SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Egad! You have no idea what you are talking about. Study the statement by Robert Livingston, M.D., who was a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). Physician after physician reported cerebellum as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the massive defect to the back of the head. Gary Aguilar, M.D., has collated their reports, where you can find a chapter by him in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). You need to do some homework!

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

Edited January 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I don't know what to say, Pat, because Jack has taken a look and says that the hole you have "discovered" isn't there. This will take some sorting out. I will invite David Mantik, David Lifton, and John Costella to take a look, too. Something is not right.

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.

Edited January 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Where are you, Josiah Thompson? You appear to be missing in action again! 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. Show some backbone. Now is the time!

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 Officer Hargis was hit by debris 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), (ii) you do not provide sketches of the crucial frames (314, 315, and 315), and (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 have adopted. No matter how strong the proof, no matter how many experts on film conclude not 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

Professor Fetzer,

Since Pat Speer has handled your latest, somewhat hysterical outbursts, I’ve kept silent.... figuring that the more you rant the more you expose who you are.

Your latest attempt at character assassination seems to be based on the claim that forty years ago I didn’t write the book that you would expect me to write now. After all these years, isn’t that a rather unrealistic expectation?

To advance your smear, you point to various arguments I didn’t make and various sketches I didn’t include. You claim that this is all part of some dark conspiracy on the part of me and unnamed others to keep the truth from the American people. Given that you charge me with a dark conspiracy, it seems only right for me to point out that you have ended up over time misleading that small group of people who read your books by publishing photos that really show the opposite of what you say they show. Make no mistake. I am not charging that this feature of your work is part of a dark conspiracy. I am sure it is not. It is most likely only the result of slovenly editing.

Unlike your dark conspiracy that I defy anyone to figure out, it is simplicity itself to show how you have misled your readers.

(1) Take the photo that started the recent debate... the red pickup truck in Dealey Plaza taken from one of Rollie Zavada’s studies. In TGZFH, you published it in a blurry, black and white copy and then claimed it failed to show “left full frame image penetration.” As we’ve seen however, it is precisely “left full frame image penetration” that this photo demonstrates.

(2) In your latest foray, The 9/11 Conspiracy, you are trying to show that fires in WTC 7 were not very extensive or ferocious. As someone hired to investigate this building’s collapse on 9/11, I can tell you they were both. No matter. To prove the point you are trying to make, you publish a photo of the building showing it standing serene and untouched with a flash of orange near its base. The caption describes this photo as follows: “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” Well, the building should “appear undamaged” since the photo was taken in 1997. And the “modest fire at street level”? Well, that is a bright orange, Calder statue to be found on the mezzanine level.

(3) Years ago in MIDP, you published a photo purporting to show a particular sight-line in the Moorman photo (the line-up of the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the right bottom corner of a pergola window behind it). The only problem was that you covered up the relevant intersection point with an orange cross. The effect was that the reader had to believe your caption about what was shown. Whoops! When the orange cross was removed, it became clear to the naked eye that the two points did not line up and, therefore, the whole argument was bogus.

(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.

I point these facts out since it is very easy do so and requires not much description. I know you will say that the mistakes are not yours but those of your contributors. And, to some degree, you are correct in saying that. But I raise these mistakes also for another reason. Don’t you become so hysterical about me... wigged out enough to produce a completely silly theory of conspiracy to charge me with... because a few days ago I pointed out these mistakes? Aren’t you really so angry simply because I won’t go away and keep pointing out your errors? Isn’t that the real reason behind your recent tirade?

Josiah Thompson

My replies are underlined.

My comments added in bold:

Raymond, that is a familiar saying--though perhaps not to you!--of a turkey when its done baking: "You can stick a fork in it--it's done!"

No malice or malicious intent is thereby implied. I have summarized my views for your consideration, which I shall repost here for convenience:

Raymond,

Perhaps you can help me to find the words. I regard him as a prevaricator, an obfuscationist, and a dissembler. Let me offer a few reasons why:

(1) in composing SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), Josiah Thompson had unprecedented access to the highest quality versions of the Zapruder film;

(2) that film, as you must know for yourself, displays a massive bulging out of brains to the right-front, which has long since come to be known as "the blob";

Did the highest quality versions of the film depict a blob? Wasn't it an artifact found only on third and fourth generation prints? No blob is visible on the quality prints now available.

Don't confound the white piece of paper that seems to float across the grass in the background with the massive bulging out of brains to the right-front, which appears to have been part and parcel of the interlocking and mutually reinforcing deceptions of altering the X-rays to make it appear there was missing mass to the right-front, the caption in LIFE magazine for frame 313, and Zapruder's hand gesture during his television interview that evening. I have explained this so many times, I presume you know what I am talking about. This is the most striking and dramatic aspect of the film in 313, 314, 315, and 316, which was always a part of the film, though less clear in various bootlegged copies.

(3) this massive bulging-out to the right front is inconsistent with the medical evidence, typified by the McClelland drawing, and by the testimony of Officer Hargis;

It is entirely consistent with Hargis' statements. The large defect was on the top of JFK's head. Blood and brains exploded upwards, and into the air. Hargis drove through this spray within a second.

No, it isn't. Hargis was riding to the left-rear. He was hit so hard he thought that he himself had been hit. It was not a matter of simply "driving through this spray within a second"! Egad, you are even more ignorant than I had supposed. Now I doubt that you have even read SIX SECONDS, since Josiah reports his words on page 100: "This debris hit Officer Hargis with such force that he told reporters the next day, 'I thought at first that I might have been hit'." And of course the Harper fragment was found on the grass the next day, which I suspect hit Hargis and was deflected onto the lawn. You really don't know what you are talking about.

(4) it follows that, even from consideration of the most elementary evidence in this case, that there is a stunning and inescapable conflict between the medical evidence and the film;

Only if you consider McClelland's description "evidence" while tossing out the autopsy report, the Rydberg drawings, and the testimony of the autopsists. Perhaps Thompson had read the Warren Report and had seen that McClelland initially reported a wound on Kennedy's left temple. If so, he would have been understandably reluctant to rally behind McClelland at the expense of Humes and Boswell.

