SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

[Pat Speer]

Josiah,

What's this introducing irrelevant issues on a thread? In the past, you have declined to answer questions on the basis that they were on the wrong thread. That even happened for your "double hit" theory, which makes it all the more peculiar that you continue to ignore the perfectly legitimate questions that have been raised on this thread and introduce irrelevancies like (1), (2), (3), and (4)! That speaks volumes. Cute remarks may give you an infantile sense of satisfaction, but there are many here who want the answers to serious questions.

And for you to seek to hide behind Pat Speer's skirt is something else again. He has admitted that he has rejected the multiple proofs of alteration that have been published without studying them. I guess that makes him "a kindred spirit", which does not surprise me. You don't even use the latest exchange between us in creating this post. That suggests to me that you might want to explain this all away as "sloppy research" on your part! You are displaying plenty of that here, including an explanation of why you abandoned the "double hit" theory that entails violations of natural laws!

It troubles me is that you, Josiah Thompson, in January 2010, still appear to have not read THE GREAT ZARPUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which includes a very detailed report about Rich DellaRosa's viewing of this film on three occasions. No one who has actually read it would be inclined to make the absurd suggestion that he (Rich) was talking about a version from "Executive Action"! What kind of scholar are you to not have read the most important book on film fakey or have studied a witness report like DellaRosa's?

Moreover, it is stunning that you do not appear to be aware of some of the blatant disproofs of the film's authenticity, such as "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery" and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", not to mention the confirmation of Roderick Ryan's observation that the back of the head wound had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray were painted in that Horne has reported, which has now been confirmed by seven Hollywood experts--eight counting Ryan!

You, Josiah Thompson, were in a unique position among students of JFK in having access to the very best versions of the film held by LIFE magazine. You were aware of the Parkland physicians' reports, some of which, including the McClelland diagram, you discuss, and that Offier Hargis was hit by deris so hard that thought he himself had been shot. Yet you did not make a point of the inconsistency of the medical evidence with the film, in spite of its blatancy. You are not being candid; you had to have know better, which makes it a work of obfuscation.

Insofar as (i) you do not use frames from the film but sketches (allegedly because of a breech of contract with LIFE), that (ii) you does not provide sketches of the crucial frames (314, 315, and 315), that (iii) your sketch of 313, which was unavoidable, does not include the crucial feature of the "blob" bulging out to the right-front, they together suggest rather strongly that (iv) your book, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, was designed to defect attention from the contradiction between the medical evidence and the film.

And now, on various threads, I find that you are denying that you understand the medical evidence in this case, which you say is a complete mess, and even suggesting that you are not really an expert on photographs and films. I guess we can expect that, before long, you will be denying that you are an expert on the case--although it is my suspicion that all of this, including denying the "double hit" hypothesis on the basis of a specious explanation, is preliminary to undergoing a future "conversion".

For you to imply that the conclusion the film has been faked is a "tribal belief"--as though it had no foundation in logic or evidence--exemplifies the inflexible and irrational stance you has adopted. No matter how strong the proof, no matter how many experts on film conclude no only has the film been faked but the fakery was amateurish in the extreme, you, Josiah Thompson, will not budge. There are not many alternative explanations for such a stand, under these conditions, and none is flattering to you.

Not only have you avoided explaining how you could have constructed such an artful obfuscation without conscious intent, but you have not told us where you stand today on the medical evidence, its significance for the question of the film's authenticity, or even on the independent proof that the film is a fake. Are you, too, like Pat Speer, going to claim you have reviewed these proofs and found them wanting? And does that include the film restoration experts, who, like Roderick Ryan, have concluded the film has been altered--and in amateurish ways?

In fact, you made much of my citing the final paragraph of the text of your book as though that were somehow misleading or inappropriate. But you appear to be backing away from supporting the existence of a conspiracy in the death of JFK. I can see the headline now: "Former Conspiracy Theorist Josiah Thompson Abandon's His Belief!" The subtitle will say that you now agree with Gary Mack that "we will just never know". That is where you are heading, isn't it--and just in time for the 50th?

