Josiah Thompson

Hello David, It’s nice to be talking with you again. First off, I never claimed you “circled a clean and undamaged part of the windshield” and labeled it “the apparent through and through hole in the windshield.” Fetzer did that and I said so with great care. I pointed out that using the red pickup photo to demonstrate that Rollie’s tests did not show “full inter-sprocket image penetration” when that was precisely what it did show was simply outrageous. I pointed out that “for all I know, this was done without either Horne’s or Lifton’s knowledge and permission.” I went on to point out that “similar cases occur in other Fetzer books” and used the non-existent but mislabeled hole in the windshield in MIDP as a salient example. You simply didn’t read what I wrote. Now let’s cut to the chase. In TGZFH you write, “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.” (397) Then you publish shots from three of Rollie’s studies with the following reference in the text: “Note that in none of the tests shown here could he [Zavada] replicate the continuous ‘full flush left’ phenomenon seen on the previous two pages.” One of the three photos.... the one with red pickup truck... exhibits the “full flush left phenomenon” but you can’t see it because the photo is so degraded. So how did this happen? As pointed out above, this sort of thing is not completely foreign to Fetzer’s other books. But he said you did it. However, over the years I’ve always found you to be a straight shooter. If you say a witness said something, ultimately it will turn out that the witness said it. You say in your reply: “I never deliberately published anything in "degraded" form. I took the photos that were available in the Zavada report, as I received it, and as reproduced on a modern photo copy machine. Should it turn out that, when reproduced in color, the frames in Zavada’s test shot showing a red truck extends out to the left, then so be it.” I understand you here to mean you never saw the sequence of frames with the red truck in color and hence never knew that it showed the “full flush left phenomenon.” Is this your point? If it is, cool. I will look on what happened as not an instance of dishonest research but simply as an unfortunate accident. Furthermore, I’ll be happy that you were able to clear it up for me. So let’s move on to the point at issue... “full inter-sprocket image penetration.” I take it that both you and Doug Horne now understand that Rollie’s studies produced this “intermittently” while the Zapruder film does it all the time or almost all the time. So we’re agreed on that. I have been told that a researcher in Dallas produced “full inter-sprocket image penetration” not just “intermittently” but “continuously” while filming in Dealey Plaza with a camera like Zapruder’s. I’d been told that this researcher actually sent his film to Doug Horne. Do you know anything about all this? Let’s say this is all true. Then doesn’t “full inter-sprocket image penetration” pretty much disappear as significant of anything. If some examples of that make and model produce it intermittently and if one camera of the same make and model is shown to do it continuously, then doesn’t this effect turn out to be simply a function of variations in the camera mechanism interacting with exposure setting, wide angle or telephoto setting and the actual lighting of the scene? Wouldn’t what you call “beyond full flush left” be also simply a function of the above? I enjoyed our talk on the phone the other day. If you think of it, could you give me a reference for the first time Lee Bowers ever mentioned the two men behind the stockade fence? Thanks a bunch. Tink

Professor Fetzer, You write: "I find it curious that you would accept John Costella's rejection of the "full flush left" argument to be persuasive when you have rejected his proofs that the film is a fabrication. I am starting to get the impression that you accept the views of those with whom you agree and reject the views of those with whom you disagree REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE. If you are going to accept the rejection of the "full flush left" argument BECAUSE IT IS JOHN'S OPINION, you ought to accept his conclusion that the film is a fabrication. But we are discovering that consistency, methodological or otherwise, is not your strong suit. I would have thought you would at least wait to hear David Lifton's response." What I said to John Costella was: "Your doubts about the 'full flush left' argument appear to have been vindicated." Why? Because in the intervening years not even Horne backs the theory offered in 2003. It's just incredibly silly to read what I say as meaning I back the rejection of this argument because John Costella doubts it. To go from what I said, to what you interpreted me to say is what philosophers used to call either a "howler" or a "non-sequitor." You used to pay attention to such things. 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. Is the idea 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 called on 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. Why don't you just once try to deal with the factual points brought up in a thread?! Josiah Thompson

