government agent--where he confronted you directly and in person about it, which you sought to deflect with the claim that it was simply an infelicity of language?

When you published your book, you were convinced of a near simultaneous double-hit to the head, which could only have occurred by shots fired from at least two gunmen. You have described the back-and-to-the-left motion of the body as "the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front". Since Oswald was above and behind, how could you possibly conclude your book by asserting, "It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy"? Where is the latitude for any ambiguity?

And given the additional results from film restoration experts, who have confirmed, based upon 6k versions of the film, that the film has been altered by painting over the blow out to the back of the head and painting in the "blob" and the blood spray--which confirmed the professional judgment of Roderick Ryan, which he provided to Noel Twyman--how can you continue to insist that the film is authentic? And why shouldn't we conclude that, by suppressing the conflict between the film and the medical evidence, you were perpetrating a fraud and deliberately obfuscating crucial evidence? You owe us a better explanation.

Sure. I’ll be delighted to tell you what I know on this topic. Perhaps others will be able to refine the issue.

I went to the URL [http://server3002.freeyellos.com/rhepler/Motion%20Blur.htm] carrying David Wimp’s detailed analysis of blurs and his measurements on the Zapruder film. This is perhaps the most relevant source of information on this subject. I was going to reference it but, alas, found that it has disappeared. If anyone has downloaded the material, it would be a service to make it available to us. Back in 2004, I made arrangements with Jim Lesar for Wimp to give a talk at the AARC Conference in Washington, D.C. His talk is on the DVD of that conference. See [http://www.aarclibrary.org/Catalog/About2004Conf.htm].

Let me start out by saying that an obvious fact has bothered me from the beginning with respect to the double-shot (Z312-Z314) scenario. Whether you have two or three people shooting at the limousine, the likelihood of two shots arriving on target within one-ninth of a second of each other is very slim. This is simply a statistical fact and it has bothered me from the beginning.

The measurements published in Six Seconds were made on 8" by 10" black and white prints made by copying the 4" by 5" transparencies LIFE copied from the original film. I still have the prints and they show how primitive were our measurements. I simply took a pin and pricked the point on the photo where I thought the back of JFK’s head was. I did the same with the leading edge of the back seat and the leading edge of the handhold on the trunk. Then these distances were measured with a micrometer and Bill Hoffman, an undergraduate major in physics, did the proper mathematics. There could have been errors all over the place. For example, the enlarger that made 8" by 10" prints might have varied a bit from frame to frame. My own eye could have been off from time to time in picking just where the back of Jack Kennedy’s head was. I think we determined that between frame 312 and 313 JFK’s head moved forward by about 2.2 inches. I was amazed when ITEK later carried out similar measurements and came up with a forward movement of 2.3 inches.

Frame 313 is unique among the various Zapruder frames since it demonstrably shows the impact of a bullet at the same time the camera is being moved by the startle reaction of Zapruder. In all other instances, where we believe we can see the effects of a bullet strike, the horizontal smear introduced by Zapruder’s startle reaction follows two or three frames later. Don Thomas has developed this point in a rigorous manner. He explains the difference by the fact that the shot from the stockade fence was fired so close to Zapruder that the sound from the shot hit Zapruder’s ears fast enough to produce the unusually fast startle reaction. The other shots from the north end of Elm Street naturally produced a delay in startle reaction.

The fact that 313 shows large horizontal smearing is critical. The effect can be seen by noting the horizontal smearing of the light reflections from the chrome strut over the passenger compartment. Measurements of the position of JFK’s head were made against the background of the light-colored south curb of Elm Street. The effect of the smear was to elongate this horizontal light-colored area. What I took to be movement of JFK’s head was at least partially due to the horizontal elongation of the curb introduced by the smear.

David Wimp has produced both a study of how you measure smearing and also a study of the movement of JFK’s head. From memory, I think he found that the movement of JFK’s head between 312 and 313 was either an inch or less than an inch. What makes this reduction in movement so important is another discovery Wimp made. Careful study of the Zapruder film shows that Bill Greer turned around at about Z 302 (again from memory). In doing so, he either took his foot off the accelerator or tapped the brake. The result is that at about Z 308 all the occupants of the limousine (JFK, Jackie, Connally, Mrs. Connally, Gov. Connally, Roy Kellerman and William Greer) begin sliding forward. This forward movement continues to about Z 317 or Z 318 (again from memory) for all the occupants of the limousine except JFK who is bowled backwards and to the left. The result of this analysis is that it is impossible to label any part of JFK’s forward movement as due to the action of a bullet striking his skull rather than due to the deceleration of the limousine.

I would point out that this in no way requires that JFK was only hit from the right front in the head. In fact, the dispersion of brain matter and the hit on the interior of the windshield and the chrome strip certainly indicate a strike on the skull from the rear. All this means is that the Z 313 effect was solely from a bullet striking his skull and fired from the right front.

I should point out that before reading David Wimp’s studies my friend Art Snyder had already alerted me to the unlikelihood that my measurements were measuring solely movement of the head.

Finally, I look forward to carrying out new measurement of JFK’s head movement using the 35 mm. prints available from the archives. High resolution scans of these frames using “pixel-counting” techniques pioneered by Joe Durnavich and others should make possible extremely accurate measurements of movement.

Josiah Thompson

Tink

Please explain why you changed your mind on this most important theory

Dr. Thompson explained this a number of years ago and it has been posted several times on the forum, starting with this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=5018&st=30

Fetzer claims I want to return things to their 1967 basis. This, of course, is nonsense. Let me rebut it by pointing out a major mistake I made in "Six Seconds."