Are you going to adopt Pat Speer''s line--that the only way to prove conspiracy is by impeaching the evidence? He does not seem to understand that almost all of the evidence in this case has been faked, altered, or fabricated. And I have yet to hear a good reason for thinking the film is an exception. Even your cherished "chain of custody" argument is tattered and torn. You appear to be as unreasonable as Pat Speer in your unwillingness to display a rational response to new arguments based upon new evidence.

And why, for God's sake, are you not even willing to confirm that this every paragraph convinced Vincent Salandria that you were a government agent? He and I have corresponded about this and he explained to me that, when he confronted you about it, you dismissed his concerns on the grounds that it was simply an "infelicitous" use of language. So why can't you confirm it? Because you have suggested that it was abusive for me to cite it, when another JFK expert already called you on it? Why are we forming the impression that you, Josiah Thompson, are not a "stand up" guy?

The question is, since you were the "inside man" on the Zapruder film, why didn't you even sketch the most important frames? Why is frame 313 opaque? Since the inconsistency between the McClelland diagram and Officer Hargis' report was so blatant, why did you not address it? Those would have been obvious things to do. And, given your belief in the "double hit" analysis that was such a central feature of your account, how could you possibly have suggested that your book--not just those last few pages --does not prove the existence of a conspiracy, for which Salandria faulted you, too?

Stop bobbing and weaving, ducking and hiding. This has gone on too long. Just answer the questions, if you can, and let us all assess them.

Jim

Jim, I don't know where you get the idea I have rejected all claims of film or photo alteration. Unlike some, who prefer to defer to "experts" on things they don't understand, I decided to read medical textbooks and forensics journals before coming to any conclusions on the medical evidence. This study convinced me both that the "official" story is bunkum, and that most CTs studying the medical evidence don't know what the real issues are. This study also convinced me that I should not rely too much on the research of other CTs. As a result, I am withholding judgment on Z-film alteration until I have time to study it for myself.

In the meantime, I try to get those high on the belief everything is fake to look at the evidence and see it as it is, and not as they've been led to believe it is. The evidence, for example, is quite clear that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 struck him at the supposed exit...

Which brings me back to the question you keep hiding from. Are you ready to admit Mantik was wrong when he insisted in Murder in Dealey Plaza that alteration was the end-all be-all because ""If the evidence in the JFK case is merely accepted at face value, then the conclusions are rather trivial. The rookie Scotland Yard inspector can easily solve this case--it was Oswald alone"?

Edited January 4, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Unlike some, who prefer to defer to "experts" on things they don't understand, I decided to read medical textbooks and forensics journals before coming to any conclusions on the medical evidence.

Pat,

Where did you get the idea that improperly prepared autopsy evidence

trumps properly prepared autopsy evidence?

[Bernice Moore]

quote Dr Thompson from post 107....''(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

Doug Weldon has responded to this and article on http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

show #451.

b..

Edited January 4, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[David Lifton]

As I said, I'm not informed enough about this tangle of evidence to say anything. I look forward to reading Doug Horne's four volumes on this to learn. If I finish that in the next few weeks or months I'll get back to you. You know it's not required of any of us that we know everything about everything. I hope you'll find my modesty here refreshing.

Tink

DSL REPLY:

I know you don’t care for Professor Fetzer. All very well. That’s your choice. But you’re now engaging in the same kind of behavior with me. Confronted with clear evidence of body interception and body alteration, you’re skittering away, telling me that its all such a mess, and gee, what can we make of it—and golly, Dr. Wecht disagrees, and he’s the expert. And what about rigor mortis, etc etc ad nauseum.

None of this matters, Tink.

All that counts is that in the case of the neck wound, and the head wound—the evidence of change between Dallas and Bethesda is pretty obvious, pretty damned obvious. Any high school student can see that.

And as for the intercept evidence, there were three separate recorded entries into Bethesda Naval hospital. Let’s count ‘em: 6:35—the shipping casket, according to the Marine security detail; 7:17pm, the FBI accompanying the Dallas casket; and 8pm, the casket team, now carrying the same casket, only now with the body.

Three separate casket entries; three separate paper trails. Its all spelled out in Best Evidence, with time lines and all. I’m boiling it down to the size of an email—but any high school student could write a good term paper about it.