Again you demonstrate that you are utterly ignorant of the best studies on these matters. Try reading the chapter by Gary Aguilar in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), for example, which demonstrates that the autopsy report, the Rydberg drawings, and the testimony of Humes and Boswell were fabrications. The "left/right" mis-description is common, since looking at the body, it is "on the left" from the perspective of the observer, even though it is "on the right" of the patient's body. Mantik explained this some time back, if you only read his chapter in MURDER. I am completely astonished at your ignorance of the objective and scientific research on these points.

(5) SIX SECONDS would have created a sensation and blown the cover-up out of the water had Josiah Thompson used his knowledge to expose the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film;

If you go back and read the coverage it received, you'd see that it did create a sensation, and in the process, convinced thousands if not tens of thousands of readers, that there were multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza. It is your belief that alteration is the end-all be-all through which a conspiracy can be proved. Implicit in that argument is that the available evidence, if taken at face value, suggests there was NO conspiracy. (Dr. Mantik, echoing Judge Earl Warren, claims as much in one of your books). In 1967, Thompson thought, quite rightly in my opinion, that the suppression of the Zapruder film had something to do with the fact that most of those viewing it would become concerned Kennedy was shot from the front. History has proved him correct. It is only through your strange prism that his use of the Zapruder film is suspicious.

Well, the "double-hit" study, which most of us considered to be the most objective and scientific in the book, was a demonstration that there had to be at least two shooters. Today, however, using arguments that are specious, he is trying to disavow it, where I have already shown that his disavowal is based upon the false premises of a simultaneous hit and "startle reaction", which is a neurophysiological impossibility. The bullet travels so much faster than sound that, even if the shooter were close to Zapruder, the effects of the sound and the neurological response to them would have taken time and rendered Thompson's purported analysis null and void. PLUS, of course, it does not explain why Richard Feynman, a world famous physicist, would have arrived at the same "double-hit" hypothesis. None of the witnesses, by the way, reported observing the back-and-to-the-left motion many students have found convincing, which appears to be an artifact of editing.

(6) however, in his book, he only provides an opaque sketch of frame 313 and none but the most abstract outline of any of the frames 314, 315, and 316, which meant they were inaccessible for study;

(7) since he published the McClelland diargram and even quotes Officer Hargis, Josiah Thompson had to have been aware of the conflict, yet he tacitly, implicity, and by omitting discussion minimized it;

(8) this meant that, no matter how blatant the contradiction, the existence of this conflict--in spite of its immense importance--was very difficult to discern based upon Josiah Thompson's book;

(9) he also introduced a "doubt hit" theory, where JFK was hit in the back of the head 1/9th of a second before he was hit in the right temple by a fangile (or exploding) bullet;

(10) he now maintains that he was wrong, claiming Zapruder experienced a "startle response" that caused a smear on the film at exactly the same moment that the bullet hit;

(11) that, however, is a neurological impossibility, because the bullet travels far faster than sound and it would have taken time for any such "startle reponse" to occur;

(12) Josiah is therefore offering an excuse for having been mistaken about his "double hit" hypothesis--which was one of the most striking features of his book--by invoking a phony explanation;

(13) there is overwhelming proof that the film is a fabrication, including HOAX (2003), "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery" (2008) and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid" (2009);

None of which he, or the majority of conspiracy theorists, accept as proof.

Well, I'll call your bluff. Tell me the arguments that are presented there and why they are not persuasive. I am under the impression that you are faking it here, as you do elsewhere. Since "the majority of conspiracy theorists [do not] accept what I have published there "as proof", you have an obligation to explain why. The arguments have been published. Your basis for rejecting them has not. I hate to say it, Pat, but you appear to be completely unqualified for research on this or, I would surmise, any complex subject. So prove that I am wrong. Give me an inventory of the arguments that are present in the sources that I have cited and explain what is wrong with them. I have no doubt that you can't do it and won't even try. I regard your answer here as phony as the film.

(14) film restoration experts have now viewed a 6k version of the film and expressed astonishment at the amateurish quaity of the fakery, which inclides painting over the massive defect at the back of the head in black and painting in the "blob" and the blood spray;

The number of film experts believing the film to be altered and the degree to which film experts believe the film to be altered remains in question. I've had discussions on this topic with two film-makers, both conspiracy theorists. Both believe alteration unlikely. Perhaps this new, much smaller claim, that the back of JFK's head was painted in on a few frames will gain more support.

Well, then, it might make a difference if they have actually looked at the relevant evidence. Ask them to take a look at HOAX (2003), especially the Prologue, pages 21 to 28, "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery", "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"--where these articles are accessible via google--and the relevant portions of Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV (2009). Invite them to visit my public issues web site an view John Costella's tutorial at http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/. I would be fascinated to learn more about your "film maker" friends, but you response is artificial and contrived. If you had an argument to show we were wrong about any of this, you would have made it. You have not.

(15) today at least seven film experts have concurred in this opinion, thereby agreeing with Roderick Ryan, an expect on special effects, who received the academic award in 2000, who explained these things to Noel Twyam, BLOODY TREASON (1998); and,

We all await the position paper of these "experts", along with the photographic evidence for their claims.

So when they whisper in your ear, you will become a believer? You seem to be implying that Doug Horne, who was there and did that--and even has a degree in history!--is slanting or fabricating reports that he is attributing to Hollywood film restoration experts, whom he cites by name? Have you read the reports from Roderick Ryan in Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1998)? The number of Hollywood film experts who agree with this has grown to seven--eight, including Ryan! Are you telling me that, if this actually is their opinion, then you will convert? My confidence in you ability to reason has been enormously diminished by this exchange.

(16) the chain of custody argument that Josiah has long advanced to defend his claim that the film cannot have been faked--in spite of massive evidence to the contrary--has been shattered by Doug Horne's discover of another copy have been developed in Rochester.

