Josiah Thompson

Luis Alvarez could not find any instance where a startle "smear" occurred in the same frame as the obvious impact of a bullet. This is because Alvarez was convinced that shots came only from the Depository. Hence, there had to be a gap between the shot and Zapruder's reaction. Don Thomas has worked out the math in detail. Because the Z313 shot was fired so close to him, the impact of the bullet upon JFK and Zapruder's startle reaction occur simultaneously. You can find all this explained in various published works by Don Thomas. Obviously, this work is unknown to Professor Fetzer or he wouldn't have gone so far out on a limb only to have it chopped off.

Now you should ask: "Okay, how does Alvarez explain the this simultaneity of impact and startle reaction."

He opines that the shock wave from the bullet moved Zapruder's camera. Why this is silly doesn't even require explanation.

I really admire your loyalty to your tribe. Only if it didn't lead you astray everything would be just peachy keen!

Josiah Thompson

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

Perfect statement Prof Fetzer, you took the words right out of my mouth

Dean

I'm happy to reply. Don Thomas and I are not "friends" but "acquaintances." We've enjoyed conversations over dinner and attended several events together. My opinions on the acoustics evidence are based upon reading Thomas and reading the critiques of the evidence both from the scientific panel and from O'Donnell. My judgment after reading both is that who's right is not even a close call.

Cyril Wecht certainly knows what is plausible in terms of what one would have to know to alter Kennedy's wounds on Friday night and the difference between the appearance of pre-mortem and post-mortem surgery. Yes, Cyril Wecht and I are friends but I don't pass on opinions from friends just because they are friends. I pass them on because the person offering the opinion is in a position to know what he is talking about. Cyril is.

Josiah Thompson

David Lifton is a valid expert on the medical evidence. I am not. I am simply pointing out that the opinions he quotes as mine were drawn from conversations with Cyril Wecht. And Wecht, no one doubts, has opinions that are worth paying attention to.

No doubt Cyril Wecht is a forensic pathologist, a smart man and a great guy, but I have never seen where he offered anything substantial in rebuttal of Lifton's thesis. Dr. Wecht himself never examined the body of JFK and the reason we are all so conscious that the autopsy doctors were unqualified is because Wecht keeps on reminding us, as he did so eloquently just recently.

So even if Dr. Wecht is right that competent pathologists SHOULD have noticed post-mortem wounds, why should we rely on the opinions of autopsy doctors who -- Dr. Wecht keeps on reminding us -- were unqualified.

On the one hand we should rely on the autopsy doctors and reject Lifton's thesis, (because it is too Machievellian for US), but on the other hand KNOW THAT the autopsy doctors were hopelessly under - qualified for the job at hand.

I think Dr. THompson is a man who values friendship, as well he should, but friendship should not dim our objectivity in investigating a homicide. Over on the

thread entitled WHO NEEDS THE ACOUSTICS? I am awaiting Josiah's response to my question whether his personal friendship with Don THomas is coloring his judgment in the matter of the acoustics.

Cool David.

The medical evidence in this case is an unbelievable mess. I don't claim to this day to understand it. I do, however, understand a couple of things. These are things I've learned from Cyril Wecht.

Wecht does not believe David Lifton's "body alteration" view is correct. The points I made in this 1993 radio broadcast were drawn from discussions with Wecht over the years. It is Wecht's view (repeated by me) that not enough was known between the hours of 4:00 PM and 12:00 midnight on November 22nd for medical personnel to set about altering the wounds in JFK. In addition, there is the problem that alteration of wounds post-death is quite different than alteration of wounds pre-death. Things look different depending on when cuts or changes were made.

David Lifton is a valid expert on the medical evidence. I am not. I am simply pointing out that the opinions he quotes as mine were drawn from conversations with Cyril Wecht. And Wecht, no one doubts, has opinions that are worth paying attention to.

Josiah Thompson

There is a more profound difference between Josiah Thompson and myself (and probably many others) who have researched this case. And that is his apparent inability to believe (or unwillingness to believe) that evidence could be planted in advance to promote a completey false story of the assassination. This goes beyond the question of whether a rifle and three shells could be placed in the vicinity of a sniper's nest. This goes to the question of whether it could be planned, in advance, to falsify the autopsy.

This became most apparent to me when I appeared with Thompson (and others) on a Chicago radio station WLUP on April 3, 1993, hosted by one Steve Dahl, in connection with what was called the "Midwest Symposium" on the assassination, organized by one Doug Carlson. Appearing on the program, in addition to Thompson and myself, were Gus Russo and Robert Tannenbaum. About a year ago, I was able to obtain a tape of the show, from JFK researcher Rick Anderson, who happened to have recorded it.

On the show, a tape was played of a conversation Dahl had had with House Speaker Tip O'Neil, and a lively discussion then ensued. After I summarized my thesis--that the wounds had been altered between Dallas and Bethesda--the following dialogue ensued, and Josiah Thompson made the following remarks--remarks which not only illustrate the extent to which he will go to indulge in "innocent explanations" for serious contradictions in the evidence, but also his fundamental inability (or unwillingness) to consider the plausibility of a sophisticated plot which falsified the most critical evidence. I am uploading to this post a pdf of the transcript I personally made of the tape, but here is what is to me the most relevant part:

Dahl Mr. Thompson, you disagree with this (DSL's description of Parkland/Bethesda contradictions)?

Tink Yes. Its clear that there is a discrepancy between the descriptions of the wounds to Kennedy’s head as given in Parkland Hospital, and the description as given in the autopsy later that night. I think a lot of this can be ascribed to confusion; to doctors in Parkland working under great stress, not having either the time, the interest, or the energy to do a full examination of the body.

(Thompson. . continuing. . . ) The real problem with, I think, David’s thesis is that altering evidence is (now speaks very slowly) an enormously dangerous thing to get into. It is especially dangerous to get into before you know (now laughs) exactly what you have to have.

And I think, at this point in time, the point in time we’re talking about are the hours say, between 4 P.M. on that Friday, the 22nd, and midnight of the 22nd. At that time, you simply do not know enough as to what your altered evidence is supposed to show. To go about doing that, with any degree of success or intelligence.

So I think the basic problem with the thesis is the time when its supposed to have (occurred).

* * *

Tink (continuing to address me) Your fallacy is simplicity. You say this is a very simple thing to do. And its simple when you put it in its generality. Its not simple at all when you [have t] decide what particular details to carry out. What particular alterations to make in the head. What particular alterations to make in photographs, etc. etc. Your making the same mistake that (now speaking slowly) many many criminals make when they think that they can alter the evidence and get away with it.

DSL COMMENT: Of course, I thoroughly disagree with all of this--in fact, I find these objections preposterous--but I think this really does focus on why Thompson behaves as he does. For whatever reason, it is beyond Thompson's conception that a sophisticated plot of the kind that I believe took JFK's life could ever have existed, or functioned as I believe it did. I'm not talking here about multiple shooters, or where they were hidden. That's almost irrelevant. I'm talking about a sophisticated scenario in which evidence was falsified and information manipulated so as to create the false appearance, at the time of the shooting (and in the aftermath, as necessary) that the story of President Kennedy's assassination was simply that of "a man in a building who shot a man in a car." This is very similar to the production of a movie. A good friend of mine, who studied the JFK assassination very carefully, and who himself produces very important commercials that air nationwide, once opined aloud: "Do you think the assassination had a 'producer'?"--to which my answer (and his, too) was (and still is): most definitely. And understanding that is critical to understanding both how the trip to Dallas was arranged, and how events unfolded that day; and what happened in the aftermath. As I have said on many occasions, anyone who believes that "conspiracy" in this case simply means "multiple shooters" and is unwilling to go further than that, is swimming in the shallow end of the kiddie pool. Such folks do not understand (or are unwiling to conceive of the possibility) that this entire event was a grotesque manipulation. The key to unraveling this case is to focus on fraud in the evidence. That has been my position for many years--indeed, decads--and it has not change one bit.