Please don’t tell me none of this could have happened because its oh so complicated and there wasn’t enough time to figure any of this out that day. Ergo, it couldn’t have happened.

To me, that’s almost like saying Kennedy couldn’t have been shot by a conspiracy in Dallas, because, well, my Gosh, that’s against the Ten Commandments.

At some point, you really ought to face what’s going on here, and stop playing these “we can’t know” games.

You’re in a privileged position, Tink, because you once had access to the Zapruder film at Time Life, and then made the decision to surreptitiously copy the frames so your readers could see just what it was you were talking about. The same month you were doing that, I was involved, in Los Angeles, in making the basic discovery of evidence that JFK's body had been altered (i.e., the wounds had been altered), and Liebeler was involved in sending his memo announcing my discovery to the other members of the Warren Commission, President Johnson, and Robert Kennedy.

This was the beginning of a major paradigm shift that critical evidence in this case is phony.

Remember what Lee Oswald told his brother, when he visited him in jail (referring, of course, to the sniper's nest evidence): “Do not believe the so-called ‘evidence’.”

Where are you on all this today? Apparently (and most unfortunately) still hunting for further data that there was a “second gunman” on the knoll.

Is this to be your legacy?

DSL

Jan 4, 2010, 5:15 AM

Los Angeles, CA

[Jack White]

Some early researchers who built their reputations on very good work done in the 1960s

have rested on their laurels for 40 years, ignoring NEW information dug up by researchers

like David Lifton and Doug Horne. They resist anything that points to their early work being

faulty. If their whole reputation is based on being an EXPERT ON THE ZAPRUDER FILM, they

see new evidence as a poor reflection on their expertise.

But the opposite is true. Those who have abandoned earlier beliefs that the Z film was

important evidence have moved onward toward solving the conspiracy. Those who have

not are stuck in the past, still on the dock after the ship has sailed.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

You have made an extraordinary discover here, by which I am referring to the apparent second entry wound at the back of the head in the HSCA photographs, which simply stuns me. To the best of my knowledge, you are the first and only person to have made this observation. In MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), for example, the same photo is discussed by Gary Aguilar and by David W. Mantik:

In his chapter, "The Converging Medical Case for Conspiracy", Gary Aguilar, M.D., discusses this photo and Ida Dox diagram with the following caption:

Figure 1. Ida Dox's rendition of original autopy photograph showing the back of JFK's head (left). The small spot toward the top of the skull, which appears red in color photographs, was said to be the entrance location for the fatal bullet. The wound described is into evident in the actual photo (right). (MURDER, page 178)

In his first chapter, "The Medical Evidence Decoded", David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., offers the same photo and contributes the following descriptive caption:

Figure 1. Posterior Head Photograph from the Autopsy. No eyewitness reported what is seen here [referring to the purported entry wound at the crown]. Eyewitnesses recalled an orange-sized hole at the lower right rear. No one saw the red spot (the supposed entry wound) near the top of the ruler, and no one knew what the white spot (near the bottom just above the hairline), represented. Ida Dox inexplicably enhanced the red spot in her drawing (right). The actual entry site is not visible; no other photograph shows it either. (MURDER, page 221)

I shall have more to say about this, but Speer appears to have noticed something that has escaped the rest of us. These captions were the author's own. Notice that Gary's captions tend to be rather longer and more detailed than my captions in the Prologue, for example, where only rarely do I offer more complex ones. I have no doubt that the captions were authored by Gary and by David themselves. If they were missing from the original manuscripts, I may have called them to compose them.

At the very least, this means that a photograph that the HSCA used to justify its shift in the entry location by four inches was actually contradicted by the lower entry location shown on the same photograph. I am fairly astonished that no one has noticed this before. I would compare it to the photo showing Arlen Specter illustrating the path the "magic bullet" had to have taken, while the circular patch showing the actual entry is visible well-below his hand, which means that a photo intended to illustrate the "magic bullet" theory actually refutes it.

The error is in the first edition, and was taken from a source which identified it as a fire at street level;

it was very small and hard to discern. I sent Jim a substitute photo to use in later printings. That is a

specious argument.