This, in a nutshell, is the source of much of the problem. You, as Horne, think talking to an old man and having him tell you something at odds with the official story is a "discovery", and cause to re-interpret everything we thought we knew. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The 30 year-removed memories of people so unconcerned with getting things straight that they never wrote anything down just are not reliable. They may be interesting. They maybe worth reporting. But you cannot construct a new version of events based upon the isolated recollections of people far removed from the events in question, and expect widespread acceptance. Right here on this forum, on another thread, David Lifton has told Pamela McElwain-Brown that he doesn't believe her story of seeing the Zapruder film in a movie theater in 1964. He is, IMO, correct to do so. But where is this objectivity when it comes to the medical evidence, where we have people readily accepting the otherwise unsupported claims that Kennedy had no brain when he arrived at Bethesda, etc.? It's nowhere. This suggests to me that some of us are more concerned with making a "discovery" than in getting things straight. (And no, I'm not being holier than thou. I discuss this tendency within myself in the Seduction of Intrigue section of chapter 20 at patspeer.com.)

The "discovery" that the film is a fabrication has been proven over and over again. If you have a modicum of intellectual integrity, you will explain the proofs I have advanced and explain why each of them is wrong. I not only do not believe that you can do that, I don't think you will even try. So surprise me! Try to show that the arguments we have actually given are wrong!

I don't like being played for a sucker, yet Tink has been playing the world--including you, Mr. Carroll--for saps since his book appeared in 1967. His conduct is utterly disgusting and completely reprehensible with a pattern of deceit and deception that extends back to 1967.

And this revelation to you that Thompson has always been an evil-doer, of course, has nothing to do with any personal dislike you feel for the man... I'm sorry but at this late date in the Thompson/Fetzer wars that's truly hard to believe.

Arguments are independent of attitudes. Discounting an argument because of its source is an elementary fallacy I taught freshmen to avoid for 35 years! Today I regard the man as a disgrace, but I could still be one of his biggest fans, because the points that I have made are completely objective. He offered an opaque sketch of frame 313. He did not offer any but a very abstract outline of frames 314, 315, and 316. He published the McClelland drawing and even quoted Officer Hargis, who was hit by debris so hard he thought he himself had been shot. The drawing and testimony stand in striking contradiction to the events shown on the film. He cannot not have known they were incompatible. But, instead of driving for the truth by a determined effort to resolve this contradiction, he obfuscated it significance. Because he did not even offer sketches of what the film showed in these crucial respects, his readers had no idea that he was suppressing, ignoring, or otherwise concealing some of the most important indications of fakery in the cover up. He is playing you and others for saps--and you, alas, are falling for it! Josiah is like "The Force": he can have a powerful effect on the weak-minded!

He is extending his efforts by disavowing or minimizing indications of conspiracy that were included in SIX SECONDS, while he attempts to perpetrate the fraud that the film is authentic. It should not be difficult, even for one as kindly as you, to see though his obvious hypocrisy.

Since Thompson continues to believe the film suggests a conspiracy, it remains to be seen how his changing a few of his conclusions is so troublesome.

My guess is that he was working toward declaring that he has become agnostic in time for the 50th observance of the assassination. That appears to be what this is all about. He and Mack and Lamson and Colby and McAdams and others are all targeting the 50th.

If you prefer to place propriety and manners ahead of distortions and perversions about evidence and truth in the assassination of JFK, that is your prerogative. But that, in my view, is simply one more form of apology for betraying the trust of you, me, and the American people.

Jim

You can stick a fork in him! He's done.

Fantasies of sticking forks in opponents now?

Let's hope Dr. Fetzer doesn't get his hands on a gun.

Edited January 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

I don't know what to say, Pat, because Jack has taken a look and says that the hole you have "discovered" isn't there. This will take some sorting out. I will invite David Mantik, David Lifton, and John Costella to take a look, too. Something is not right.

Ironically, Jim, Jack White told me years ago he agreed with me that the proposed bullet hole in F8 is indeed a bullet hole. Groden and Lifton have also told me they think this is a bullet hole. So the only question is if the hole I see on the BOH photo aligns with the hole visible in F8. I think it does.

From patspeer.com, chapter13:

When one inspects the back of the head photo and matches its neck lines with those apparent on what is presumed to be the neck in the open cranium photos, one finds a convincing alignment. Certainly these are not just random lines on a towel. Since the HSCA Authenticity Report stated “Such lines develop in most individuals by middle age, but their exact arrangement forms a pattern that is virtually unique to the individual” one would like to think they tested the lines to see if they matched, but there is no mention of this in their report. But there are other indications that this photo was taken of President Kennedy from behind. It should be remembered here that on their January 26, 1967 report on the photos, the doctors asserted, when discussing the color photo of the back of the head, that “due to the fractures of the underlying bone and the elevation of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound to be photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site.” This indicates that before they pulled the scalp up, the entrance in the scalp was slightly lower and hidden in a skin fold, which would seem to match the lower position of the wound in the open cranium photograph. Moreover, this indicates that the position of the entrance wound before it was “lifted” approximated the teardrop of spinal fluid readily visible on the photographs with the scalp intact and repeatedly identified by the original autopsists as the entrance location. From this it seems logical that this mysterious fluid is no mystery at all, but is instead some macerated brain matter that leaked from the entrance wound during the long flight from Dallas.