DSL

1/2/2010

12:30 PM PST

Since Professor Fetzer has now started posting in boldface. My reply is posted in boldface, italics:

Yawn!!! To make a scurrilous point, Professor Fetzer simply quotes the beginning of a sentence and lops off the end. When this is exposed he shifts gear and asks me whether this was the paragraph that made Vincent Salandria in 1967 start the rumor that I was a government agent.

This whole sad, little incident is chronicled in John Kelin's book where Kelin quotes extensive correspondence. Kelin points out that when Vince Salandria started saying this he was roundly dumped on by Sylvia Meagher and Arnoni (whose first name I have forgotter but who was the editor of the Minority of One that first published Salandria.) Like Kelin, I find the whole little incident sad and weird. It's not something that keeps me up at night forty years later.

I have no idea what was running through Salandria's mind when he started attacking someone who had earlier worked with him. Why don't you ask him? Maybe you'll come up with something to continue your attempted smear of me.[/u]

I quoted the paragraph in full in an earlier post on another thread, which, apparently, like so many others, you didn't bother to read or are now misrepresenting. What I would like to know--given you are making so much of it--is this: Is this not the same paragraph that led Vincent Salandria to conclude that you were a government agent? He has written that he was so outraged by your dismissive attitude that he confronted you personally and accused you of whitewashing the case. What I want to know is whether you are prepared to admit that this paragraph has raised the most serious doubts about your integrity, not only in my mind but also in the minds of other qualified students of JFK. If it was not this paragraph, kindly quote the one that so upset him. Thank you.

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

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

Here’s the explanation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josiah Thompson

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

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

I think almost everything David says here is correct. It also demonstrates how two critics, guys who have studied this case for forty years, can disagree about evidentiary matters without falling to the level of insult, inuendo and downright falsehood practiced by Professor Fetzer.

David made the correct point that in the chapter on the double head shot that contains the McClelland diagram, I took the descriptions from Parkland showing a wound in the back of the head as describing the effects of the hit from the right front. The autopsy report and what we knew of Bethesda observations I took to be describing the shot from the rear. All this is stated explicitly in the last paragraph of that chapter.

David, you say I just don't "get it." I might turn the tables and send it back to you. What you don't get is that the Zapruder film is confirmed as authentic by the photo record of Dealey Plaza that constitutes a self-authenticating whole. From the beginning, the Zapruder film has been the central evidence used to show that shots came from more than one direction. That claim is the threshold claim in any study of the assassination. From the beginning, that claim has been supported by the Zapruder film.

I sure wish you would "get it." But until that time I look forward to having the kind of civil and informative discussion we've had this last week.

Tink

I never questioned Thompson's motives in writing Six Seconds. It is all to easy to return to a situation decades later and say, Why didn't you connect the dots this way or that? etc. Of course, that is separate and apart from the issue of why, decades later, Thompson STILL takes some of the positions he does.

So I think its important to distinguish between the validity (or invalidity) of a position he might take today, in 2010, and the sincerity of his motives in 1966.

Viewing things retrospectively, its all too easy to conjure up "mal intent".

One other matter, and this has to do with the Z frames: as I understand it, the Z frames--as published (in Volume 18)--only go out to frame 334.

The stunning picture of JFK's head--with the so-called "exit wound" on the forward right hand side is at 335, and then another such "clear frame" is 337.

Those two frames played an important role in my own development, and I'm not sure they are in the original slide set. In other words, you'd have to have had tne film--in 35mm format--to readily "see" them.

Once I saw those frames--on a 35mm film at the Beverly Hills office of Time Life in June 1970 (as described in "Pig on a Leash")--I was fairly well convinced that the so called "wounds" were artwork.

Now addressing the situation of "what Thompson knew and when he knew it" --circa 1966--he would, of course, have frame 313, which shows a big red blob (but what does one make of that, in isolation?), and yes, he would have the McClelland drawing. But I don't think the "optical evidence" is necessarily the key thing here.

The question is: how come Thompson had the McLelland diagram, on the one hand (showing an exit at the back of the head) and the autopsy report, with its exit towards the right hand side, and put them together and call that a "double head hit"--rather than realize they were different descriptions on the time line? I closed my Chapter 13 in Best Evidence (on the head wounds) by pointing out the error THompson made, by omitting the time factor, and not realizing that these two descriptions were different. And I quote that paragraph again, in Pig on a Leash, in a section titled 'Thompson's Blunder."

Now, returning to 2010: do I think he was wrong? Yes.

Do I think he set out to obfuscate? No.

Truly, I believe he just didn't "get it."

I would like Thompson to have been the kind of guy who--like Doug Horne--had a "paradigm shift" upon reading Best Evidence (Jan., 1981) and realizing the wound descriptions were different at Parkland and at Bethesda. Instead, he stubbornly sticks to a position that, in my opinion, is provably wrong.

I don't think you can fake that kind of stubborness.

I recall a story LBJ used to tell about someone who was hitting a mule over the head with a two by four. And the person swinging the 2 by 4 was questioned about his behavior, and the question was "Why?"

And the response was; "I'm trying to get his attention."

Well, that's how I feel about the futility of getting Tink to come around on these fundamental questions.

(Apologies, Tink. . but it really has been frustrating).

But I still appreciate his having supplied me with all those films (Bell, Hughes, etc., back around 1969), and the Life/Zapruder contracts, etc.--even though, today, I disagree with him on many points.

DSL

One other matter: the contracts showing the original Zapruder film price (of $50,000), plus the multi-page contract in which the price tripled, by Monday, November 25, 1963, were sent to me by Josiah Thompson around 1970. He obtained them in the course of the "discovery process" when he and his publiisher (Bernard Geis, the publisher of Six Seconds in Dallas) were sued for copyright infringement when Six Seconds published sketches of critical Zapruder frames (because Time -Life would not grant permission to run the actual photographs).

So, David, is it fair to assume from this that you do not question Thompson's motive in writing SSID, and consider it a sincere investigation, as opposed to an obfuscation?

My replies are in bold-face:

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

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

I am asking questions.

SSID provided sketches to the Z-film at a time when most of it, in any clear version, was being suppressed. Tink was by his own admission on p.217 working with Mr. George Hunt, Managing Editor of LIFE, for example, in publishing the 'missing frames' for the first time...p. 217 he says "...before WE came into possession of the original print" (caps mine). I am asking if there was an agenda to draw CTs in by presenting sketches of some of the earlier frames while 'ignoring' blatant anomaly of the film that they were aware of because of their close association with it (when this relationship was denied to most of the rest of us).

What? By 1967, it had been discovered that certain frames were missing from the original copy of the Zapruder film. The controversy over the socalled "missing frames" was a needless distraction to everyone since the three first day copies had the frames intact. LIFE gave me copies of the frames to publish, and, if memory serves, gave them other news sources. So what?