Jack

But Tink has a valid point, Jack, in that there are errors like this in a number of Fetzer's books. In this thread he has repeatedly accused me of not having read Aguilar's and Mantik's chapters in Murder in Dealey Plaza. If he had a clue what he was talking about, he would have known that I wrote about one of the MISTAKES they made in this book a few years back, and actually defended this mistake in a backhanded kind of way.

From patspeer.com, chapter 13:

When I compare the photos of the back of Kennedy's head, I find it remarkable that what appears to be a small hole appears in each photo slightly above and to the right of the gray matter, Even more remarkable is that this hole is in the exact same spot in each photo, and precisely where the doctors said there was a bullet hole. To me, this is clearly the wound described at autopsy. But that's just me. Now years after I first came forward to promote this round shape as the long-lost entrance on the back of Kennedy's head, I've found few theorists of any stripe willing to abandon their pre-conceptions.

But the wound is there, nevertheless, plain as day. It really makes me wonder if truth, much as beauty, is purely in the eye of the beholder.

When I compare the cowlick entrance in the photos, I find something else to shake my head about. For here, it seems equally clear that the purported hole in the cowlick is much fainter on the black and white photo, and almost certainly not a bullet entrance. I'm not the first to notice this. Dr. Humes noticed this as well, and pointed this out in his discussion with the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. He explained that he rejected the mark in the cowlick as an entrance because: “despite the fact that this upper point that has been the source of some discussion here this afternoon is excessively obvious in the color photograph, I almost defy you to find it in that magnification in the black and white.”

That the mark seen on the black and white photo is so clearly not a bullet hole, unfortunately, has led some conspiracy writers to place this photo next to the Ida Dox drawing of the entrance in the cowlick and create the illusion that the entrance wound on the drawing was completely fabricated. This is undoubtedly deceiving, and is yet another reminder that conspiracy theorists are every bit as capable of deception as single-assassin theorists. Incredibly, in two separate articles in the collection Murder in Dealey Plaza, Dr.s Gary Aguilar and David Mantik place the Ida Dox drawing by the black and white photo for comparison. Dr. Aguilar’s caption reads: “…The small spot towards the top of the skull, which appears red in color photographs, was said to be an entrance location…The wound described is not evident in the actual photo.” By his use of the phrase “actual photo,” Aguilar had implied that the color photo was but a color version of the black and white. This was not true.

Fortunately, he tried to correct this mistake. In September 2006, when challenged online by an irate single-assassin theorist about this caption, Dr. Aguilar readily admitted his error, stating “it appears that I did indeed use the wrong image of the back of JFK's head. The only one I had was from a high quality black and white, 8x10 set that I'd gotten from Tink Thompson and used for this image. My error was in not realizing that there was a tiny change in perspective in the correct image vs. the one I showed.” Dr. Aguilar has in fact used the color photo in subsequent comparisons. He has also disavowed his use of the term “actual photo”. He related “I never noticed that phrasing before and I don't think I'd write it that way today, if I actually wrote it originally, as opposed to the editor's having written it. I simply don't now recall.” Intriguingly, this last statement suggests that the misleading caption was written by the editor of Murder in Dealey Plaza, Dr. James Fetzer. If true, this might help explain why a nearly identical mistake was made in Dr. Mantik’s article in the same book. Dr. Mantik’s caption reads: “Ida Dox inexplicably enhanced the red spot in her drawing. The actual entry is not visible; no other photograph shows it either." This, of course, is also not true.

But whenever one points out the mistakes of earnest researchers such as Aguilar, Mantik, and Fetzer, one should also inject some perspective, and note that, while their mistakes may mislead a few unsuspecting readers, they positively pale in comparison to the mistakes made by the mainstream media most every time they write a bout the assassination. In a May 20, 1992, AP article reporting on a press conference held by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, for example, the AP printed drawings of an entrance wound on the back of a head and beveling of the skull. Hundreds of thousands of readers were fooled into thinking these drawings supported the statements of the doctors, who, in an effort to combat some of the assertions in Oliver Stone’s film JFK, had asserted “The second, fatal shot entered the back of this head and exploded the right side of the skull.” The problem was that the drawing provided by the AP depicted the bullet entering near the top of Kennedy’s skull, in the HSCA entrance, when the doctors were describing the wound as measured at autopsy, 4 inches below this entrance. This “mistake” by the mainstream press hid from the public that the doctors were not only arguing against Oliver Stone, but also EVERY government panel to look at the assassination since 1968. Apparently, the AP didn't consider that news worth reporting.