Mr. Hagerman, Thank you for passing on your memories of reading Six Seconds with your grandfather. It's been that long since the book came out? Wow! I don't buy at all the tribal classification of researchers on the Kennedy assassination. You are either a "LN" or a "CT," an "alterationist" or a "non-alterationist." It seems to me we are all just people with our own long experiences of the world who are certainly capable of evaluating a claim if someone makes it. This is one reason why I like enormously the position of Craig Lamson. He couldn't care less whether Oswald did it alone or it was carried out by a battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division. He knows photography and that's what he'll talk about. Over time you end up trusting that kind of stubborn simplicity. At least I do. Josiah Thompson Tink First of all my grandfathers favorite book on the assassination is "Six Seconds In Dallas" he read his copy of your book one time back when it came out, when he handed it down to me back in 1988 I read it, at that time my grandpa also had the paperback version with highlights and notes that he passed down to me as well (along with 150+ other assassination books) so I could keep the hardcover in mint condition and read the paperback as much as I wanted. So I want to thank you for writing a great book that not only my grandpa loves but I love as well, we spent 100s of hours going over the assassination and your book was a major topic for us including the two head shot theory (that you now claim was wrong, I still think you are right about that and would love to talk to you about why you changed your mind) I hold you book as one of the centerpieces of my collection (along wih my signed copy of "Forgive My Grief vol1" by Penn Jones and my signed copy of "Post Mortem" by Harold Weisberg who signed them for my grandpa) It would be an honor if you would one day sign my hardcover copy of SSID Now that thats out of the way, I am reading Doug Hornes vol 4 right now, and I must say that not only does Doug validate David Liftons theory in "Best Evidence" but also does the same for Fetzers "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" both of those books I agree with 100% and back them up I have believed in alteration since reading "Bloody Treason" back in 1997 and countinued to believe and study all three of Fetzers books ending with the amazing TGZFH I must say that your post has a bit of fear behind it, with the history of you and fetzer I must say that Dougs books are going to convince alot of researchers that the Z-film was altered Before you put me down like your crew member Craig remember this, I have nothing but respect for you and your work Tink, and like I said I still agree with most of SSID and use a major theory in your book as part of my overall view on the assassination However with regards to Fetzer and alteration I belive that you are wrong Again Tink thanks for putting out a great book and being one of the first researchers on the assassination, I hope we can talk in depth about the two head shot theory and why you dont back that up anymore as well as your thoughts on alteration Dean

Professor Fetzer, Your answer, then, is, "The other guy did it!" Fine, you just edit books. You bear no responsibility for visual effects in your books that trick the reader. As for the McClelland quote in Six Seconds, what about it? It is part of a chapter that marshals many discriptions of the head would to point out there is a difference between what was observed at Parkland and what the autopsy records show. Back then, that was sort of a new point to make. I am in no way obliged to have done forty some years ago what you deem is appropriate. Just more distraction, eh? Josiah Thompson

Mr. Fokes, I was using "channeling" in what I hoped might be a humorous way to say "speaking for." I certainly did not mean "channeling" in the technical sense and I am sorry if I misled you. I think it is relevant to point out that Lifton and Fetzer were using a stronger version of the "full flesh left" argument back in 2003 when Lifton could write: "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." (TGZFH, P. 397). From what you say, Doug Horne is no longer contending this but admitting that other cameras can achieve "full flush left image penetration" from time to time. I have also heard that another researcher took a camera like Zapruder's to Dealey Plaza and ended up with film showing consistent "full flush left image penetration." I don't know the researcher's name but I was told he sent the film to Doug Horne. Do you know anything about this? Once again, can I substitute "speaking for" for "channeling?" Josiah Thompson Horne writes: <quote on> In the Spring of 1999 I discovered an apparently serious inconsistency between the degree of intersprocket penetration on the extant film in the Archives (which was shot at full zoom setting), and the degree of intersprocket penetration in the test film shot at full zoom by Rollie Zavada in identical-model cameras. To make a long story short, I discovered that the degree of intersprocket penetration on the extant film was consistently 'full flush left,' or all the way from the projected image frame out to the full left-hand margin of each sprocket hole -- whereas the degree of intersprocket penetration on the test film shot by Zavada in the same make and model of Bell and Howell movie camera either did not go fully to the left of the intersprocket area at all - OR IN SOME CASES WHERE IT DID, it only occurred intermittently, and did not occur in every single frame as it does in the extant film in the Archives. <quote off> INSIDE THE ARRB, p. 1282 I am surprised you didn't wait until you had received Horne's book. Why write two posts when you could write one? Lets leave the topic of channeling to psychics. Regards, Peter Fokes, Toronto It would be nice to be able to talk about these things without bringing in Prof. Fetzer and David Lifton but I guess that's impossible. Horne states quite clearly that "in some cases" the ZAVADA test film did go full flush left but only "intermittently," and "not in every single frame as it does in the extant film in the Archives." You can discuss Horne's book without the distraction of Thompson's bizarre topic of channeling. As he stated: "Doug Horne had nothing to do with the publication of this claim by Lifton and Fetzer." Just ignore this thread. When Thompson HAS read Horne's book, perhaps he will start a topic on Horne's argument rather than the claims of two other people! But then again, his topic was really not the argument in Horne's book at all. Regards, Peter Fokes