In addition, as Jim Fetzer has pointed out, whereas there is considerable focus on the earlier frames of the Z-film, there is virtually no attention paid to the critical fatal headshot sequence in the Z-film. [Open your eyes, the fatal headshot sequence is the subject of a whole chapter with measurements, graphs, witness reports, and sketches.] our attention is drawn away to the Nix film. Why is that? Why are there no sketches of the fatal headshot sequence? Because the argument presented did not require them.

The question I am asking is whether these issues are simply lapses, or oversights, or the result of something more deliberate -- giving researchers bits and pieces of things they had not had before while withholding the fact that they all knew the Z-film had been altered and that it was for this reason being suppressed and dribbled out in little 'safe' little bits.

[A few months ago, Barb Junkarrinen, Jerry Logan and I published on this site an article on the damage to the limousine windshield. We agreed with your conclusion that there was no through-and-through hole. Strangely enough, you started taking us to task with criticism of irrelevant details. We also pointed out new information with respect to several of your witnesses, information that changes radically how you would interpret what these witnesses say. Is this payback for showing that you weren't the all-knowing guru of the windshield story? Do you always lapse into character assassination under similar circumstances?]

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

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

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

Josiah Thompson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the explanation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josiah Thompson

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

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

I think this is a really neat idea, Duncan. That film was just sitting there and was shot in 1964. It ought to make a great comparison with the Zapruder film and resolve the remaining "problems." Nice going!

Josiah Thompson

The May 1964 FBI/Secret Service re-enactment in Dallas included a test film shot with the Zapruder camera. The film is at the National Archives waiting for someone to have it transfered to video. Perhaps if the alterationists investigated this further, they could find out information Re: the sprocket hole controversy and other debatable issues. It puzzles me why they have never tried to gain access to this avenue of research to prove their points, or have they?

Test films shot with the Nix and Muchmore cameras are also at the National Archives. This information was provided by Gary Mack.

Duncan MacRae

My answers will be in bold-face.

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

(1) The Statistical Argument:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) The Improbable Convergence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) The Appeal to the Blur:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what?

(4) The Explanation:

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

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

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

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

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

(5) No proof of conspiracy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josiah Thompson

Tink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Hagerman, please note my replies in bold-face:

Tink I dont see any of the others in the limo being thrown forward at the time of JFKs forward head snap

They all do. Wimp prepared quite wonderful GIFs showing this. Until someone comes up with his work for all to see, it is extremely difficult to make clear his points.

And why is JFKs head the only part of his body to be thrown forward when the others in the limo have their bodies thrown forward? (Again after JFKs forward head snap)

You are confused here. All occupants of the limousine slide forward starting about Z frame 308. All continue sliding forward but JFK is whacked backward and to the left at Z 314

Tink you were right the first time

I thought you were going to explain why this belief you have is correct. You haven't.

The other film as viewed by Rich Dellarosa shows a more pronounced double hit to JFKs head after the limo came to a complete stop

Im sure you dont believe Rich, however I do believe Rich and I think those who altered the Z-film could not take away enough frames to make the double hit disappear completly, that and they paid to much attention to creating the blob and blood spray to notice the small forward head snap that you caught

As far as I know, Rich Dellarosa's story about seeing the "other film" has been around for a decade or so and no one has made any progress in confirming it. Were there others in the audience with Dellarosa who could confirm what he says he saw? Exactly where and when did he see it? Etc. My own bet is that he may have seen one of the many Zapruder film look-alikes that have been floating around... you know, the sort of thing done for the film Executive Action, etc.

I already know that you are going to say im crazy for backing up alteration, but I stand behind Fetzer and TGZFH gang (White, Mantik, Healy, Lifton, DellaRosa) as well as Noel Twyman whom back in 1997 proved alteration of the Z-film to me

Well, as long as you're happy with your fellow tribe members, that's nice,

I think you having caught the double head hit is a huge deal, and while you may think of it in terms of the Z-film being authentic, I think of it as a missed item by the alterationists

Again thanks for you reply

And one more question, it seems like you were kind of backing out on a shot coming from the front in your reply to me

No, I wasn't "backing out" of anything.

Was I just looking into what you were saying the wrong way, or do you no longer believe in a shot from the front?

Thanks again Tink

Dean

Edit: I created the Gif from Costella combined edit

Good point, Ray. Was it Alvarez or someone else who actually computed the deceleration of the limousine from 12 mph to 8 mph during the period that Wimp and others observed everyone in the limousine slide forward (Z frame 308ff)? I've known that fact for some time and I know Alvarez was interested in all this. I just don't know if he made the calculation?

Josiah Thompson

Well, they talk about lies, damn lies, and statistics--and then we have Josiah Thompson.....

Not nice, Dr. Fetzer.

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

Luis Alvarez was also a Nobel prize winner in physics who studied SIX SECONDS. Alvarez looked into the ZFilm in much greater detail than Feyneman did, and he found something that Thomson AND Feynman had not seen. Alvarez was the first person to notice that the Z-FIlm shows that the limo slows ABRUPTLY prior to the fatal head shot. THis fact was reported by many eyewitnesses, many of whom recalled later that the limo actually came to a complete stop.

The heavy car decelerated suddenly for about 0.5 seconds (10 frames) centered at about frame 299 reducing its speed from about 12 MPH to about 8 mph. Since the car was cer tainly being operated in some low gear ratio the decelera tion was no doubt caused by the driver reducing his fowl pressure on the accelerator pedal

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=442

Alvarez published his paper circa 1976, but for some reason leading critics including Dr. THompson seem to have missed the implications of what Alvarez had to say about the limo's sudden slowdown. The sudden slowdown of the limo EXPLAINS why JFK was moving forward immediately before the fatal shot.

So while Dr. Fetzer now fumes at Dr. Thompson for reinterpreting the evidence in the light of findings by Wimp and Durnavich, my only criticism of Thompson is that he seems to have overlooked Alvarez's 1976 paper on the subject, which effectively made the same point as Wimp and Durnavich, only 30 years earlier.

But though I criticize Josiah for being slow on the ball here, he is still light years ahead of Dr. Fetzer, who still refuses to acknowledge the value of the Zfilm as evidence.

Note:THough I cite Alvarez with approval on the issue of limo slowdown, that by no means implies that I find his defense of Greer to be persuasive, nor his theory of Jiggle analysis, and certainly not his Jet Effect theory.

Interesting post, Ray. From what you write here, you seem to correctly have in your cross-hairs the decisions made by Blakey and others concerning the evidence produced first by Barger and then by Weiss and Ashkenazy. These scientists have never budged an inch from their initial positions. It looks to me like Don Thomas has satisfactorily answered the objections put up by the scientific panel.

Hence, are your objections to the acoustics as evidence or to the way this evidence was handled by HSAC?

Josiah Thompson

Dr. Josiah Thompson believes that JFK was killed by a bullet from the front. He also believes that the HSCA acoustics experts PROVED 3 shots from the TSBD. He cites a debate between Don THomas and another expert in which Thomas "eviscerated" the other acoustics guy, who had served on the panel assembled by the National Academy of Science.

I also received a PM from someone at the same conference who says

what Tink said about Thomas "eviscerating" Garvin is an understatement. Garwin was not the least bit up to speed in his presentation.

So this is interesting anecdotal evidence. But as Aristotle says, one swallow does not a Summer make.

Charles Sanders Peirce, my favorite philosopher since Aristotle, warns that BELIEF has no place in inquiry. All our theories must be held provisionally, according to Peirce's doctrine of FALLIBILITY.