A close inspection of the wounds is especially revealing. While it is usually inferred from the Warren Report’s description of the “slicing” associated with the occipital entrance wound that the wound was vertical, and the Rydberg drawings portray it as such, Dr. Finck, the bullet wounds expert at the autopsy, informed his Army superiors in a report filed in January, 1965, that the wound was “transversal,” heading right to left. (While Humes’ misrepresentation of the wound may have been an honest mistake, it’s intriguing that, within a week of interviewing Humes, Arlen Specter asked Parkland witness Dr. Clark if his observations were consistent with the presence of a “lateral wound measuring 15 by 6 cm. on the posterior scalp.” Did Specter know Humes’ testimony was incorrect? If so, how?) Anyhow, Finck’s description of the wound as transversal makes perfect sense when one remembers Boswell’s inclusion on the autopsy face sheet of an arrow heading both to the left and upwards from the bullet entrance, particularly when one considers that Boswell would have immediately connected in his mind the large exit high on the skull as the logical exit of the bullet making the small entrance below. One can deduce from this that the bullet came from the President’s right, or that it hit the President while his head was turned to its right, just enough so that the bullet grazed along the flesh on the outside of his skull before entering. The so-called military review of January 26, 1967, says as much, stating, when discussing the photo with the President’s scalp still intact “The scalp wound shown in the photographs appears to be a laceration and tunnel, with the actual penetration of the skin (they must have meant “skull”) obscured by the top of the tunnel. From the photographs this is not recognizable as a penetrating wound because of the slanting direction of entry.” Dr. Finck’s description of the wound and assertion of a tunnel is, not coincidentally, completely at odds with the Clark Panel and HSCA purported in-shoot in the cowlick. The skull at the Clark Panel location had been removed before Dr. Finck had even arrived at the autopsy.

Should one accept that the entrance described at the autopsy could be the transversal entrance proposed in the images above, but have a problem believing that this bullet entrance could 1) have gone unnoticed by the Parkland doctors, and 2) be so hard to spot in the scalp on the back of the head photos, one should read more wound ballistics literature, as it is filled with stories where the entrance wound proved equally elusive. In Crime Lab: Science Turns Detective, for example, a story first told by Dr. Le Moyne Snyder is re-told by author David Loth. Loth tells of a young man who'd been treated for a .22 caliber rifle wound in the shoulder but whose condition continued to worsen. Finally, the doctor decides to inspect the rest of the man's body. The story concludes: "Behind the right ear, hidden by hair, was a tiny round hole, with the faintest trace of blood. The damage of the second bullet had been internal, and extensive. The victim died a few minutes after this wound was located" (That a wound caused by a .22 rifle would be less severe than a wound caused by Oswald's rifle has not been overlooked, and should make one wonder if maybe, just maybe, the small initially-overlooked entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head was caused by a rifle other than Oswald's. Much, much, more on this to come.)

While one might also wonder why there’s so little hair visible near the hairline in the open cranium photo, this, too, has an explanation. Dr. Finck told the HSCA: “I don’t remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside…the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.” Finck, by the way, never budged from his contention that this entry was on the occipital bone of the skull, inches away from the HSCA’s entry in the cowlick. Not surprisingly, Finck’s interview with the HSCA was kept secret until the ARRB forced its release.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Pamela Brown]

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..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

[Craig Lamson]

Where are you, Josiah Thompson? You appear to be missing in action again! 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. Show some backbone. Now is the time!

Good point Fetzer, I too would like to see some backbone:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry177383

[Pamela Brown]

Perhaps he is busy trying to perfect his eulogy to the 'unaltered' Zapruder.

Where are you, Josiah Thompson? You appear to be missing in action again! 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. Show some backbone. Now is the time!

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 Officer Hargis was hit by debris 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), (ii) you do not provide sketches of the crucial frames (314, 315, and 315), and (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 have adopted. No matter how strong the proof, no matter how many experts on film conclude not 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

Professor Fetzer,

Since Pat Speer has handled your latest, somewhat hysterical outbursts, I’ve kept silent.... figuring that the more you rant the more you expose who you are.

Your latest attempt at character assassination seems to be based on the claim that forty years ago I didn’t write the book that you would expect me to write now. After all these years, isn’t that a rather unrealistic expectation?

To advance your smear, you point to various arguments I didn’t make and various sketches I didn’t include. You claim that this is all part of some dark conspiracy on the part of me and unnamed others to keep the truth from the American people. Given that you charge me with a dark conspiracy, it seems only right for me to point out that you have ended up over time misleading that small group of people who read your books by publishing photos that really show the opposite of what you say they show. Make no mistake. I am not charging that this feature of your work is part of a dark conspiracy. I am sure it is not. It is most likely only the result of slovenly editing.

Unlike your dark conspiracy that I defy anyone to figure out, it is simplicity itself to show how you have misled your readers.

(1) Take the photo that started the recent debate... the red pickup truck in Dealey Plaza taken from one of Rollie Zavada’s studies. In TGZFH, you published it in a blurry, black and white copy and then claimed it failed to show “left full frame image penetration.” As we’ve seen however, it is precisely “left full frame image penetration” that this photo demonstrates.

(2) In your latest foray, The 9/11 Conspiracy, you are trying to show that fires in WTC 7 were not very extensive or ferocious. As someone hired to investigate this building’s collapse on 9/11, I can tell you they were both. No matter. To prove the point you are trying to make, you publish a photo of the building showing it standing serene and untouched with a flash of orange near its base. The caption describes this photo as follows: “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” Well, the building should “appear undamaged” since the photo was taken in 1997. And the “modest fire at street level”? Well, that is a bright orange, Calder statue to be found on the mezzanine level.

(3) Years ago in MIDP, you published a photo purporting to show a particular sight-line in the Moorman photo (the line-up of the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the right bottom corner of a pergola window behind it). The only problem was that you covered up the relevant intersection point with an orange cross. The effect was that the reader had to believe your caption about what was shown. Whoops! When the orange cross was removed, it became clear to the naked eye that the two points did not line up and, therefore, the whole argument was bogus.

(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.

I point these facts out since it is very easy do so and requires not much description. I know you will say that the mistakes are not yours but those of your contributors. And, to some degree, you are correct in saying that. But I raise these mistakes also for another reason. Don’t you become so hysterical about me... wigged out enough to produce a completely silly theory of conspiracy to charge me with... because a few days ago I pointed out these mistakes? Aren’t you really so angry simply because I won’t go away and keep pointing out your errors? Isn’t that the real reason behind your recent tirade?

Josiah Thompson

My replies are underlined.

My comments added in bold:

Raymond, that is a familiar saying--though perhaps not to you!--of a turkey when its done baking: "You can stick a fork in it--it's done!"

