JFK Special: Oswald was the man in the Doorway, after all!

[Craig Lamson]

The Altgens we have used was scanned from LIFE, which I thought was an appropriate choice. I will

certainly take a look at what Robin Unger has archived. But I would observe that the arguments based

on comparisons of the shirts have not been addressed, much less defeated. I stand by our research.

The FETZERING continues.

Your ENTIRE argument is based on your so called abilities at photographic analysis and yet you can't even BEGIN to answer this simple question...

So tell us Jim, how have you proven the tee shirt on doorway man was NOT a round collar shirt?

If you can't aptly describe the process of making this claim and proving it to be true, your argument, BASED ON YOUR SO CALLED ABILITY TO ANALYZE THE CONTENTS OF A PHOTO, fails.

Ignorant hand waving is not proof, and that's all you have presented. FETZERING at it finest....

[Glenn Viklund]

The Altgens we have used was scanned from LIFE, which I thought was an appropriate choice. I will

certainly take a look at what Robin Unger has archived. But I would observe that the arguments based

on comparisons of the shirts have not been addressed, much less defeated. I stand by our research.

The FETZERING continues.

Your ENTIRE argument is based on your so called abilities at photographic analysis and yet you can't even BEGIN to answer this simple question...

So tell us Jim, how have you proven the tee shirt on doorway man was NOT a round collar shirt?

If you can't aptly describe the process of making this claim and proving it to be true, your argument, BASED ON YOUR SO CALLED ABILITY TO ANALYZE THE CONTENTS OF A PHOTO, fails.

Ignorant hand waving is not proof, and that's all you have presented. FETZERING at it finest....

I agree, Craig.

Though I would not use your antics, of course you are right about this. JT phrased it very well in this thread.

[Josiah Thompson]

You must be kidding! You say in Post #54: The Altgens we have used was scanned from LIFE, which I thought was an appropriate choice. In a discussion as to whether a particular person in the Altgens photo is Lee Oswald or Billy Lovelady, why on earth would you start your researches with a microdotted, printed photo? Why would you consider this "an appropriate choice"? Your argument collapses once anyone looks at Robin's post #60 of "Groden Scan Large."

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., claims the "spriral nebula" hides John Kennedy's ear and hence must be a windshield feature. Hogwash? Take a close look at the photos offered together by Robin Ungar. You see the woman marked #8 in the Croft photo? Now focus in on what looks like a square, tan purse in front of her. Remember its shape. Now look at the Altgens photo also shown below. Note that her location in Altgens has been marked. Notice that the square, tan purse has become Fetzer's "spiral nebula." For an even better view of the purse that Fetzer calls a "nebula" go to Robin's site and click on "CorbisAltgens6_Large1.jpg, 281 views."

It's a usual feature of discussion between intelligent people that, once a view has been shown to be wrong, the proponent of that view admits the error so that discussion can move to more fruitful areas. Both of these socalled "problems" were debunked forty years ago in the 1960s. What's the purpose in trying to coax a dead horse to its knees?

JT

Yes, we are all in your debt, Robin, but not for the reasons Josiah suggests. When you expand this image, you can see the faint but dark hole at the center of the white spiral nebula on the windshield right where JFK's left ear would be if it were visible. This image confirms the bullet hole; it does not refute it. Could you post a close up of the area between DM and John Ready? That might prove to be another useful resource.

Once again we have reason to thank Robin Ungar for his extraodinary record in making available the photo record of the shooting. And Pat, thanks for directing me to Ungar's site for Altgens 6. I thought I had the clearest copy of this photo but Ungar's is really quite extraordinarily clear. Click on "CorbisAltgens6_Large1.jpg, 281 views. Among other things this very clear enlargement makes it simple to see that what some have claimed is a bullet hole in the windshield (the whole "spiral nebula" nonsense) is really just the tan side of a purse held by a spectator. Was it the Couch photo in color that showed the woman with the tan-sided purse?

We are all in your debt, Robin.

JT

A few observations:

1) the [Altgens'] photo being studied is hardly an optimal source due to its being a copy of a copy of a copy...