With that in mind, I have to say that every time I watch the Zapruder film I cannot escape the conclusion -- like Dr. Thompson -- that JFK is KILLED and driven backward by a bullet fired from the right front. That is a bedrock fact that no serious inquirer can deny, IMO.

So along comes Robert ("Junk Science") Blakey with his acoustics experts.

Blakey is charged with responsibility for shoring up the Warren Report. Meanwhile, credible critics like Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg raise the question whether CE399 and the limo fragments were planted, which raises the further question whether the SN rifle and shells were planted also.

Blakey is required to prove that 3 shots came from the TSBD, and he embraces the New York acoustics people who claim they can PROVE 3 shots from the TSBD using the police tape. THe only snag in the Warren Report is the possibility of a fourth shot.

Blakey was willing to accept the fourth shot, as long as it missed and so, sure enough Blakey's experts matched this "fourth" shot to a MISS. The acoustics evidence reassured us that JFK was still killed by bullets from behind, just like the Warren Commission said.

Some conspiracy theorists were overjoyed, because a fourth shot implies a conspiracy, so Hurrah!

But how can anyone look at the Zapruder film and say Yes, there was a shot from the front, but it missed?

I say the Acoustics are JUNK SCIENCE -- just like Blakey's other follies, the jet effect, the neuro muscular theory and (my favorite) Dr. Guinn and his bullet lead bullcrap -- and the National Academy of Science agrees with me.

Thanks Ray. I'm only too aware of its shortcomings. As we've seen in another thread, the double-hit at Z312-Z314 was based on a misreading of Zapruder's startle reaction.

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

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

David,

In this post, you wrote: "In answer to your question: this is all once-removed (and even twice removed) hearsay to me. If some researcher shot such footage, I'd like to examine the product--whether on a DVD Rom, or if there is a Web-based address where it can be viewed, frame by frame. Thanks."

Doug Horne writes: “About 3 or 4 years ago, I received in the mail a DVD of test film reportedly shot by a researcher named Rick Janowitz who is a research associate of David Healey’s. The film was shot in Dealey Plaza in a Bell and Howell camera supposedly identical to Zapruder’s. The images on the DVD (of what is apparently an 8 mm film) do show what appears to be ‘full flush left’ penetration into the intersprocket area – something Rollie Zavada could not consistently replicate in his own outdoor film tests. But I don’t have any way of authenticating what I am looking at on the DVD.” Doug Horne implies but does not state that this test film shows “consistent” full flush left penetration.

Does this report match the "hearsay" reports you got, David? Does anyone know whether it is Janowitz who produced the film I had heard of that shows “consistent” full flush left penetration? Or is the film I’d heard of a second test film? Can anyone produce a couple of frames from this Janowitz film? David, do you think Doug Horne would let us see the copy he has of this test film?

Josiah Thompson

Tink,

In answer to your question: this is all once-removed (and even twice removed) hearsay to me. If some researcher shot such footage, I'd like to examine the product--whether on a DVD Rom, or if there is a Web-based address where it can be viewed, frame by frame. Thanks.

As to the intersprocket penetration, and whether the current state of the evidence (as we know it) can be used to render a final verdict one way or the other, I have stated my beliefs, based on what my eyes see. I do not believe these differences --which are clearly measurable and easily visible--can be explained away as "small differences" that can be explained away in the manner you suggest: "small differences in lens manufacture or mechanical functioning can account for the small differences between Zapruder camera image penetration and image penetration in like cameras."

"small differences"? This is easily visible, and easily measurable.

Stepping back from these details: this reminds me of Doug Horne's discovery of the situation that prevailed with regard to the Defense Department being requested by HSCA to please produce the camera used at the Bethesda autopsy. The camera was found, and when tested by the HSCA's photo panel, it was determined that that camera could not have taken the pictures in evidence. Rather than confront the fact that he had come upon powerful evidence of the inauthenticity of autopsy photographs (or at least some of them), Blakey's response to this was that DOD must have found "the wrong camera" (my quotes).

I see a similar behavioral pattern here. A difference is spotted, and pointed out: the response is "normal variations" in camera manufacture, invented language ("edge fog") etc. Where precision is called for, fuzzy language is being supplied.

In my opinion, we have a very serious problem here regarding the image extending further than it ought to. What I see here --in this evolving debate--is language being invoked to "explain it." I do not believe that these explanations are valid. But to carry this matter further, a test could (and perhaps should) be conducted.

Can a Zapruder type camera, operating at full zoom, and in normal sunlight conditions, place image beyond the left edge? Based on the Zavada-supplied red truck frames that you posted, I believe the answer to be "no." It appears (to me) to be a mechanical impossibility.

Yet such "beyond the left edge" imagery repeatedly shows up in the Zapruder frames.

And one other point: I notice that in the Rollie test shots (and certainly at "full zoom," as I recall) there is a very visible light flare at the lower right hand edge of the sprocket hole. But on the Zapruder frames in evidence (and again I refer to the Costella combined edit), no such phenomenon appears. Again, I suspect this may be still another indicia of INauthenticity--i.e., that the Z film in evidence was not made in Zapruder's camera.

DSL

PS: Re your other question: I do not know the history of Bowers' accounts, or when he first mentioned seeing one (or two) men behind the knoll. If someone creates such a chronology, and if it demonstrates "evolution" in Bowers' story, I'd appreciate receiving a copy. Thanks.

DSL

David,

I'm going to let Craig and Duncan deal with the point that you make. My knowledge of film and filmmaking is quite limited so anything I might say is probably not worth much, probatively speaking.

From the perspective of ten or fifteen years we can all agree it might have been better if Rollie Zavada had been able to get hold of Zapruder's camera and shoot a few rolls through it. If so, we wouldn't have all these questions we now have. But that didn't happen. So we're stuck with what we've got... several cameras of like make and model that Rollie experimented with and the report that someone else shot some film through a similar camera in Dealey Plaza and got continuous full flush left intersprocket image penetration. Remember I asked if you knew anything about that. Do you?

Rollie has a section in Study 4 called "Recognized Image Anomalies in the Zapruder Original Film." A subsection of this section he titles, "Image Penetration Between the Perforations." He points out that "the characteristics and depth of the image penetration... is directly related to the effective image area from the exit window of the Varamat lens, the focal length of lens and in some cases the aperture setting." I would guess everyone would agree that Rollie is correct about this. The next question is whether small differences in lens manufacture or mechanical functioning can account for the small differences between Zapruder camera image penetration and image penetration in like cameras.

Josiah Thompson

Tink,

For many years, I took an assortment of science courses in which the importance of "what happens at the boundary" was emphasized. Although I am not claiming the analogy to be exact, the "intersprocket area" of the Zapruder film is of critical importance because it may contain optical evidence that the Zapruder film in evidence is not a camera original.

There is really no room--or at least, very little room (in my opinion)--for there to be any significant difference between what the frames of the Zapruder film show, and what a test film made through Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera show (or a similar "store bought" camera, same make and model, etc.) if we are to believe that the Zapruder film in evidence is really "camera original."

I just took a look through Costella's "combined edit" and call your attention to frames 235-244. In frame after frame, there is not only "full penetration" of the intersprocket area, but the image even extends FURTHER than the left margin. (Just focus on the image of SS Agent Clint Hill, who is often either partially, or wholly, to the left of the left margin). That, in my opinion, is a mechanical impossibility if the Z film that contains these frames was actually shot in Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera.

Now, let's take a look at "Rollie's red truck"--the frames which you and Rollie Zavada seem to believe show "full penetration."