No malice or malicious intent is thereby implied. I have summarized my views for your consideration, which I shall repost here for convenience:

Raymond,

Perhaps you can help me to find the words. I regard him as a prevaricator, an obfuscationist, and a dissembler. Let me offer a few reasons why:

(1) in composing SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), Josiah Thompson had unprecedented access to the highest quality versions of the Zapruder film;

(2) that film, as you must know for yourself, displays a massive bulging out of brains to the right-front, which has long since come to be known as "the blob";

Did the highest quality versions of the film depict a blob? Wasn't it an artifact found only on third and fourth generation prints? No blob is visible on the quality prints now available.

Don't confound the white piece of paper that seems to float across the grass in the background with the massive bulging out of brains to the right-front, which appears to have been part and parcel of the interlocking and mutually reinforcing deceptions of altering the X-rays to make it appear there was missing mass to the right-front, the caption in LIFE magazine for frame 313, and Zapruder's hand gesture during his television interview that evening. I have explained this so many times, I presume you know what I am talking about. This is the most striking and dramatic aspect of the film in 313, 314, 315, and 316, which was always a part of the film, though less clear in various bootlegged copies.

(3) this massive bulging-out to the right front is inconsistent with the medical evidence, typified by the McClelland drawing, and by the testimony of Officer Hargis;

It is entirely consistent with Hargis' statements. The large defect was on the top of JFK's head. Blood and brains exploded upwards, and into the air. Hargis drove through this spray within a second.

No, it isn't. Hargis was riding to the left-rear. He was hit so hard he thought that he himself had been hit. It was not a matter of simply "driving through this spray within a second"! Egad, you are even more ignorant than I had supposed. Now I doubt that you have even read SIX SECONDS, since Josiah reports his words on page 100: "This debris hit Officer Hargis with such force that he told reporters the next day, 'I thought at first that I might have been hit'." And of course the Harper fragment was found on the grass the next day, which I suspect hit Hargis and was deflected onto the lawn. You really don't know what you are talking about.

(4) it follows that, even from consideration of the most elementary evidence in this case, that there is a stunning and inescapable conflict between the medical evidence and the film;

Only if you consider McClelland's description "evidence" while tossing out the autopsy report, the Rydberg drawings, and the testimony of the autopsists. Perhaps Thompson had read the Warren Report and had seen that McClelland initially reported a wound on Kennedy's left temple. If so, he would have been understandably reluctant to rally behind McClelland at the expense of Humes and Boswell.

Again you demonstrate that you are utterly ignorant of the best studies on these matters. Try reading the chapter by Gary Aguilar in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), for example, which demonstrates that the autopsy report, the Rydberg drawings, and the testimony of Humes and Boswell were fabrications. The "left/right" mis-description is common, since looking at the body, it is "on the left" from the perspective of the observer, even though it is "on the right" of the patient's body. Mantik explained this some time back, if you only read his chapter in MURDER. I am completely astonished at your ignorance of the objective and scientific research on these points.

(5) SIX SECONDS would have created a sensation and blown the cover-up out of the water had Josiah Thompson used his knowledge to expose the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film;

If you go back and read the coverage it received, you'd see that it did create a sensation, and in the process, convinced thousands if not tens of thousands of readers, that there were multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza. It is your belief that alteration is the end-all be-all through which a conspiracy can be proved. Implicit in that argument is that the available evidence, if taken at face value, suggests there was NO conspiracy. (Dr. Mantik, echoing Judge Earl Warren, claims as much in one of your books). In 1967, Thompson thought, quite rightly in my opinion, that the suppression of the Zapruder film had something to do with the fact that most of those viewing it would become concerned Kennedy was shot from the front. History has proved him correct. It is only through your strange prism that his use of the Zapruder film is suspicious.

Well, the "double-hit" study, which most of us considered to be the most objective and scientific in the book, was a demonstration that there had to be at least two shooters. Today, however, using arguments that are specious, he is trying to disavow it, where I have already shown that his disavowal is based upon the false premises of a simultaneous hit and "startle reaction", which is a neurophysiological impossibility. The bullet travels so much faster than sound that, even if the shooter were close to Zapruder, the effects of the sound and the neurological response to them would have taken time and rendered Thompson's purported analysis null and void. PLUS, of course, it does not explain why Richard Feynman, a world famous physicist, would have arrived at the same "double-hit" hypothesis. None of the witnesses, by the way, reported observing the back-and-to-the-left motion many students have found convincing, which appears to be an artifact of editing.

(6) however, in his book, he only provides an opaque sketch of frame 313 and none but the most abstract outline of any of the frames 314, 315, and 316, which meant they were inaccessible for study;

(7) since he published the McClelland diargram and even quotes Officer Hargis, Josiah Thompson had to have been aware of the conflict, yet he tacitly, implicity, and by omitting discussion minimized it;

(8) this meant that, no matter how blatant the contradiction, the existence of this conflict--in spite of its immense importance--was very difficult to discern based upon Josiah Thompson's book;

(9) he also introduced a "doubt hit" theory, where JFK was hit in the back of the head 1/9th of a second before he was hit in the right temple by a fangile (or exploding) bullet;

(10) he now maintains that he was wrong, claiming Zapruder experienced a "startle response" that caused a smear on the film at exactly the same moment that the bullet hit;

(11) that, however, is a neurological impossibility, because the bullet travels far faster than sound and it would have taken time for any such "startle reponse" to occur;

(12) Josiah is therefore offering an excuse for having been mistaken about his "double hit" hypothesis--which was one of the most striking features of his book--by invoking a phony explanation;

(13) there is overwhelming proof that the film is a fabrication, including HOAX (2003), "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery" (2008) and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid" (2009);

None of which he, or the majority of conspiracy theorists, accept as proof.

Well, I'll call your bluff. Tell me the arguments that are presented there and why they are not persuasive. I am under the impression that you are faking it here, as you do elsewhere. Since "the majority of conspiracy theorists [do not] accept what I have published there "as proof", you have an obligation to explain why. The arguments have been published. Your basis for rejecting them has not. I hate to say it, Pat, but you appear to be completely unqualified for research on this or, I would surmise, any complex subject. So prove that I am wrong. Give me an inventory of the arguments that are present in the sources that I have cited and explain what is wrong with them. I have no doubt that you can't do it and won't even try. I regard your answer here as phony as the film.