2) clearly discerning what is shown at the doorway is sketchy due to the size of the image being studied even if it came from a high resolution source (but, at least then there would be a chance at clarity)

3) limitations (72k) inherent to a web browser's ability to display images further dampens the force of arguments based upon images that require SHARP resolution in order to reach a conclusion

4) if anyone has an extremely high resolution copy of Altgens 6 and would be willing to upload it to a server, such as, photo bucket for instance, others could down load it and study it without the limitations imposed by web browsers

Jim, have you studied these images after having first used a high resolution copy and without it being displayed by a web browser? If so, can you send me (us) the link to that super high resolution copy that may be downloaded?

Thanks in advance--

Robin Unger has an Altgens 6 from Corbis, and has posted it both here and on his site.

Unger's Altgens Files

Josiah / Calli

Thanks for the generous comments.

.

Credit: Martin Hinricks

Altgens / Croft ( Lady 8 )

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I always love it when the troops show up in force. It didn't matter which scan of the Altgens

we began with, since Robin has provided even better, which reinforce the point. Thompson

even congratulated him for posting these superior photographs. But look at what they show!

Tink doesn't like our starting point. So what? Who cares? I knew this would be examined in

detail. And, as in the case of the bullet hole in the windshield, what Robin has been posting

affords a closer look at the images, WHICH CONFIRM THE HOLE AND THE ALTERATIONS.

I love these arguments about how something could not have happened WHEN IT OBVIOUSLY

DID HAPPEN. Does anyone looking at this scan have any doubt that one or even more of

the figures who were to DM's left/front (our right/front) have had their images obfuscated?

The ops were tracking Lee and knew where he was every moment of them. How could they

do otherwise? So when they saw the Altgens, THEY KNEW THEY HAD A PROBLEM, which

they accommodated by altering the images. That they could do it follows from THEY DID!

Robin has made a number of highly useful contributions here, including his observation,

in response to Gary Mack--they REALLY ARE pulling out all the stops on this one!--that

an expensive image he had obtained WAS NOT WELL-DEFINED IN THE DOORWAY AREA.

How much proof do we need that the Altgens has been altered? And what other reason

could they have had for doing this than that someone was in the photograph who wasn't

supposed to be there? I know we aren't all rocket scientists, but this situation is obvious.

And having a lot of unworthy sources support a bad argument does not turn it into a good

one. That Tink, Glenn Vilkund, Craig Lamson, and Steve Duffy are here singing from the

same song book does not inspire my confidence in their dedication to the search for truth.

Edited January 28, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

And what of the arguments presented? What about Lady #8 and the perfect alignment of her tan purse with what you have been calling the "nebula?" What about the photo posted that showed Billy Lovelady wearing a shirt on the afternoon of November 22nd that matched the shirt shown in the Altgens photo? What of your inability to answer Craig's question about Lovelady's purported v-neck T-shirt? What about Pat Speer's point that you mistook a shadow on Lovelady for a v-neck T-shirt? What of the point that Oswald's supposed v-neck T-shirt is just an ordinary T-shirt that had been grabbed by the cops? You claim incorrectly that the "nebula" blocks Kennedy's left ear from sight. Nonsense. When you're called on it, you can't defend it. So what do you do? You retreat to la-la land? The people who point out your errors are part of some grand conspiracy. And the photos... the photos that show clearly you're wrong... they've been messed with. You keep using the same escape hatch. They're conspiring against me, Mommy, and the photographs have been faked up!!

JT

I always love it when the troops show up in force. It didn't matter which scan of the Altgens

we began with, since Robin has provided even better, which reinforce the point. Thompson

even congratulated him for posting these superior photographs. But look at what they show!

Tink doesn't like our starting point. So what? Who cares? I knew this would be examined in

detail. And, as in the case of the bullet hole in the windshield, what Robin has been posting

affords a closer look at the images, WHICH CONFIRM THE HOLE AND THE ALTERATIONS.

I love these arguments about how something could not have happened WHEN IT OBVIOUSLY

DID HAPPEN. Does anyone looking at this scan have any doubt that one or even more of

the figures who were to DM's left/front (our right/front) have had their images obfuscated?