Just compare them to the Zapruder frames shown in the Costella Combined Edit.

Clearly, they are different. No part of the image in the "Rollie's red truck" frame extends past the left margin.

I have made a JPEG of each of these frames, and have placed one above the other for easy viewing. I will try to "upload" that exhibit into this post. Hopefully it will work.

What happens "at the boundary" really IS important in sciene, and that lesson can be applied in this case. These films SHOULD look the same. There are marked differences. If I am correct about this, then these frames which show "beyond full penetration" (and I don't care if it is 3% or 5%) is enough to prove that the Zapruder film in evidence was not made in Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera.

Your comments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josiah Thompson

Tink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor Fetzer,

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it. Your objections and questions are simply non-sensical.

You address me now as "PI Thompson." I take it that you do that to demean me and how I've made my living for the last thirty years. Do you think that people won't pay any attention to what I say because you've pointed out I am a lowly PI and you are a retired professor? Is that the idea? Well, it just might boomerang. I hold not a scintilla of regret for trading in an academic career for the life of a private investigator. The job is difficult and taxing in ways the academic life was not. It also calls for a complexity of moral thinking unknown in the academic world. It is an honorable, sometimes dangerous, and always interesting profession. If you could look beyond your silly-ass academic glasses, you might see that Craig Lamson's career as a professional photographer has a similar integrity. Or even that persons whom you discard as unlettered or uncredentialed, have abilities that leave you and your pals in the ditch.

As I pointed out back in 1998, the one principle that has guided research in the Kennedy assassination from the beginning is that “there are no Ph.D.s in assassination research.”

[Fetzer’s] emphasis on credentials and the cult of expertise (or alleged expertise) is demeaning to the tradition of inquiry we all share as a community. When the final history of this case is written it will be based on the canons of acute historical research. These canons have nothing to do with how many initials you can hang after your name or how often you're called "distinguished."

They have to do with the evidence you put forward for your view and the reasonableness of the interpretations you hang on that evidence. That's what Sylvia Meagher and I believed when we started working together in the 60s. It was a long time ago in virtually another country. It was 1965... 66... 67, and here and there people were beginning to distrust what they'd been told.

There was Mary Ferrell in Dallas, Penn Jones just outside Dallas, Sylvia Meagher in New York City, Paul Hoch in Berkeley, Cyril Wecht in Pittsburgh, Vince Salandria in Philadelphia, Harold Weisberg in Maryland, Ray Marcus and David Lifton in Los Angeles... and many, many more. A housewife, a lawyer for the school board, the editor of a small paper, a graduate student, a young professor, a WHO official. We were little people. People who had only a few things in common -- inquiring minds, an unwillingness to be intimidated by public attitudes, more than a little tenacity, a bit of modesty and a willingness to laugh at oneself. None of us had any money or hoped to make any money out of this. We were doing it for its own sake. We formed a community... the closest thing to a true community of inquiry that I've ever known.

We shared information on a transcontinental basis. I still remember the excitement with which Vince Salandria and I received our copy of the Sibert-O'Neill Report from Paul Hoch! None of us gave a damn for credentials because - as we put it - "There are no Ph.Ds in assassination research."

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

Your obvious unwillingness to address crucial questions about your "micro-study" in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967) is becoming an embarrassment to everyone who has ever believed in you. You like to pose as a "stand-up guy", but this must be the eighth time I have asked for clarification about your early book and the seventh time you have "ducked and run"! That is not the image you have been trying to project for all these years. I guess when it comes down to the bottom line and your fakery has been exposed, you are not going to confront it for the world to see--not even in a protective environment like this one, where you can count on frauds and flakes like Lamson and Colby to rush to your defense whenever you get into trouble. Well, I dare say, you are in deep water now, and every member of this forum can tell that you are not willing to explain yourself. That I can understand, because your conduct in retrospect has been reprehensible and it is apparent why you do not want to confront it. Cute remarks won't cut it, Tink! Your continued evasion of these questions is a disgrace. So where do you stand on these issues today?

I and others here have now asked you a half-dozen or more times to clarify your position today in relation to your position in 1967, when SIX SECONDS was published. I have taken another look and not only is the only sketch of frame 313--which appears on page 107--indecipherable in relation to the "blob", which is the single most striking feature of the film--but I have searched in vain for sketches of frames 314, 315, and 316, which are the most important relative to portraying the wound. I have noticed one or two abstract sketches on page 87, which were used in relation to your analysis of the "doubt hit", but they are absent the kinds of details that one would expert of a "micro-study" of the Kennedy assassination. No only do you not focus on this sequence of frames--which one would have naively supposed held the key to the trajectory of the alleged "fatal shot"--but you do not even present them in sufficient detail that your readers could study them!

The "double hit" analysis on pages 86 to 95--which was the most scientific and impressive aspect of your book--along with your account of three gunmen murdering the president with four shots--all of which hit--on pages 115 to 140, which is summarized on pages 178 to 195, clearly implies the existence of a conspiracy to take him out. Yet, in the final paragraph of the text of your book, you observe, "What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor when the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald's innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. it also shows that the question of Oswald's guilt must remain--nearly four years after the event--still unanswered." This final paragraph, after all, seem to nullify the rest of your book, virtually in its entirety. Have you abandoned the "doubt hit" analysis and even the conclusion that this was a conspiracy?

Following the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who consulted Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in, Doug Horne has consulted additional experts on special effects and reported that, "When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork."" It was their professional judgment that the wound to the back of the head had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in. No matter how much you may have resisted the inference, the weight of the evidence has made it abundantly clear that the extant film is a fabrication, which should have been apparent to you already when you published SIX SECONDS in 1967!

Thus, more than forty years after the event, the specifics of your position about the assassination are still unanswered. As I have observed, it cannot have escaped your notice that the McClelland diagram, which appears on page 107 of your book, shows a blow out to the rear of the head, while the crucial frames of the film--313 through 316--show a blow out to the right-front. Surely, as the author of a "micro study" of the assassination based upon your study of the film, it had to capture your attention. After all, it provides prima facie proof that the film is a fabrication. Yet for all these intervening years, when the authenticity of the film has been in doubt, you have relentlessly attacked research that tends to show it. Well, the time has come for you to address the question and explain how it is possible that you did not relentlessly pursue this question. Because, in the absence of an adequate explanation, there are grounds to infer that your objective in writing this book was not to build a case for conspiracy or even illuminate the evidence but to obfuscate its significance, not only for the film but for the assassination itself.

Jim

QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Dec 31 2009, 01:23 AM)

"My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?"

Where do I stand today? I stand convinced that you are a ninny!!

What on earth does the McClelland quote and diagram have to do with "full frame left interpenetration?" It was part of the discussion in a chapter that showed profound differences between what the Parkland personnel observed and the published autopsy report. Back in those days before the autopsy photos were known and before any investigation of Bethesda by HSCA, this was a real advance in our knowledge of the case. There is no "inconsistency" and no "lapse."

Once again, you are simply blowing smoke trying to get me or others involved in an irrelevant debate. Just once why don't you try and limit yourself to what others want to talk about.

Josiah Thompson

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Dec 30 2009, 02:23 AM)

PI Thompson,

The limitations of publishing color photos in black and white on ordinary paper cannot have escaped you, since there are many such photographs in your own book. When I tilt the page in relation to the light, I can see the outline of the back part of the panel truck in the second (or bottom-most) of the two images. It is neither a moral or a mental lapse to not observe what was not observable due to the transition from color to black-and-white.