I measured there that JFK's head moved forward about two inches between Z312 and Z313. This forward movement followed by the obvious left, backward snap suggested to me that he had been hit in the head from the rear and then, almost instantaneously, from the right front. Within the last few years, Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory, was able to show me how this involved a serious mistake in measurement.

As you all know, Z312 is quite clear while Z313 is smeared from movement of the camera. Using fairly complicated math, Snyder was able to demonstrate to me that I was measuring the smear on frame Z313 and not the movement of Kennedy's head. That socalled "two-inch movement" was an illusion; it came from the smear.

David Wimp and Joe Durnavich came to much the same conclusion. Wimp, however, has gone futher. He has shown that JFK's head begins moving forward about Z308 and that everyone else in the limousine... Kellerman, Greer, Jackie, Mrs. Connally, John Connally... also begin a moderate movement forward at that time. After Z314, JFK flips backward and to the left while all the rest continue moving forward. The explanation: When Greer turned to look in the back seat at circa Z302 his foot tapped the brake, decelerating the limousine and throwing forward all the limousine's occupants. There is no longer any clear evidence in the Zapruder film of Kennedy being hit in the back of the head. (I say "clear" because there may be some evidence of a hit from the rear at Z327/328) The Z312-Z317 sequence... the bowling over of JFK to the left rear.... is the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front.

This is wonderful progress by careful research. Because of it, I am delighted to admit... even proclaim... that I made a mistake in 1967. This kind of research requires more than the National Enquirer method of research espoused by Professor Fetzer. In fact, such research would never have have been undertaken had anyone paid any attention to Fetzer's now bankrupt obsession with proving the Zapruder film a hoax.

Well Ray you must have missed the post I made were I said I had already read his reason for changing his mind (in fact it was the post made by Tink in the same thread you posted a link to that I read)

That was not the point of my making this thread, I want talk to Tink in depth about this theory and his reasons for backing out on it

I hope this might be relevant to your post, Mr. Cohen.

Professor Fetzer concludes a confused blast against me on another thread by writing, “How could he possibly conclude his book by asserting, ‘It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy?’ I think Tink owes us an explanation.”

Here’s the explanation.

The quote does not come from the conclusion of Six Seconds but from a catch-all chapter entitled, “Answered and Unanswered Questions.” He pulled one sentence out of a larger quote that makes clear what is being said.

The book ends with a chapter called “The Warren Report.” This chapter summarizes the points made earlier against the background of the Warren Report. The book ends with this summary paragraph:

"This book has attempted to perform a task of archaeology, to lay bare a whole level of contradictory evidence buried beneath the facile conclusions of the Commission’s Report. This evidence (much of it never published) was either ignored, disregarded, or misrepresented by the Commission. Now it has been brought to light. If its introduction makes necessary the emergence of new conclusions, then so be it." (213)

This was then followed by a catch-all Chapter X entitled “Answered and Unanswered Questions.” This chapter picked up the various pieces of information learned over the course of writing the book that could find no place in the books structure. The questions were things like, “Are the ‘missing frames’ from the Zapurder film still missing?” “Was the rifle found in the TSBD a Mauser or a Mannlicher-Carcano?” “Were the President’s coat and shirt bunched at the time he was struck in the back?” “Does the Altgens photo show Oswald or Billy Joe Lovelady in the doorway of the TSBD?” “Who is the ‘umbrella man’?” “Who owned the jacket discarded by Officer J.D. Tippit’s assailant?” “Which shot caused the ‘Tague hit.?” This chapter then ends with a sixteen-page discussion of whether Oswald shot the President. Included in this section are numerous witness reports I discovered in the Archives detailing movements of various people near the Depository. The last several pages of this section are devoted to enlargements from the Hughes film and Weaver photo concerning the vexed question of whether in the film and photo the outlines of two people can be seen near the sixth floor corner window. The chapter ends with a short paragraph commenting on the miscellaneous evidence put forward in the final sixteen page section:

What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald’s innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. It also shows that the question of Oswald’s guilt must remain – nearly four years after the event – still unanswered. (246)

The sentence that Professor Fetzer wants to make much of could have been written just as well as “It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy because two men were together on the sixth floor of the of the Depository at the time the shots were fired.” Then this closing paragraph of the section refers back to the topic of the section, “Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot the President?” The last sentence of the paragraph affirms that that question “must remain – nearly four years after the event – still unanswered.”

By cutting off the front of a sentence from its tail, Fetzer wants to press the idea that I said in Six Seconds that I hadn’t shown a conspiracy in the death of John Kennedy. What I said was that the photo and ancillary evidence concerning two men at the sixth floor window was not dispositive whether a conspiracy existed and whether Oswald was innocent. This statement remains as true today as it was in 1967.

A final word. It is difficult now to get back into the ambience 1967. I can say only that I made a determined effort to write toned-down prose with a scholarly edge to it. Given the temper of the times and the often shrill claims of assassination related writings, a quieter, more objective, more scholarly approach seemed better. But that tone should not mislead anyone as to the robust and serious aim of the book. It was to show that the best reconstruction that can be made of the event shows that shooters fired from three locations. Does this mean a conspiracy was involved in the assassination? Are you kidding?

Josiah Thompson

>Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of >limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed.

I must say I am somewhat taken aback by the accusations being leveled at Josiah Thompson on this board over the past several days. Pamela, are you actually suggesting that Thompson intentionally tried to deceive his readers with "Six Seconds in Dallas?" What could possibly be the point of giving "new information but concealing more than it revealed?" What a waste of time! And do we really expect him to have to stand by every claim or theory he espoused 40 years ago? Isn't it possible that he simply made some mistakes, without there being some sinister overtone in play?

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×