The ops were tracking Lee and knew where he was every moment of them. How could they

do otherwise? So when they saw the Altgens, THEY KNEW THEY HAD A PROBLEM, which

the accommodated by altering the images. That they could do it follows from THEY DID!

Robin has made a number of highly useful contributions here, including his observation,

in response to Gary Mack--they REALLY ARE pulling out all the stops on this one!--that

an expensive image he had obtained WAS NOT WELL-DEFINED IN THE DOORWAY AREA.

How much proof do we need that the Altgens has been altered? And what other reason

could they have had for doing that than that someone was in the photograph who wasn't

supposed to be there? I know we aren't all rocket scientists, but this situation is obvious.

And having a lot of unworthy sources support a bad argument does not turn it into a good

one. That Tink, Glenn Vilkund, Craig Lamson, and Steve Duffy are here singing from the

same song book does not inspire my confidence in their dedication to the search for truth.

[Craig Lamson]

How much proof do we need that the Altgens has been altered? And what other reason

could they have had for doing that than that someone was in the photograph who wasn't

supposed to be there? I know we aren't all rocket scientists, but this situation is obvious.

The FETZERING continues.

Your ENTIRE argument is based on your so called abilities at photographic analysis and yet you can't even BEGIN to answer this simple question...

So tell us Jim, how have you proven the tee shirt on doorway man was NOT a round collar shirt?

If you can't aptly describe the process of making this claim and proving it to be true, your argument, BASED ON YOUR SO CALLED ABILITY TO ANALYZE THE CONTENTS OF A PHOTO, fails.

Ignorant hand waving is not proof, and that's all you have presented. FETZERING at it finest....

[David G. Healy]

...

If you can't aptly describe the process of making this claim and proving it to be true, your argument, BASED ON YOUR SO CALLED ABILITY TO ANALYZE THE CONTENTS OF A PHOTO, fails.

...

careful... those words might bite you in the rump... think Zapruder film (hate to bring up a sore subject)

[Robin Unger]

This is another reason why i was not completely happy with the the Corbis copy.

It shows an "artifact" just above the licence plate that other copies don't show.

had it been a few inches higher and appeared on the windscreen, we may have been looking at two "star nebular shapes" instead of one.

Colorization Credit: Martin Hinrichs

Edited January 28, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

First I defeated him over Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, which he endorsed even while he was

trashing the book, by pointing out that, if Aguilar was right, then the Zapruder film was FAKED.

Then I defeated him over the Umbrella Man, where, after he had gone out of his way to endorse

Louis Witt as the Umbrella Man, I pointed out that Louis Witt was also a LIMO STOP witness.

And I defeated him over his abandonment of the "double-hit" account in SIX SECONDS (1967),

by noting that Richard Feynman, Nobel-Prize winning physicist, had independently confirmed it.

And I defeated him again over Clint Hill's testimony of nearly 50 years, of pushing Jackie down,

lying across their bodies, peering into the fist-sized wound, and "tumbs down" before the TUP.

And I defeated him again about Chaney's motoring forward, which was confirmed by Chief Curry,

Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, Clint Hill, and even Roy Kellerman. Unbelievable!

And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies

of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too.

And now he comes here again to insist that the small, white spiral nebula is NOT THERE when it

OBVIOUSLY is there, right where JFK's left ear would be if his left ear were visible. (See below.)

Where Doug Weldon, in his brilliant chapter on the Lincoln limousine, explained how perfectly

the hole aligns with a trajectory from the above-ground sewer opening and the throat wound.

Where Jim Lewis has fired high-velocity rounds through junked cars and found that they not only

make a spiral nebula of the kind in the Altgens but the sound of a firecracker as they pass through.

But Tink will admit NONE OF THIS. He seems to believe his silver-tongue is sufficient to undo any

quantity of evidence. Whom should we believe: Tink or our lying eyes? That's his on-going refrain.