But your lapse appears to be of a different character altogether. The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head on page 328 was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? You didn't notice the difference?

I also find it just the least bit curious that the closest you come to sketching the blow-out to the right-front appears to be a sketch of Z313 that occurs on page 102, which seems to me to be very opaque in not indicating that the "blob", which is so conspicuous in the film, was bulging out to the right-front. Since you could be thought to have been obfuscating crucial evidence, where do you come to grips with this inconsistency--then or now?

On pages 99 and 100, you talk about the distribution of brain matter and how some was blown to the front and over Connally, but you also discuss the more substantial distribution to the left-rear, even quoting Officer Hargis, who was hit so hard by the debris that he thought he himself had been shot. Insofar as this was a crucial question that raises significant doubts about the film, why did you not pursue this with determination?

As a matter of logic and evidence, the McClelland diagram by itself appears to be sufficient to impugn the integrity of the film. As I have explained, the film shows the brains bulging out to the right-front, while we know that his brains were blown out to the left-rear. Why have you not climbed aboard the alterationist "band wagon" with this disproof of its authenticity, which is corroborated by the reports of the other Parkland physicians?

In case you harbor any doubts, the only chapter that you have ever praised in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is by your friend, Gary Aguilar, M.D., which makes this very point. So I take it you are not going to repudiate the only chapter of the book you have endorsed. Unfortunately, it makes your reluctance to concede Zapruder film fakery all the more aberrant. I invite you to clarify and correct this rather bizarre lapse in your reasoning.

My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?

James H. Fetzer

Drone on Professor! If I thought anyone really was paying attention to your persistent attempts to change the subject from the focus of this thread, I might be worried about your continued insults. But I don't think that's the case.

Did I miss something or between the lines of this discussion didn't you admit to publishing a photo that proved just the opposite of what the text said it proved. Oh, dear me, once again I forgot that you're only the editor and have no responsibility for the accuracy of what you publish.

If you're going to continue your extended whine, please do us the favor of not including in your post a long, long thread of earlier posts.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

Your obvious unwillingness to address crucial questions about your "micro-study" in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967) is becoming an embarrassment to everyone who has ever believed in you. You like to pose as a "stand-up guy", but this must be the eighth time I have asked for clarification about your early book and the seventh time you have "ducked and run"! That is not the image you have been trying to project for all these years. I guess when it comes down to the bottom line and your fakery has been exposed, you are not going to confront it for the world to see--not even in a protective environment like this one, where you can count on frauds and flakes like Lamson and Colby to rush to your defense whenever you get into trouble. Well, I dare say, you are in deep water now, and every member of this forum can tell that you are not willing to explain yourself. That I can understand, because your conduct in retrospect has been reprehensible and it is apparent why you do not want to confront it. Cute remarks won't cut it, Tink! Your continued evasion of these questions is a disgrace. So where do you stand on these issues today?

I and others here have now asked you a half-dozen or more times to clarify your position today in relation to your position in 1967, when SIX SECONDS was published. I have taken another look and not only is the only sketch of frame 313--which appears on page 107--indecipherable in relation to the "blob", which is the single most striking feature of the film--but I have searched in vain for sketches of frames 314, 315, and 316, which are the most important relative to portraying the wound. I have noticed one or two abstract sketches on page 87, which were used in relation to your analysis of the "doubt hit", but they are absent the kinds of details that one would expert of a "micro-study" of the Kennedy assassination. No only do you not focus on this sequence of frames--which one would have naively supposed held the key to the trajectory of the alleged "fatal shot"--but you do not even present them in sufficient detail that your readers could study them!

The "double hit" analysis on pages 86 to 95--which was the most scientific and impressive aspect of your book--along with your account of three gunmen murdering the president with four shots--all of which hit--on pages 115 to 140, which is summarized on pages 178 to 195, clearly implies the existence of a conspiracy to take him out. Yet, in the final paragraph of the text of your book, you observe, "What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor when the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald's innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. it also shows that the question of Oswald's guilt must remain--nearly four years after the event--still unanswered." This final paragraph, after all, seem to nullify the rest of your book, virtually in its entirety. Have you abandoned the "doubt hit" analysis and even the conclusion that this was a conspiracy?

Following the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who consulted Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in, Doug Horne has consulted additional experts on special effects and reported that, "When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork."" It was their professional judgment that the wound to the back of the head had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in. No matter how much you may have resisted the inference, the weight of the evidence has made it abundantly clear that the extant film is a fabrication, which should have been apparent to you already when you published SIX SECONDS in 1967!

Thus, more than forty years after the event, the specifics of your position about the assassination are still unanswered. As I have observed, it cannot have escaped your notice that the McClelland diagram, which appears on page 107 of your book, shows a blow out to the rear of the head, while the crucial frames of the film--313 through 316--show a blow out to the right-front. Surely, as the author of a "micro study" of the assassination based upon your study of the film, it had to capture your attention. After all, it provides prima facie proof that the film is a fabrication. Yet for all these intervening years, when the authenticity of the film has been in doubt, you have relentlessly attacked research that tends to show it. Well, the time has come for you to address the question and explain how it is possible that you did not relentlessly pursue this question. Because, in the absence of an adequate explanation, there are grounds to infer that your objective in writing this book was not to build a case for conspiracy or even illuminate the evidence but to obfuscate its significance, not only for the film but for the assassination itself.

Jim

The man who gave a lecture in Washington on the acoustics was:

Richard L. Garwin

Thomas J. Watson Research Center

IBM Corporation

and Adjunct Professor of Physics

Columbia University

Then, in a following lecture right after, his claims were eviscerated by Don Thomas.

Josiah Thompson

I was present in Washington, D.C. when one of what you call "the best scientific minds to date" gave a lecture. He was then irretrievably eviscerated by an even better lecture from another scientist, Dr. Donald Thomas.

We must agree to disagree on this, Josiah.

Dr. THomas Vs. UNANIMOUS National Research Council

COMMITTEE ON BALLISTIC ACOUSTICS

Norman F. Ramsey, Chairman

Harvard University

Luis W. Alvarez

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

University of California

Herman Chernoff

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Robert H. Dicke

Princeton University

Jerome I. Elkind

Xerox Palo Alto Research Center

John C. Feggeler

Bell Telephone Laboratories

Holmdel, New Jersey

Richard L. Garwin

Thomas J. Watson Research Center

IBM Corporation

and Adjunct Professor of Physics

Columbia University

Paul Horowitz

Harvard University

Alfred Johnson

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

National Laboratory Center

Department of the Treasury

Robert A. Phinney

Princeton University

Charles Rader

Lincoln Laboratory

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

F. Williams Sarles

Trisolar Corporation

Bedford, Massachusetts

Ive read both sides on this issue and, in my opinion, there is no doubt on which side scientific evidence resides.

Josiah Thompson

THe NRC reached 3 conclusions, but only ONE is WARRANTED.

* The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.

* The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.

* Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman.

The only warranted conclusion here is that there is no acoustical evidence of guns fired anywhere in Dealey Plaza. THe Committee simply ASSUMED that 3 shots were fired from the TSBD. THis is BEGGING THE QUESTION, since Blakey brought in the acoustics experts in hopes of PROVING that there were 3 shots from the TSBD. If the NRC experts beleive their own findings, there is no acoustical evidence of gunshots from the grassy knoll OR from the TSBD.