Edited January 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

Those who have abandoned earlier beliefs that the Z film was

important evidence have moved onward toward solving the conspiracy.

The Zapruder film shows JFK seizing up -- paralyzed -- in a little more than

two seconds circa Z190 thru circa Z230.

Jackie Kennedy described the look on his face as "quizzical." Linda Willis,

Clint Hill and Nellie Connally all describe JFK as "grabbing" or "clutching" his

throat.

Three crucial photographs match the Zapruder film recording JFK's posture:

Betzner 3 (Z186), Willis 5 (Z202), Altgens 6 (Z255).

Gil Jesus makes a crucial analysis of the Zapruder, concluding JFK was trying to

dislodge a projectile from his throat before seizing up.

I have yet to see any argument that the Zapruder film is anything other

than authentic during the crucial period Z186-255.

Dismissing Z186-255 as unimportant throws the baby out with the bathwater.

[Jack White]

No hole, just a dark area in the phony photo.

Jack

[Karl Kinaski]

Why this second head shot thing? Nobody needs a second head shot to prove, that the Zappi film is a fake, and that there were several shooters at the plaza on that day.

One head shot from the fence- a incident, supported by the observation of dozens of eye-witnesses - that is enough to prove the conspiracy. Plus the contradictory observation of the head wounds by the Parkland, and the Bethesda staff.

Again: who needs a second-head-shot-theorie?

Talking about such a thing is, IMO, Love's Labour's Lost.

BTW: Crenshaw M.D said, the cerebellum -visible in the gaping exit wound at the occipital bone- was intact, a fact, which excluded any head shot from behind.

KK

PS: I enjoy this Intra-CTer discussions. They are much more fruitful, revealing and spirited, than those stupid, and boring LN vs CT drivel...

Edited January 4, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[Cliff Varnell]

The Zapruder film shows JFK seizing up -- paralyzed -- in a little more than

two seconds circa Z190 thru circa Z230.

&btw, this fact points directly at persons associated with the CIA, as

do the conclusions of the autopsists immediately after the autopsy.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

That's how important the Zapruder film is.

[Cliff Varnell]

No hole, just a dark area in the phony photo.

Jack

You said it, Jack!

The autopsy photos were not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol.

There is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos.

There is nothing in those photos indicating that it's JFK we are looking at.

The entire "head wounds" issue is a place where the sun never shines.

[Dean Hagerman]

Why this second head shot thing? Nobody needs a second head shot to prove, that the Zappi film is a fakeAgain: who needs a second-head-shot-theorie?

Talking about such a thing is, IMO, Love's Labour's Lost.

I do

Have you read TGZFH and more to the point have you read Rich Dellarosa's description of the "other" film?

I explained this in detail in the thread I started on this very forum

Go check it out, it might not be important to you in proving a conspiracy but it is very important to me

Dean

[Karl Kinaski]

Any head shot from behind hitting the back of the head would have destroyed the cerebellum. But the cerebellum was intact at Parkland...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBDuSJeH14

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You apparently have not read David Mantik's studies of the X-rays in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) or his synthesis of the medical evidence in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003). If you assume a shot from the rear, which as been the foundation of the official account, then the trail of metallic particles--where the heavier traveled further--offers proof of a second shot, which entered the right temple. It was, as I presumed we all knew, a frangile (or exploding) bullet that blew his brains out the back of his head (to the left rear) with such force that Officer Hargis, riding to the left rear, when hit with the debris, thought that he himself had been shot. The evidence for a shot to the back of the head, by the way, includes a piece of skull with interior beveling, which is indicative of an entry wound. I recommend you study David's work, which is of extraordinary importance.