And what of the arguments presented? What about Lady #8 and the perfect alignment of her tan purse with what you have been calling the "nebula?" What about the photo posted that showed Billy Lovelady wearing a shirt on the afternoon of November 22nd that matched the shirt shown in the Altgens photo? What of your inability to answer Craig's question about Lovelady's purported v-neck T-shirt? What about Pat Speer's point that you mistook a shadow on Lovelady for a v-neck T-shirt? What of the point that Oswald's supposed v-neck T-shirt is just an ordinary T-shirt that had been grabbed by the cops? You claim incorrectly that the "nebula" blocks Kennedy's left ear from sight. Nonsense. When you're called on it, you can't defend it. So what do you do? You retreat to la-la land? The people who point out your errors are part of some grand conspiracy. And the photos... the photos that show clearly you're wrong... they've been messed with. You keep using the same escape hatch. They're conspiring against me, Mommy, and the photographs have been faked up!!

JT

I always love it when the troops show up in force. It didn't matter which scan of the Altgens

we began with, since Robin has provided even better, which reinforce the point. Thompson

even congratulated him for posting these superior photographs. But look at what they show!

Tink doesn't like our starting point. So what? Who cares? I knew this would be examined in

detail. And, as in the case of the bullet hole in the windshield, what Robin has been posting

affords a closer look at the images, WHICH CONFIRM THE HOLE AND THE ALTERATIONS.

I love these arguments about how something could not have happened WHEN IT OBVIOUSLY

DID HAPPEN. Does anyone looking at this scan have any doubt that one or even more of

the figures who were to DM's left/front (our right/front) have had their images obfuscated?

The ops were tracking Lee and knew where he was every moment of them. How could they

do otherwise? So when they saw the Altgens, THEY KNEW THEY HAD A PROBLEM, which

the accommodated by altering the images. That they could do it follows from THEY DID!

Robin has made a number of highly useful contributions here, including his observation,

in response to Gary Mack--they REALLY ARE pulling out all the stops on this one!--that

an expensive image he had obtained WAS NOT WELL-DEFINED IN THE DOORWAY AREA.

How much proof do we need that the Altgens has been altered? And what other reason

could they have had for doing that than that someone was in the photograph who wasn't

supposed to be there? I know we aren't all rocket scientists, but this situation is obvious.

And having a lot of unworthy sources support a bad argument does not turn it into a good

one. That Tink, Glenn Vilkund, Craig Lamson, and Steve Duffy are here singing from the

same song book does not inspire my confidence in their dedication to the search for truth.

Edited January 28, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

A superb example of what has been called "Fetzering." He huffs and he puffs but ask for evidence and only now and then does he produce it. Like here in the colorized print of the Altgens photo that Fetzer just posted. Remember his claim about where the socalled "nebula" was placed? He said it obscured John Kennedy's left ear. His point was that if it obscured Kennedy's left ear it had to be a feature of the windshield and not a spectator's purse visible through the windshield. Take a gander at the colorized Altgens close-up Fetzer posted. See where his socalled "nebula" is? In the frame of the Altgens photo, it's off to the right of Kennedy's head and ear by several inches. And Kennedy's left ear? It's hidden behind the rear-view mirror. Thank you, Professor, for this completely unwitting proof that you were,once again, just plain wrong.

JT

First I defeated him over Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, which he endorsed even while he was

trashing the book, by pointing out that, if Aguilar was right, then the Zapruder film was FAKED.

Then I defeated him over the Umbrella Man, where, after he had gone out of his way to endorse

Louis Witt as the Umbrealla Man, it pointed out that Louis Witt was also a LIMO STOP witness.

And I defeated him over his abandonment of the "double-hit" account in SIX SECONDS (1967),

by noting that Richard Feynman, Nobel-Prize winning physicist, had independently confirmed it.

And I defeated him again over Clint Hill's testimony of nearly 50 years, of pushing Jackie down,

lying across their bodies, peering into the fist-sized wound, and "tumbs down" before the TUP.

And I defeated him again about Chaney's motoring forward, which was confirmed by Chief Curry,

Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, Clint Hill, and even Roy Kellerman. Unbelievable!

And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies

of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too.

And now he comes here again to insist that the small, white spiral nebula is NOT THERE when it

OBVIOUSLY is there, right where JFK's left ear would be if his left ear were visible. (See below.)