[

If you want to start a separate thread on the "double head shot" and others choose to contribute, I will be happy to give you chapter and verse on why I was wrong in 1967. I would like to keep this thead focused on what it is supposed to be about. I didn't change my mind, obviously, because of what one researcher told me or didn't tell me.

Josiah Thompson

The "double hit" analysis on pages 86 to 95--which was the most scientific and impressive aspect of your book--along with your account of three gunmen murdering the president with four shots--all of which hit--on pages 115 to 140, which is summarized on pages 178 to 195, clearly implies the existence of a

Tink

This is very important, maybe not to you but it is to me

I have asked you in this thread about it and I understand that you are busy dealing with Full Flush Left but at the same time the double hit theory that YOU came up with has something to do with Z-film alteration

Again I have believed in your theory since I read it, it made perfect sense and the way you presented it in your book was outstanding

I have read the story about why you no longer support your double hit theory, but I cant see how you were so sure in SSID but then go back on it from one researcher telling you it was the from the limo slowing down and the passangers being thrown forward

Why didnt the rest of JFKs body get thrown forward with the rest of the limo? Just his head moved forward

I dont want to go into my thoughts on Z-film alteration right now because I dont want you to dismiss me as this is important to ME!

Rich Dellarosa has seen the double hit unlike myself and you have Tink

This fits in perfectly with the Z-film being altered, I hope that you taking back your double hit theory didnt have anything to do with you not wanting to be involved or labeled as an alterationist

Tink I believe that you were correct back in 1967 and you are still correct today

Can you at least give me some more info on why you dont believe in your theory anymore?

Again I would love to discuss this with you, if you want i can start a new thread

Thanks Tink

Dean

"I hope not, because the best scientific minds to date agree that the acoustic impulses are NOT GUNSHOTS."

I beg to differ with you, Ray. I was present in Washington, D.C. when one of what you call "the best scientific minds to date" gave a lecture. He was then irretrievably eviscerated by an even better lecture from another scientist, Dr. Donald Thomas. Ive read both sides on this issue and, in my opinion, there is no doubt on which side scientific evidence resides.

Josiah Thompson

So let's ask this question: If it can be proven that the extant Zapruder film matches in content the sound impulses appearing on the Dallas police dictabelt, doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film?

I hope not, because the best scientific minds to date agree that the acoustic impulses are NOT GUNSHOTS.

The Z-film does not need corroboration from the acoustics and besides, the Z-film does not claim 3 shots (OR ANY SHOTS) from the TSBD. So if it turns out that 399 and the limo fragments were planted, and there were No shots from the rear, the acoustics are impeached but not the Zfilm.

Let's also ask a second question: No discrepancy between the extant Zapruder film and any other film or photo taken in Dealey Plaza has ever been shown. Doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film?

Now here you are on solid ground, as far as I know.

"My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?"

Where do I stand today? I stand convinced that you are a ninny!!

What on earth does the McClelland quote and diagram have to do with "full frame left interpenetration?" It was part of the discussion in a chapter that showed profound differences between what the Parkland personnel observed and the published autopsy report. Back in those days before the autopsy photos were known and before any investigation of Bethesda by HSCA, this was a real advance in our knowledge of the case. There is no "inconsistency" and no "lapse."

Once again, you are simply blowing smoke trying to get me or others involved in an irrelevant debate. Just once why don't you try and limit yourself to what others want to talk about.

Josiah Thompson

PI Thompson,

The limitations of publishing color photos in black and white on ordinary paper cannot have escaped you, since there are many such photographs in your own book. When I tilt the page in relation to the light, I can see the outline of the back part of the panel truck in the second (or bottom-most) of the two images. It is neither a moral or a mental lapse to not observe what was not observable due to the transition from color to black-and-white.

But your lapse appears to be of a different character altogether. The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head on page 328 was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? You didn't notice the difference?

I also find it just the least bit curious that the closest you come to sketching the blow-out to the right-front appears to be a sketch of Z313 that occurs on page 102, which seems to me to be very opaque in not indicating that the "blob", which is so conspicuous in the film, was bulging out to the right-front. Since you could be thought to have been obfuscating crucial evidence, where do you come to grips with this inconsistency--then or now?

On pages 99 and 100, you talk about the distribution of brain matter and how some was blown to the front and over Connally, but you also discuss the more substantial distribution to the left-rear, even quoting Officer Hargis, who was hit so hard by the debris that he thought he himself had been shot. Insofar as this was a crucial question that raises significant doubts about the film, why did you not pursue this with determination?

As a matter of logic and evidence, the McClelland diagram by itself appears to be sufficient to impugn the integrity of the film. As I have explained, the film shows the brains bulging out to the right-front, while we know that his brains were blown out to the left-rear. Why have you not climbed aboard the alterationist "band wagon" with this disproof of its authenticity, which is corroborated by the reports of the other Parkland physicians?

In case you harbor any doubts, the only chapter that you have ever praised in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is by your friend, Gary Aguilar, M.D., which makes this very point. So I take it you are not going to repudiate the only chapter of the book you have endorsed. Unfortunately, it makes your reluctance to concede Zapruder film fakery all the more aberrant. I invite you to clarify and correct this rather bizarre lapse in your reasoning.

My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?

James H. Fetzer

"Certainly, I have never before seen what I am now calling the "Rollie Red Truck" sequence at this level of clarity—and so I must direct this question to Thompson: does this exhibit which you included in your original post on this matter (and which has precipitated this debate) come from Zavada himself? Did he go back to his original materials—the actual film he took in Dealey Plaza, and provide you with these pictures? Or is it the case that frames of this clarity are in the actual Zavada report?"

As always, David, I am delighted to oblige. The photos of the red pickup truck in Dealey Plaza showing full flush left penetration are part of Figure 3-12 and are found on page 27 of Roland Zavada's Study 3. I am flabbergasted that you are not aware of it, given your interest in "full flush left penetration" over the years.

Now, let me ask again a question I asked you earlier. First, I want to put the question in context.

Back in 2003, you wrote in TGZFH: "What Doug Horne noticed was that in not one instance -- not a single one -- could Rollie Zavada get the images to go full flush left. It couldn't be done because the camera just isn't designed that way." I take it that the photos from Rollie's study show that what you said Doug Horne noticed is not correct... Rollie's studies did produce instances of images "full flush left." From other postings, I take it that it is both your and Doug Horne's position at present that the Zapruder film shows most of the time or all of the time this full flush left interpenetration while Rollie's studies show this only episodically.

Now I've been told that a researcher sent to Doug Horne film shot in Dealey Plaza with a camera of the same make and model as Zapruder's. I've been told that this film shows continuous (not just episodic) "full flush left image penetration."

Since you are a friend of Doug Horne (my understanding is that he sees you as a kind of mentor), can you tell me if this is correct?

If it is correct, then the movement of your position has to be clear. First, you take the position that other similar cameras to Zapruder's camera cannot produce a single instance ... "not a single one"... of full frame left penetration. When it is shown, that Zavada produced precisely what you said he couldn't produce, your position changes: you now claim that, unlike the Zapruder camera, other cameras of like make and model cannot produce continuous full frame left penetration.

If it's true that someone achieved continuous full frame penetration, what is going to be the next position on this? Is it going to be that the penetration doesn't go quite far enough or what?

I have to say that your shifting position is beginning to look like an extended quibble. But let's get to the bottom of this question about continuous full frame penetration. Did someone really achieve that with a camera of the same make and model?

Josiah Thompson

To Craig Lamson:

You are introducing terminology I never heard of—"edge fog."