Why this second head shot thing? Nobody needs a second head shot to prove, that the Zappi film is a fake, and that there were several shooters at the plaza on that day.

One head shot from the fence- a incident, supported by the observation of dozens of eye-witnesses - that is enough to prove the conspiracy. Plus the contradictory observation of the head wounds by the Parkland, and the Bethesda staff.

Again: who needs a second-head-shot-theorie?

Talking about such a thing is, IMO, Love's Labour's Lost.

BTW: Crenshaw M.D said, the cerebellum -visible in the gaping exit wound at the occipital bone- was intact, a fact, which excluded any head shot from behind.

KK

PS: I enjoy this Intra-CTer discussions. They are much more fruitful, revealing and spirited, than those stupid, and boring LN vs CT drivel...

Edited January 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Thank you, Jim, for finally seeing what I've been trying to push for the last 5 years---that we can combat the Oswald-didiots with a two-pronged approach, one claiming evidence has been faked, and one claiming that, even if it wasn't faked, it doesn't show what we've been told it shows. Here is another slide in which I match up the entrance wound location on the BOH photo with the strangely ignored entrance wound location visible in F8.

And here is another comparison in which I demonstrate that the entrance on the back of the head in F8 was observed and reported by the doctors in their 1966 inventory, and that this photo was then re-interpreted to be a photo taken from the front, with the completely bogus claim it shows a semi-circle entrance on the back of the head near the cowlick.

Pat,

You have made an extraordinary discover here, by which I am referring to the apparent second entry wound at the back of the head in the HSCA photographs, which simply stuns me. To the best of my knowledge, you are the first and only person to have made this observation. In MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), for example, the same photo is discussed by Gary Aguilar and by David W. Mantik:

In his chapter, "The Converging Medical Case for Conspiracy", Gary Aguilar, M.D., discusses this photo and Ida Dox diagram with the following caption:

Figure 1. Ida Dox's rendition of original autopy photograph showing the back of JFK's head (left). The small spot toward the top of the skull, which appears red in color photographs, was said to be the entrance location for the fatal bullet. The wound described is into evident in the actual photo (right). (MURDER, page 178)

In his first chapter, "The Medical Evidence Decoded", David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., offers the same photo and contributes the following descriptive caption:

Figure 1. Posterior Head Photograph from the Autopsy. No eyewitness reported what is seen here [referring to the purported entry wound at the crown]. Eyewitnesses recalled an orange-sized hole at the lower right rear. No one saw the red spot (the supposed entry wound) near the top of the ruler, and no one knew what the white spot (near the bottom just above the hairline), represented. Ida Dox inexplicably enhanced the red spot in her drawing (right). The actual entry site is not visible; no other photograph shows it either. (MURDER, page 221)

I shall have more to say about this, but Speer appears to have noticed something that has escaped the rest of us. These captions were the author's own. Notice that Gary's captions tend to be rather longer and more detailed than my captions in the Prologue, for example, where only rarely do I offer more complex ones. I have no doubt that the captions were authored by Gary and by David themselves. If they were missing from the original manuscripts, I may have called them to compose them.

At the very least, this means that a photograph that the HSCA used to justify its shift in the entry location by four inches was actually contradicted by the lower entry location shown on the same photograph. I am fairly astonished that no one has noticed this before. I would compare it to the photo showing Arlen Specter illustrating the path the "magic bullet" had to have taken, while the circular patch showing the actual entry is visible well-below his hand, which means that a photo intended to illustrate the "magic bullet" theory actually refutes it.

The error is in the first edition, and was taken from a source which identified it as a fire at street level;

it was very small and hard to discern. I sent Jim a substitute photo to use in later printings. That is a

specious argument.

Jack

But Tink has a valid point, Jack, in that there are errors like this in a number of Fetzer's books. In this thread he has repeatedly accused me of not having read Aguilar's and Mantik's chapters in Murder in Dealey Plaza. If he had a clue what he was talking about, he would have known that I wrote about one of the MISTAKES they made in this book a few years back, and actually defended this mistake in a backhanded kind of way.