Where Doug Weldon, in his brilliant chapter on the Lincoln limousine, explained how perfectly

the hole aligns with a trajectory from the above-ground sewer opening and the throat wound.

Where Jim Lewis has fired high-velocity rounds through junked cars and found that they not only

make a spiral nebula of the kind in the Altgens but the sound of a firecracker as they pass through.

But Tink will admit NONE OF THIS. He seems to believe his silver-tongue is sufficient to undo any

quantity of evidence. Whom should we believe: Tink or our lying eyes? That's his on-going refrain.

And what of the arguments presented? What about Lady #8 and the perfect alignment of her tan purse with what you have been calling the "nebula?" What about the photo posted that showed Billy Lovelady wearing a shirt on the afternoon of November 22nd that matched the shirt shown in the Altgens photo? What of your inability to answer Craig's question about Lovelady's purported v-neck T-shirt? What about Pat Speer's point that you mistook a shadow on Lovelady for a v-neck T-shirt? What of the point that Oswald's supposed v-neck T-shirt is just an ordinary T-shirt that had been grabbed by the cops? You claim incorrectly that the "nebula" blocks Kennedy's left ear from sight. Nonsense. When you're called on it, you can't defend it. So what do you do? You retreat to la-la land? The people who point out your errors are part of some grand conspiracy. And the photos... the photos that show clearly you're wrong... they've been messed with. You keep using the same escape hatch. They're conspiring against me, Mommy, and the photographs have been faked up!!

JT

I always love it when the troops show up in force. It didn't matter which scan of the Altgens

we began with, since Robin has provided even better, which reinforce the point. Thompson

even congratulated him for posting these superior photographs. But look at what they show!

Tink doesn't like our starting point. So what? Who cares? I knew this would be examined in

detail. And, as in the case of the bullet hole in the windshield, what Robin has been posting

affords a closer look at the images, WHICH CONFIRM THE HOLE AND THE ALTERATIONS.

I love these arguments about how something could not have happened WHEN IT OBVIOUSLY

DID HAPPEN. Does anyone looking at this scan have any doubt that one or even more of

the figures who were to DM's left/front (our right/front) have had their images obfuscated?

The ops were tracking Lee and knew where he was every moment of them. How could they

do otherwise? So when they saw the Altgens, THEY KNEW THEY HAD A PROBLEM, which

the accommodated by altering the images. That they could do it follows from THEY DID!

Robin has made a number of highly useful contributions here, including his observation,

in response to Gary Mack--they REALLY ARE pulling out all the stops on this one!--that

an expensive image he had obtained WAS NOT WELL-DEFINED IN THE DOORWAY AREA.

How much proof do we need that the Altgens has been altered? And what other reason

could they have had for doing that than that someone was in the photograph who wasn't

supposed to be there? I know we aren't all rocket scientists, but this situation is obvious.

And having a lot of unworthy sources support a bad argument does not turn it into a good

one. That Tink, Glenn Vilkund, Craig Lamson, and Steve Duffy are here singing from the

same song book does not inspire my confidence in their dedication to the search for truth.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

When looking at more conventional scans, it is precisely where I describe. When we look at these

blow ups, it is only APPROXIMATELY at the location of his left ear. So what? Notice how he does

not address the points I have made about Doug Weldon's brilliant study, which anyone can find

in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pages 129-173; and Jim Lewis's research on junked cars,

which I discuss especially on page 436 of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Notice he

again cites only the evidence that favors his position: a minor misdescription by me! How many

times do I have to demonstrate that he commits blunder after blunder, fallacy after fallacy? He

is a Yale Ph.D., for crying out loud. He has to know better. He has to be doing this on purpose.

Otherwise, he has to be one of the sloppiest and most irresponsible students in the history of JFK.

A superb example of what has been called "Fetzering." He huffs and he puffs but ask for evidence and only now and then does he produce it. Like here in the colorized print of the Altgens photo that Fetzer just posted. Remember his claim about where the socalled "nebula" was placed? He said it obscured John Kennedy's left ear. His point was that if it obscured Kennedy's left ear it had to be a feature of the windshield and not a spectator's purse visible through the windshield. Take a gander at the colorized Altgens close-up Fetzer posted. See where his socalled "nebula" is? In the frame of the Altgens photo, it's off to the right of Kennedy's head and ear by several inches. And Kennedy's left ear? It's hidden behind the rear-view mirror. Thank you, Professor, for this completely unwitting proof that you were,once again, just plain wrong.