Before entering this arena and proposing to discuss this matter, please define your terms, or at least stick to known vocabulary.

What the heck is "edge fog"—other than your own linguistic invention to account for a serious optical discrepancy, one that demands explanation, and which your post does not in fact explain.

Let me address your post in detail:

You write: "David, how can you tell that the image area of the Rollie red truck frame does not extend to the extent that it does in Z?"

DSL Response: I can tell (and anyone can tell) by just looking at it. Very clearly and very obviously, it does not extend beyond the very well defined left edge.

By way of background: Josiah Thompson has done me –and every other person who is studying this matter closely (and certainly anyone who believes in Z film alteration) a very big favor. He has supplied the "rollie red truck" frames at a level of clarity I have never before seen.

Certainly, I have never before seen what I am now calling the "Rollie Red Truck" sequence at this level of clarity—and so I must direct this question to Thompson: does this exhibit which you included in your original post on this matter (and which has precipitated this debate) come from Zavada himself? Did he go back to his original materials—the actual film he took in Dealey Plaza, and provide you with these pictures? Or is it the case that frames of this clarity are in the actual Zavada report?

Whichever is the case, these frames, it seems to me (and unless one is going to invent one's own unique terminology, as Lamson has done here) prove important evidence that the left margin of the frame of a Zapruder-type camera does NOT permit image to appear beyond the left-most edge of the frame—in start contrast to what we see in the Zapruder film frames that supposedly come from a "camera original" film.

As for you, Craig Lamson: Inventing your own terminology, calling the argument "silly," and invoking "normal sample variation" does not answer, much less address the fundamental question. To repeat: how can Clint Hill be seen—to the left of the "intersprocket area", when test films on a Zapruder type camera used by Zavada show a clearly defined left edge, one created by the camera mechanism itself, and beyond which no photo image can (or should) appear?

DSL

1:55 PM; PST

Los Angeles, CA.

"BRAVO Ray... and your conclusion does not make not one wit of difference if I think, or, you think the Z-film is altered. The Z-film debate is and for recent years a canard -- fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls... A now needless debate that stymies progress..."

I couldn't agree with you more, David. All of this terrain has been covered over and over again while the interesting work on the Kennedy assassination stands apart from it. It is becoming more and more clear that there is a kind of exact correspondence between the acoustics map of the assassination and the map of the assassination provided by the Zapruder film. A sound impulse on the Dallas police channel is matched by something happening on the Zapruder film... some sign of a bullet hit in the car or some sign of a shot's sound making Zapruder jerk the camera (and, in many cases, both). The overall picture is of five shots in all, one from the stockade fence, the rest from the north end of Elm Street. From what I've been reading, this picture of what happened in Dealey Plaza is edging ever closer to proof.

So let's ask this question: If it can be proven that the extant Zapruder film matches in content the sound impulses appearing on the Dallas police dictabelt, doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film? Let's also ask a second question: No discrepancy between the extant Zapruder film and any other film or photo taken in Dealey Plaza has ever been shown. Doesn't that say something about the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film?

The endless debate about Z-film authenticity is not just (as you put it) "fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls." Rather it distracts from productive research that will use the Zapruder film as an incalculably important resource in proving that a shot was fired from the right front of the limousine.

It's a pleasure to agree with you about something, David.

Josiah Thompson

There are enormous contradictions between the medical evidence and what we find in the film, which seem to have passed you by. I have no idea what you are about, but be so kind as to explain the "blob" of brains bulging forward, the missing right-front cranial mass from the x-rays,.......

At the 2003 Duquesne conference I asked the forensic pathology panel if they agreed that only a new autopsy would resolve all the conflicts in the medical evidence, and none of these distinguished experts disagreed. The original autopsy was performed by amateurs, and until a new autopsy is performed, I am unable to give definitive answers on the wounds to JFK's body. We do know however that an entry wound in JFK's throat was noted at parkland hospital, and we also know that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was driven backward by a bullet in the brain, apparently fired from the right front.

There have been various efforts to rationalize the Head Snap and make it seem consistent with a shot from behind, but none of these efforts (jet effect, neuro) are remotely persuasive, and the fact remains that Malcolm Perry was quite certain that the throat wound was an entry. So my view for now is that JFK was shot twice from the front, and that view may be modified depending on the findings of a new autopsy or other unassailable source.

The Zapruder film is entirely consistent with JFK being struck twice from the front, and I submit that trying to have the Z-film declared a fake does nothing to resolve the problems with the autopsy.

BRAVO Ray... and your conclusion does not make not one wit of difference if I think, or, you think the Z-film is altered. The Z-film debate is and for recent years a canard -- fodder and diversion for nutter-trolls... A now needless debate that stymies progress...

David,

I'm going to let Craig and Duncan deal with the point that you make. My knowledge of film and filmmaking is quite limited so anything I might say is probably not worth much, probatively speaking.

From the perspective of ten or fifteen years we can all agree it might have been better if Rollie Zavada had been able to get hold of Zapruder's camera and shoot a few rolls through it. If so, we wouldn't have all these questions we now have. But that didn't happen. So we're stuck with what we've got... several cameras of like make and model that Rollie experimented with and the report that someone else shot some film through a similar camera in Dealey Plaza and got continuous full flush left intersprocket image penetration. Remember I asked if you knew anything about that. Do you?

Rollie has a section in Study 4 called "Recognized Image Anomalies in the Zapruder Original Film." A subsection of this section he titles, "Image Penetration Between the Perforations." He points out that "the characteristics and depth of the image penetration... is directly related to the effective image area from the exit window of the Varamat lens, the focal length of lens and in some cases the aperture setting." I would guess everyone would agree that Rollie is correct about this. The next question is whether small differences in lens manufacture or mechanical functioning can account for the small differences between Zapruder camera image penetration and image penetration in like cameras.

Josiah Thompson

Tink,

For many years, I took an assortment of science courses in which the importance of "what happens at the boundary" was emphasized. Although I am not claiming the analogy to be exact, the "intersprocket area" of the Zapruder film is of critical importance because it may contain optical evidence that the Zapruder film in evidence is not a camera original.

There is really no room--or at least, very little room (in my opinion)--for there to be any significant difference between what the frames of the Zapruder film show, and what a test film made through Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera show (or a similar "store bought" camera, same make and model, etc.) if we are to believe that the Zapruder film in evidence is really "camera original."

I just took a look through Costella's "combined edit" and call your attention to frames 235-244. In frame after frame, there is not only "full penetration" of the intersprocket area, but the image even extends FURTHER than the left margin. (Just focus on the image of SS Agent Clint Hill, who is often either partially, or wholly, to the left of the left margin). That, in my opinion, is a mechanical impossibility if the Z film that contains these frames was actually shot in Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera.

Now, let's take a look at "Rollie's red truck"--the frames which you and Rollie Zavada seem to believe show "full penetration."

Just compare them to the Zapruder frames shown in the Costella Combined Edit.

Clearly, they are different. No part of the image in the "Rollie's red truck" frame extends past the left margin.

I have made a JPEG of each of these frames, and have placed one above the other for easy viewing. I will try to "upload" that exhibit into this post. Hopefully it will work.

What happens "at the boundary" really IS important in sciene, and that lesson can be applied in this case. These films SHOULD look the same. There are marked differences. If I am correct about this, then these frames which show "beyond full penetration" (and I don't care if it is 3% or 5%) is enough to prove that the Zapruder film in evidence was not made in Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera.

Your comments?