(14) film restoration experts have now viewed a 6k version of the film and expressed astonishment at the amateurish quaity of the fakery, which inclides painting over the massive defect at the back of the head in black and painting in the "blob" and the blood spray;

The number of film experts believing the film to be altered and the degree to which film experts believe the film to be altered remains in question. I've had discussions on this topic with two film-makers, both conspiracy theorists. Both believe alteration unlikely. Perhaps this new, much smaller claim, that the back of JFK's head was painted in on a few frames will gain more support.

Well, then, it might make a difference if they have actually looked at the relevant evidence. Ask them to take a look at HOAX (2003), especially the Prologue, pages 21 to 28, "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery", "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"--where these articles are accessible via google--and the relevant portions of Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV (2009). Invite them to visit my public issues web site an view John Costella's tutorial at http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/. I would be fascinated to learn more about your "film maker" friends, but you response is artificial and contrived. If you had an argument to show we were wrong about any of this, you would have made it. You have not.

(15) today at least seven film experts have concurred in this opinion, thereby agreeing with Roderick Ryan, an expect on special effects, who received the academic award in 2000, who explained these things to Noel Twyam, BLOODY TREASON (1998); and,

We all await the position paper of these "experts", along with the photographic evidence for their claims.

So when they whisper in your ear, you will become a believer? You seem to be implying that Doug Horne, who was there and did that--and even has a degree in history!--is slanting or fabricating reports that he is attributing to Hollywood film restoration experts, whom he cites by name? Have you read the reports from Roderick Ryan in Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1998)? The number of Hollywood film experts who agree with this has grown to seven--eight, including Ryan! Are you telling me that, if this actually is their opinion, then you will convert? My confidence in you ability to reason has been enormously diminished by this exchange.

(16) the chain of custody argument that Josiah has long advanced to defend his claim that the film cannot have been faked--in spite of massive evidence to the contrary--has been shattered by Doug Horne's discover of another copy have been developed in Rochester.

This, in a nutshell, is the source of much of the problem. You, as Horne, think talking to an old man and having him tell you something at odds with the official story is a "discovery", and cause to re-interpret everything we thought we knew. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The 30 year-removed memories of people so unconcerned with getting things straight that they never wrote anything down just are not reliable. They may be interesting. They maybe worth reporting. But you cannot construct a new version of events based upon the isolated recollections of people far removed from the events in question, and expect widespread acceptance. Right here on this forum, on another thread, David Lifton has told Pamela McElwain-Brown that he doesn't believe her story of seeing the Zapruder film in a movie theater in 1964. He is, IMO, correct to do so. But where is this objectivity when it comes to the medical evidence, where we have people readily accepting the otherwise unsupported claims that Kennedy had no brain when he arrived at Bethesda, etc.? It's nowhere. This suggests to me that some of us are more concerned with making a "discovery" than in getting things straight. (And no, I'm not being holier than thou. I discuss this tendency within myself in the Seduction of Intrigue section of chapter 20 at patspeer.com.)

The "discovery" that the film is a fabrication has been proven over and over again. If you have a modicum of intellectual integrity, you will explain the proofs I have advanced and explain why each of them is wrong. I not only do not believe that you can do that, I don't think you will even try. So surprise me! Try to show that the arguments we have actually given are wrong!

I don't like being played for a sucker, yet Tink has been playing the world--including you, Mr. Carroll--for saps since his book appeared in 1967. His conduct is utterly disgusting and completely reprehensible with a pattern of deceit and deception that extends back to 1967.

And this revelation to you that Thompson has always been an evil-doer, of course, has nothing to do with any personal dislike you feel for the man... I'm sorry but at this late date in the Thompson/Fetzer wars that's truly hard to believe.

Arguments are independent of attitudes. Discounting an argument because of its source is an elementary fallacy I taught freshmen to avoid for 35 years! Today I regard the man as a disgrace, but I could still be one of his biggest fans, because the points that I have made are completely objective. He offered an opaque sketch of frame 313. He did not offer any but a very abstract outline of frames 314, 315, and 316. He published the McClelland drawing and even quoted Officer Hargis, who was hit by debris so hard he thought he himself had been shot. The drawing and testimony stand in striking contradiction to the events shown on the film. He cannot not have known they were incompatible. But, instead of driving for the truth by a determined effort to resolve this contradiction, he obfuscated it significance. Because he did not even offer sketches of what the film showed in these crucial respects, his readers had no idea that he was suppressing, ignoring, or otherwise concealing some of the most important indications of fakery in the cover up. He is playing you and others for saps--and you, alas, are falling for it! Josiah is like "The Force": he can have a powerful effect on the weak-minded!

He is extending his efforts by disavowing or minimizing indications of conspiracy that were included in SIX SECONDS, while he attempts to perpetrate the fraud that the film is authentic. It should not be difficult, even for one as kindly as you, to see though his obvious hypocrisy.

Since Thompson continues to believe the film suggests a conspiracy, it remains to be seen how his changing a few of his conclusions is so troublesome.

My guess is that he was working toward declaring that he has become agnostic in time for the 50th observance of the assassination. That appears to be what this is all about. He and Mack and Lamson and Colby and McAdams and others are all targeting the 50th.

If you prefer to place propriety and manners ahead of distortions and perversions about evidence and truth in the assassination of JFK, that is your prerogative. But that, in my view, is simply one more form of apology for betraying the trust of you, me, and the American people.

Jim

You can stick a fork in him! He's done.

Fantasies of sticking forks in opponents now?

Let's hope Dr. Fetzer doesn't get his hands on a gun.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Nice point, Pamela. Doug Weldon's chapter and associated photographs in MURDER (2000) demonstrate its existence and the reports of Robert Livingston and of Richard Dudman, published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), confirm it. My current understanding is that additional evidence has been found that will corroborate what we already know. This is one more indication that Tink is playing games and attempting to obfuscate crucial evidence about the existence of a conspiracy. David Mantik's take on Tom Robinson's summary of the wounds to the body--which includes two small wounds to the face--is that they were created by shards of glass when the bullet that hit his throat passed through the windshield. I appreciate your posts on this thread.