JT

First I defeated him over Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, which he endorsed even while he was

trashing the book, by pointing out that, if Aguilar was right, then the Zapruder film was FAKED.

Then I defeated him over the Umbrella Man, where, after he had gone out of his way to endorse

Louis Witt as the Umbrealla Man, it pointed out that Louis Witt was also a LIMO STOP witness.

And I defeated him over his abandonment of the "double-hit" account in SIX SECONDS (1967),

by noting that Richard Feynman, Nobel-Prize winning physicist, had independently confirmed it.

And I defeated him again over Clint Hill's testimony of nearly 50 years, of pushing Jackie down,

lying across their bodies, peering into the fist-sized wound, and "tumbs down" before the TUP.

And I defeated him again about Chaney's motoring forward, which was confirmed by Chief Curry,

Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, Clint Hill, and even Roy Kellerman. Unbelievable!

And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies

of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too.

And now he comes here again to insist that the small, white spiral nebula is NOT THERE when it

OBVIOUSLY is there, right where JFK's left ear would be if his left ear were visible. (See below.)

Where Doug Weldon, in his brilliant chapter on the Lincoln limousine, explained how perfectly

the hole aligns with a trajectory from the above-ground sewer opening and the throat wound.

Where Jim Lewis has fired high-velocity rounds through junked cars and found that they not only

make a spiral nebula of the kind in the Altgens but the sound of a firecracker as they pass through.

But Tink will admit NONE OF THIS. He seems to believe his silver-tongue is sufficient to undo any

quantity of evidence. Whom should we believe: Tink or our lying eyes? That's his on-going refrain.

And what of the arguments presented? What about Lady #8 and the perfect alignment of her tan purse with what you have been calling the "nebula?" What about the photo posted that showed Billy Lovelady wearing a shirt on the afternoon of November 22nd that matched the shirt shown in the Altgens photo? What of your inability to answer Craig's question about Lovelady's purported v-neck T-shirt? What about Pat Speer's point that you mistook a shadow on Lovelady for a v-neck T-shirt? What of the point that Oswald's supposed v-neck T-shirt is just an ordinary T-shirt that had been grabbed by the cops? You claim incorrectly that the "nebula" blocks Kennedy's left ear from sight. Nonsense. When you're called on it, you can't defend it. So what do you do? You retreat to la-la land? The people who point out your errors are part of some grand conspiracy. And the photos... the photos that show clearly you're wrong... they've been messed with. You keep using the same escape hatch. They're conspiring against me, Mommy, and the photographs have been faked up!!

JT

I always love it when the troops show up in force. It didn't matter which scan of the Altgens

we began with, since Robin has provided even better, which reinforce the point. Thompson

even congratulated him for posting these superior photographs. But look at what they show!

Tink doesn't like our starting point. So what? Who cares? I knew this would be examined in

detail. And, as in the case of the bullet hole in the windshield, what Robin has been posting

affords a closer look at the images, WHICH CONFIRM THE HOLE AND THE ALTERATIONS.

I love these arguments about how something could not have happened WHEN IT OBVIOUSLY

DID HAPPEN. Does anyone looking at this scan have any doubt that one or even more of

the figures who were to DM's left/front (our right/front) have had their images obfuscated?

The ops were tracking Lee and knew where he was every moment of them. How could they

do otherwise? So when they saw the Altgens, THEY KNEW THEY HAD A PROBLEM, which

the accommodated by altering the images. That they could do it follows from THEY DID!

Robin has made a number of highly useful contributions here, including his observation,

in response to Gary Mack--they REALLY ARE pulling out all the stops on this one!--that

an expensive image he had obtained WAS NOT WELL-DEFINED IN THE DOORWAY AREA.