From patspeer.com, chapter 13:

When I compare the photos of the back of Kennedy's head, I find it remarkable that what appears to be a small hole appears in each photo slightly above and to the right of the gray matter, Even more remarkable is that this hole is in the exact same spot in each photo, and precisely where the doctors said there was a bullet hole. To me, this is clearly the wound described at autopsy. But that's just me. Now years after I first came forward to promote this round shape as the long-lost entrance on the back of Kennedy's head, I've found few theorists of any stripe willing to abandon their pre-conceptions.

But the wound is there, nevertheless, plain as day. It really makes me wonder if truth, much as beauty, is purely in the eye of the beholder.

When I compare the cowlick entrance in the photos, I find something else to shake my head about. For here, it seems equally clear that the purported hole in the cowlick is much fainter on the black and white photo, and almost certainly not a bullet entrance. I'm not the first to notice this. Dr. Humes noticed this as well, and pointed this out in his discussion with the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. He explained that he rejected the mark in the cowlick as an entrance because: “despite the fact that this upper point that has been the source of some discussion here this afternoon is excessively obvious in the color photograph, I almost defy you to find it in that magnification in the black and white.”

That the mark seen on the black and white photo is so clearly not a bullet hole, unfortunately, has led some conspiracy writers to place this photo next to the Ida Dox drawing of the entrance in the cowlick and create the illusion that the entrance wound on the drawing was completely fabricated. This is undoubtedly deceiving, and is yet another reminder that conspiracy theorists are every bit as capable of deception as single-assassin theorists. Incredibly, in two separate articles in the collection Murder in Dealey Plaza, Dr.s Gary Aguilar and David Mantik place the Ida Dox drawing by the black and white photo for comparison. Dr. Aguilar’s caption reads: “…The small spot towards the top of the skull, which appears red in color photographs, was said to be an entrance location…The wound described is not evident in the actual photo.” By his use of the phrase “actual photo,” Aguilar had implied that the color photo was but a color version of the black and white. This was not true.

Fortunately, he tried to correct this mistake. In September 2006, when challenged online by an irate single-assassin theorist about this caption, Dr. Aguilar readily admitted his error, stating “it appears that I did indeed use the wrong image of the back of JFK's head. The only one I had was from a high quality black and white, 8x10 set that I'd gotten from Tink Thompson and used for this image. My error was in not realizing that there was a tiny change in perspective in the correct image vs. the one I showed.” Dr. Aguilar has in fact used the color photo in subsequent comparisons. He has also disavowed his use of the term “actual photo”. He related “I never noticed that phrasing before and I don't think I'd write it that way today, if I actually wrote it originally, as opposed to the editor's having written it. I simply don't now recall.” Intriguingly, this last statement suggests that the misleading caption was written by the editor of Murder in Dealey Plaza, Dr. James Fetzer. If true, this might help explain why a nearly identical mistake was made in Dr. Mantik’s article in the same book. Dr. Mantik’s caption reads: “Ida Dox inexplicably enhanced the red spot in her drawing. The actual entry is not visible; no other photograph shows it either." This, of course, is also not true.

But whenever one points out the mistakes of earnest researchers such as Aguilar, Mantik, and Fetzer, one should also inject some perspective, and note that, while their mistakes may mislead a few unsuspecting readers, they positively pale in comparison to the mistakes made by the mainstream media most every time they write a bout the assassination. In a May 20, 1992, AP article reporting on a press conference held by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, for example, the AP printed drawings of an entrance wound on the back of a head and beveling of the skull. Hundreds of thousands of readers were fooled into thinking these drawings supported the statements of the doctors, who, in an effort to combat some of the assertions in Oliver Stone’s film JFK, had asserted “The second, fatal shot entered the back of this head and exploded the right side of the skull.” The problem was that the drawing provided by the AP depicted the bullet entering near the top of Kennedy’s skull, in the HSCA entrance, when the doctors were describing the wound as measured at autopsy, 4 inches below this entrance. This “mistake” by the mainstream press hid from the public that the doctors were not only arguing against Oliver Stone, but also EVERY government panel to look at the assassination since 1968. Apparently, the AP didn't consider that news worth reporting.