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..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

Edited January 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

Jack,

Same old... same old. This is a tune you and Fetzer have been playing for a long, long time. Anyone who doubts your extravagant claims doubts them for reasons of narrow self interest. They are defending positions and reputations they've held for a long time. While you and Fetzer... who have hung your very identities on the claim of Zapruder film alteration... you are just discovering "evidence" and passing on "information."

The problem is that your "evidence" turns out to be speculation and your "information" crashes and burns when it is subjected to criticism. Only when you cannot defend your views rationally, do you play the oldest card in the deck.... attack the motives of the person who disagrees with you!

It's all quite transparent.

Josiah Thompson

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

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Needlessly complicated.

Invoke the law of parsimony and avoid needless arguments.

Properly prepared autopsy material trumps improperly prepared autopsy

material.

That's it.

The historical record clearly shows that JFK's brain was not properly handled,

and thus all evidence concerning the head wounds is debased.

Once one dismisses the head wound evidence and any other improperly

prepared material (the final autopsy report, the autopsy photos) the

back wound/throat wound evidence is clear and abundantly redundant:

JFK was shot in the back at the level of his third thoracic vertebra, the wound

was shallow, no bullet was recovered.

JFK was shot in the throat between the 3rd and 4th trach rings, the projectile

did not exit and left an air pocket.

The latter information was gleaned from the neck x-ray.

The autopsists arrived at a preliminary conclusion that JFK was struck with a

blood soluble round, utterly consistent with the neck x-ray.

Anyone who claims that the medical evidence in this case is "conflicting"

or "tangled" is spending too much time studying the head wounds.

[Cliff Varnell]

David Mantik's take on Tom Robinson's summary of the wounds to the body--which includes two small wounds to the face--is that they were created by shards of glass when the bullet that hit his throat passed through the windshield.

There is compelling evidence that the throat shot came from Black Dog Man, in which

case the projectile did not penetrate the windshield.

Rosemary Willis described BDM as "conspicuous" and who "disappeared the

next instant."

The HSCA photographic panel studied the two photos in which BDM appeared

and detected a "distinct straight-line feature" in the region of BDM's hands.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

Edited January 4, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Josiah Thompson]

Professor,

Same old... same old. There's nothing here to reply to. You offer speculations and smears as questions and expect me to reply to them. No, I don't think so. I think just about everyone reading this thread will be happy that I haven't bothered to bore them any longer by continuing to deal with you. Then, too, I've got other things to do.

Josiah Thompson

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 Officer Hargis was hit by debris 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), (ii) you do not provide sketches of the crucial frames (314, 315, and 315), and (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 have adopted. No matter how strong the proof, no matter how many experts on film conclude not 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

Professor Fetzer,

Since Pat Speer has handled your latest, somewhat hysterical outbursts, I’ve kept silent.... figuring that the more you rant the more you expose who you are.

Your latest attempt at character assassination seems to be based on the claim that forty years ago I didn’t write the book that you would expect me to write now. After all these years, isn’t that a rather unrealistic expectation?

To advance your smear, you point to various arguments I didn’t make and various sketches I didn’t include. You claim that this is all part of some dark conspiracy on the part of me and unnamed others to keep the truth from the American people. Given that you charge me with a dark conspiracy, it seems only right for me to point out that you have ended up over time misleading that small group of people who read your books by publishing photos that really show the opposite of what you say they show. Make no mistake. I am not charging that this feature of your work is part of a dark conspiracy. I am sure it is not. It is most likely only the result of slovenly editing.

Unlike your dark conspiracy that I defy anyone to figure out, it is simplicity itself to show how you have misled your readers.

(1) Take the photo that started the recent debate... the red pickup truck in Dealey Plaza taken from one of Rollie Zavada’s studies. In TGZFH, you published it in a blurry, black and white copy and then claimed it failed to show “left full frame image penetration.” As we’ve seen however, it is precisely “left full frame image penetration” that this photo demonstrates.

(2) In your latest foray, The 9/11 Conspiracy, you are trying to show that fires in WTC 7 were not very extensive or ferocious. As someone hired to investigate this building’s collapse on 9/11, I can tell you they were both. No matter. To prove the point you are trying to make, you publish a photo of the building showing it standing serene and untouched with a flash of orange near its base. The caption describes this photo as follows: “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” Well, the building should “appear undamaged” since the photo was taken in 1997. And the “modest fire at street level”? Well, that is a bright orange, Calder statue to be found on the mezzanine level.

(3) Years ago in MIDP, you published a photo purporting to show a particular sight-line in the Moorman photo (the line-up of the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the right bottom corner of a pergola window behind it). The only problem was that you covered up the relevant intersection point with an orange cross. The effect was that the reader had to believe your caption about what was shown. Whoops! When the orange cross was removed, it became clear to the naked eye that the two points did not line up and, therefore, the whole argument was bogus.

(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.

I point these facts out since it is very easy do so and requires not much description. I know you will say that the mistakes are not yours but those of your contributors. And, to some degree, you are correct in saying that. But I raise these mistakes also for another reason. Don’t you become so hysterical about me... wigged out enough to produce a completely silly theory of conspiracy to charge me with... because a few days ago I pointed out these mistakes? Aren’t you really so angry simply because I won’t go away and keep pointing out your errors? Isn’t that the real reason behind your recent tirade?

Josiah Thompson

[Josiah Thompson]

Pamela,

You write: "You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield."

Thank you for pointing out that the Altgens photo in a NARA copy made from the negative "shows no defect in the windshield." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Weldon and Fetzer were misled by relying on a newswire copy instead of getting a copy from the original negative. That seems about right to me.

Josiah Thompson

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..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Needlessly complicated.

Invoke the law of parsimony and avoid needless arguments.

Properly prepared autopsy material trumps improperly prepared autopsy

material.

That's it.

The historical record clearly shows that JFK's brain was not properly handled,

and thus all evidence concerning the head wounds is debased.