How much proof do we need that the Altgens has been altered? And what other reason

could they have had for doing that than that someone was in the photograph who wasn't

supposed to be there? I know we aren't all rocket scientists, but this situation is obvious.

And having a lot of unworthy sources support a bad argument does not turn it into a good

one. That Tink, Glenn Vilkund, Craig Lamson, and Steve Duffy are here singing from the

same song book does not inspire my confidence in their dedication to the search for truth.

Edited January 29, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

So let's see if I got this right. You write:"When looking at more conventional scans, it is precisely where I describe. When we look at these blow ups, it is only APPROXIMATELY at the location of his left ear. So what?... a minor misdescription by me!" I guess this is as close to ever admitting you are wrong that you ever get. When looking at "conventional scans" (whatever they are), you are right. Otherwise, your are only "approximately right" and "approximately wrong." If we don't understand what that means, we are all cretins and should take your course in critical thinking where all of this is made clear.

You wrote: "Notice how he does not address the points I have made about Doug Weldon's brilliant study, which anyone can find in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pages 129-173;"

Translation: If you want to know more about my brilliance, please see my CV. If you want to know anything else, see my books that contain brilliant studies of just about everything.

You wrote: "and Jim Lewis's research on junked cars, which I discuss especially on page 436 of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)." I'm going to try to attach a photo of page 436 because it's hilarious. There is a muddy photo of a junked station wagon with a caption saying that someone fired a rifle bullet through it's windshield. No discussion. No suggestion as to what this has to do with anything. Just an old car that someone shot up.

Your wrote: "Notice he again cites only the evidence that favors his position: a minor misdescription by me! How many times do I have to demonstrate that he commits blunder after blunder, fallacy after fallacy? He is a Yale Ph.D., for crying out loud. He has to know better. He has to be doing this on purpose. Otherwise, he has to be one of the sloppiest and most rresponsible students in the history of JFK."

Cool. Lacking anything intelligent to say about what we've been discussing, you spray insults in your leaving... skunklike! Really great, really revealing.

JT

P.S. Couldn't figure out how to attach page 436. Too bad. It's hilarious!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So let's see if I got this right. You write:"When looking at more conventional scans, it is precisely where I describe. When we look at these blow ups, it is only APPROXIMATELY at the location of his left ear. So what?... a minor misdescription by me!" I guess this is as close to ever admitting you are wrong that you ever get. When looking at "conventional scans" (whatever they are), you are right. Otherwise, your are only "approximately right" and "approximately wrong." If we don't understand what that means, we are all cretins and should take your course in critical thinking where all of this is made clear.

Just to demonstrate how sloppy and irresponsible he is--even in responding to my post about just that--

here is a conventional scam. What is an easier way to locate the spiral nebula than to say, "It's where his

left ear would be if it were visible"? If you follow those directions, you can locate it relatively effortlessly.

Moreover, I think that Robin "caught them in the act" with this image, which has a SECOND spiral nebua

on the bumper of the limousine, which can only mean they were concerned about it and were contemplating

either moving or removing it. What else could this signify? Whatever the source, they wanted to deal with it.

When I am citing Doug Weldon's brilliant work, I am not inflating my own CV. Jim Lewis' research could be

replicated and I have scanned the page, but Tink is trying to distract us. He is using it as a classic red herring,

so I will post it on another occasion. This post itself demonstrates that he is being both sloppy and misleading.

You wrote: "Notice how he does not address the points I have made about Doug Weldon's brilliant study, which anyone can find in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pages 129-173;"

Translation: If you want to know more about my brilliance, please see my CV. If you want to know anything else, see my books that contain brilliant studies of just about everything.

You wrote: "and Jim Lewis's research on junked cars, which I discuss especially on page 436 of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)." I'm going to try to attach a photo of page 436 because it's hilarious. There is a muddy photo of a junked station wagon with a caption saying that someone fired a rifle bullet through it's windshield. No discussion. No suggestion as to what this has to do with anything. Just an old car that someone shot up.