Once one dismisses the head wound evidence and any other improperly

prepared material (the final autopsy report, the autopsy photos) the

back wound/throat wound evidence is clear and abundantly redundant:

JFK was shot in the back at the level of his third thoracic vertebra, the wound

was shallow, no bullet was recovered.

JFK was shot in the throat between the 3rd and 4th trach rings, the projectile

did not exit and left an air pocket.

The latter information was gleaned from the neck x-ray.

The autopsists arrived at a preliminary conclusion that JFK was struck with a

blood soluble round, utterly consistent with the neck x-ray.

Anyone who claims that the medical evidence in this case is "conflicting"

or "tangled" is spending too much time studying the head wounds.

It's all there in the case file, Clarice. Everything you need to catch them,

these men you seek...

Edited January 4, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Jack White]

I don't know what to say, Pat, because Jack has taken a look and says that the hole you have "discovered" isn't there. This will take some sorting out. I will invite David Mantik, David Lifton, and John Costella to take a look, too. Something is not right.

Ironically, Jim, Jack White told me years ago he agreed with me that the proposed bullet hole in F8 is indeed a bullet hole. Groden and Lifton have also told me they think this is a bullet hole. So the only question is if the hole I see on the BOH photo aligns with the hole visible in F8. I think it does.

From patspeer.com, chapter13:

When one inspects the back of the head photo and matches its neck lines with those apparent on what is presumed to be the neck in the open cranium photos, one finds a convincing alignment. Certainly these are not just random lines on a towel. Since the HSCA Authenticity Report stated “Such lines develop in most individuals by middle age, but their exact arrangement forms a pattern that is virtually unique to the individual” one would like to think they tested the lines to see if they matched, but there is no mention of this in their report. But there are other indications that this photo was taken of President Kennedy from behind. It should be remembered here that on their January 26, 1967 report on the photos, the doctors asserted, when discussing the color photo of the back of the head, that “due to the fractures of the underlying bone and the elevation of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound to be photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site.” This indicates that before they pulled the scalp up, the entrance in the scalp was slightly lower and hidden in a skin fold, which would seem to match the lower position of the wound in the open cranium photograph. Moreover, this indicates that the position of the entrance wound before it was “lifted” approximated the teardrop of spinal fluid readily visible on the photographs with the scalp intact and repeatedly identified by the original autopsists as the entrance location. From this it seems logical that this mysterious fluid is no mystery at all, but is instead some macerated brain matter that leaked from the entrance wound during the long flight from Dallas.

A close inspection of the wounds is especially revealing. While it is usually inferred from the Warren Report’s description of the “slicing” associated with the occipital entrance wound that the wound was vertical, and the Rydberg drawings portray it as such, Dr. Finck, the bullet wounds expert at the autopsy, informed his Army superiors in a report filed in January, 1965, that the wound was “transversal,” heading right to left. (While Humes’ misrepresentation of the wound may have been an honest mistake, it’s intriguing that, within a week of interviewing Humes, Arlen Specter asked Parkland witness Dr. Clark if his observations were consistent with the presence of a “lateral wound measuring 15 by 6 cm. on the posterior scalp.” Did Specter know Humes’ testimony was incorrect? If so, how?) Anyhow, Finck’s description of the wound as transversal makes perfect sense when one remembers Boswell’s inclusion on the autopsy face sheet of an arrow heading both to the left and upwards from the bullet entrance, particularly when one considers that Boswell would have immediately connected in his mind the large exit high on the skull as the logical exit of the bullet making the small entrance below. One can deduce from this that the bullet came from the President’s right, or that it hit the President while his head was turned to its right, just enough so that the bullet grazed along the flesh on the outside of his skull before entering. The so-called military review of January 26, 1967, says as much, stating, when discussing the photo with the President’s scalp still intact “The scalp wound shown in the photographs appears to be a laceration and tunnel, with the actual penetration of the skin (they must have meant “skull”) obscured by the top of the tunnel. From the photographs this is not recognizable as a penetrating wound because of the slanting direction of entry.” Dr. Finck’s description of the wound and assertion of a tunnel is, not coincidentally, completely at odds with the Clark Panel and HSCA purported in-shoot in the cowlick. The skull at the Clark Panel location had been removed before Dr. Finck had even arrived at the autopsy.

Should one accept that the entrance described at the autopsy could be the transversal entrance proposed in the images above, but have a problem believing that this bullet entrance could 1) have gone unnoticed by the Parkland doctors, and 2) be so hard to spot in the scalp on the back of the head photos, one should read more wound ballistics literature, as it is filled with stories where the entrance wound proved equally elusive. In Crime Lab: Science Turns Detective, for example, a story first told by Dr. Le Moyne Snyder is re-told by author David Loth. Loth tells of a young man who'd been treated for a .22 caliber rifle wound in the shoulder but whose condition continued to worsen. Finally, the doctor decides to inspect the rest of the man's body. The story concludes: "Behind the right ear, hidden by hair, was a tiny round hole, with the faintest trace of blood. The damage of the second bullet had been internal, and extensive. The victim died a few minutes after this wound was located" (That a wound caused by a .22 rifle would be less severe than a wound caused by Oswald's rifle has not been overlooked, and should make one wonder if maybe, just maybe, the small initially-overlooked entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head was caused by a rifle other than Oswald's. Much, much, more on this to come.)

While one might also wonder why there’s so little hair visible near the hairline in the open cranium photo, this, too, has an explanation. Dr. Finck told the HSCA: “I don’t remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside…the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.” Finck, by the way, never budged from his contention that this entry was on the occipital bone of the skull, inches away from the HSCA’s entry in the cowlick. Not surprisingly, Finck’s interview with the HSCA was kept secret until the ARRB forced its release.

I do not recall EVER "AGREEING WITH PAT" concerning his interpretation of the "gaping hole" photo.

I may have posted MY interpretation of the photo years ago. I have searched my computer files

for it but cannot locate it. So right now I am rescanning the photo, which I believe is the correct

interpretation. It will take about an hour to do, and I will post it.

Jack