Your wrote: "Notice he again cites only the evidence that favors his position: a minor misdescription by me! How many times do I have to demonstrate that he commits blunder after blunder, fallacy after fallacy? He is a Yale Ph.D., for crying out loud. He has to know better. He has to be doing this on purpose. Otherwise, he has to be one of the sloppiest and most irresponsible students in the history of JFK."

Cool. Lacking anything intelligent to say about what we've been discussing, you spray insults in your leaving... skunklike! Really great, really revealing.

JT

P.S. Couldn't figure out how to attach page 436. Too bad. It's hilarious!

Edited January 29, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

...here is a conventional scam.

That pretty much sums up this stuff by Fetzer nicely...

[Josiah Thompson]

No Professor, I don't think so. Yesterday on this thread in post #55 you said: "When you expand this image, you can see the faint but dark hole at the center of the white spiral nebula on the windshield right where JFK's left ear would be if it were visible. This image confirms the bullet hole; it does not refute it." Now you're saying that claiming the nebula was on the windshield and blocking JFK's left ear,was just a statement vaguely locating the nebula. Sure thing, now that you have to admit that it doesn't block JFK's left ear, you come up with this as a lame excuse. Cool. Whatever floats your boat.

Next you claim that "Robin caught them in the act with this image, which has a SECOND spiral nebula on the bumper of the limousine." Wow! First, who are the "they." Second, what are you claiming? Robin buys a photo from Corbus and it has some sort of artifact on its bumper. Are you claiming that someone at Corbus... or from a shadowy intelligence agency... planted a nebula shaped form on the bumper by mistake. Huh? I can tell you the prints I got in 1966 from AP and UPI don't have any artifacts? What's the point? Have you crossed over to some twilight zone where absolutely everything is sinister?

Finally, why not put up page 436. It's hilarious. What are you waiting for?

JT

So let's see if I got this right. You write:"When looking at more conventional scans, it is precisely where I describe. When we look at these blow ups, it is only APPROXIMATELY at the location of his left ear. So what?... a minor misdescription by me!" I guess this is as close to ever admitting you are wrong that you ever get. When looking at "conventional scans" (whatever they are), you are right. Otherwise, your are only "approximately right" and "approximately wrong." If we don't understand what that means, we are all cretins and should take your course in critical thinking where all of this is made clear.

Just to demonstrate how sloppy and irresponsible he is--even in responding to my post about just that--

here is a conventional scam. What is an easier way to locate the spiral nebula than to say, "It's where his

left ear would be if it were visible"? If you follow those directions, you can locate it relatively effortlessly.

Moreover, I think that Robin "caught them in the act" with this image, which has a SECOND spiral nebua

on the bumper of the limousine, which can only mean they were concerned about it and were contemplating

either moving or removing it. What else could this signify? Whatever the source, they wanted to deal with it.

When I am citing Doug Weldon's brilliant work, I am not inflating my own CV. Jim Lewis' research could be

replicated and I have scanned the page, but Tink is trying to distract us. He is using it as a classic red herring,

so I will post it on another occasion. This post itself demonstrates that he is being both sloppy and misleading.

You wrote: "Notice how he does not address the points I have made about Doug Weldon's brilliant study, which anyone can find in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pages 129-173;"

Translation: If you want to know more about my brilliance, please see my CV. If you want to know anything else, see my books that contain brilliant studies of just about everything.

You wrote: "and Jim Lewis's research on junked cars, which I discuss especially on page 436 of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)." I'm going to try to attach a photo of page 436 because it's hilarious. There is a muddy photo of a junked station wagon with a caption saying that someone fired a rifle bullet through it's windshield. No discussion. No suggestion as to what this has to do with anything. Just an old car that someone shot up.

Your wrote: "Notice he again cites only the evidence that favors his position: a minor misdescription by me! How many times do I have to demonstrate that he commits blunder after blunder, fallacy after fallacy? He is a Yale Ph.D., for crying out loud. He has to know better. He has to be doing this on purpose. Otherwise, he has to be one of the sloppiest and most irresponsible students in the history of JFK."

Cool. Lacking anything intelligent to say about what we've been discussing, you spray insults in your leaving... skunklike! Really great, really revealing.

JT

P.S. Couldn't figure out how to attach page 436. Too bad. It's hilarious!