Thanks John Costella, You are absolutely correct. David Lifton referred to the secret Kodak plant as "Eagle Eye Works" at the Lancer 1998 conference. Your 2003 doubts about the "full flush left" argument would appear to have been vindicated. Back then, David Lifton was claiming that no other camera of the same make and model could possibly produce "full flush left image penetration." Apparently, Doug Horne now admits that this is not true while holding that other cameras only "intermittently" achieve "full flush left image penetration." I am told that another researcher sent Doug Horne film taken in Dallas from a camera of the same make and model as Zapruder's that shows "consistent" not "intermittent" "full frame left image penetration." If so, the "full flush left" argument would seem to be a dead puppy. I look forward to reading what you have to say about Horne's latest claims. Josiah Thompson

Professor Fetzer, Okay, I'll ask the question again. You published a photo taken by Zavada as part of one of his studies. The photo clearly shows "full flush left image penetration." You published the photo in degraded form where it is impossible to see that it clearly demonstrates "full flush left image penetration." Referring to this photo, the text states: "Note that in none of the tests (shown here) could he [that is, Zavada] replicate the continuous 'full flush left' phenomenon seen on the previous two pages..." (TGZFW, p.400). In short, do you believe it is honest scholarship to publish a photo in such degraded form that no one can see it actually proves the opposite of what you say it proves? Josiah Thompson

Professor Fetzer, Just one simple, direct question.... The photo you published from Zavada's report shows a red pickup truck in Dealey Plaza. It clearly shows "full flush left image penetration" (see image provided in thread). Why did you publish it in degraded form along with a caption saying it proved the opposite? Josiah Thompson Next is the published Fetzer/Lifton’s version of a test shot by Zavada showing a truck in Dealey Plaza: Next is the actual photo as it appears in Figure 3-12 of Zavada’s Study 3:

FETZER AND LIFTON CHANNEL DOUG HORNE: TRULY OR FALSELY? We first heard of “Hawkeyeworks” at the 1998 Lancer Conference. Since that time, NPIC, Doug Horne’s interviews with Ben Hunter and Homer McMahon and associated details have become a staple of Fetzer’s series of books on the assassination. His Great Zapruder Film Hoax, published in 2003, featured a long article by David Lifton entitled, “Pig on a Leash.” Written in a kind of jaunty prose much more enjoyable to read than the usual assassination fare, this article laid out in detail Lifon’s long history with the film and his equally long attempt to show it was faked-up. Surprisingly, in a piece that runs on for 117 pages of small print, Lifton offers exactly one fact to show the Zapruder film has been altered. This fact, says Lifton, came to his attention through Doug Horne. Horne had frequent contact with Roland Zavada as Zavada carried out his work for the AARB. According to Lifton, Horne explained to him that Zavada had come upon one significant indication that the Zapruder film was faked-up and never admitted this in his final report. According to Lifton, this signal indication of Zapruder fakery was what he called “the full flush left problem.” Here is how Lifton explained it in the first printing of his article: "This point is crucial: in the case of the supposed camera original, there is not just “some image” in the sprocket hole area (the image doesn’t just “bleed over” a little bit); rather, the image goes all the way to the left! To the left margin of the film! That this is so can clearly be seen even on the frames of the Zapruder film published in Volume 18 of the 26 Volumes. But is that possible? Can the Zapruder lens do that? Can it put an image on the film that is full flush left? In connection with his ARRB work, Zavada purchased some half dozen cameras at garage sales, he took them apart, he put them back together. The man really worked hard on a wide variety of problems and issues. And then he went to Dallas and took test shots, putting his wife in Dealey Plaza, and exposed all sorts of scenes at a variety of settings. Then these test pictures – these test shots – went into an appendix in the final report, which was delivered within hours of the ARRB going out of existence. A report that was supposed to 'explain the anomalies.' 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. " (TGZFH, p. 397) In the second printing, Lifton explained it this way: "Turning to Figures 4-1 and 4-2 [of the Zavada Report], the Zapruder frames, the Zapruder frames Rollie had photographed at the National Archives, it was clear that these frames were out full flush left. All the way to the left. Then Doug compared those with the test shots Rollie made in Dealey Plaza from Zapruder’s perch with one of his Zapruder-type cameras. One strip showed [his] wife standing in the street, another showed a red truck passing through. Another test shot, his figure 4-26, showed his wife standing in front of their garage in Rochester. In each case, Rollie varied the telephoto setting and, as the zoom increased, the left margin moved somewhat to the left. But, contrary to what Rollie had told me, there was quite a problem. The test frames did not appear similar to those from the original Zapruder film. It was a simple matter of geometry: Rollie’s clearly did not go consistently full flush left." (TGZFH, p.97) To this charge of cover-up, Rollie Zavada responded in his usual calm, mild way. As Lifton points out, “Zavada replied with a statement, posted on the Internet. He claimed his test shots proved the case – that his test shots proved full penetration of the intersprocket area...(TGZFH, p. 402). Lifton and Fetzer must have felt that their proof in this area was wanting. In the second printing of TGZFH, they added photos purporting to show Zavada’s test shots. In the text under the test shots, appears this claim: “Note that in none of the tests (shown here) could he [Zavada] replicate the continuous ‘full flush left’ phenomenon seen on the previous two pages” (TGZFH, p. 400). So let’s see if what Fetzer and Lifton (channeling Horne) say is correct. Is it true or false that using other cameras of the same make and model Zavada was unable to produce “full flush left penetration?” First, here is a shot of several frames from the Zapruder film used by Zavada as “Figure 4-2" and commented upon by Lifton/Horne: Next is the published Fetzer/Lifton’s version of a test shot by Zavada showing a truck in Dealey Plaza: Next is the actual photo as it appears in Figure 3-12 of Zavada’s Study 3: Finally, here is another test shot by Zavada using a camera of the same make and model as Zapruder’s. Note that this test shot also shows “full flush left penetration.” I want to point out that I wasn’t swift enough to get all this straight. It was Rollie Zavada back in 2003 who called my attention to this. With respect to this later test shot he wrote on a Post-It: “Note full intersprocket image penetration.” With respect to the former test shot of the pickup truck in Dealey Plaza,"[/i] he wrote on a Post-It: “Note: Full inter-sprocket image penetration of truck scene taken in Dallas. Doug Horne missed this in my report!” I want to make two things clear. (1) Doug Horne had nothing to do with the publication of this claim by Lifton and Fetzer. When Horne’s book arrives, I look forward to seeing whether this earlier bogus claim remains in any way a part of his discussion of the Zapruder film. (2) What Fetzer and perhaps Lifton did here is simply outrageous. They took one of Rollie Zavada’s test shots. They published it in degraded form and used that form to claim it showed the opposite of what it does show! For all I know, this was done without either Horne’s or Lifton’s knowledge and permission. Similar cases occur in other Fetzer books. In Murder in Dealey Plaza, he circled a clean and undamaged part of the limousine windshield and labeled it, “The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” In The 9/11 Conspiracy, he publishes a photo of World Trade Center 7 with a caption that states, “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” The only problem is that the photo was taken in 1997 and the “modest fire at street level” is an orange Calder statue installed on the mezzanine level of the building! Josiah Thompson

I’ve been scratching my head trying to figure out what is new in this discussion of Doug Horne’s interviews at NPIC. We know from the Phillips receipt that the Secret Service received a first-generation copy of the Zapruder film in Dallas at 9:30 PM on Friday, November 22nd. We also know that that copy was immediately flown to Washington, D.C. It would be natural for the Secret Service to both make additional copies in Washington and send an agent over to NPIC with the photo material. The first generation copy flown to Washington would have had no images in the intersprocket area. What we know independently comports well with what Ben Hunter tells us. He worked on the film at NPIC most likely on Saturday, November 23rd. The film he worked on had no intersprocket images and hence was a copy not the original. It showed what the published the Zapruder film shows. The film was brought to NPIC by a Secret Service agent but the name “Bill Smith” does not ring a bell for him as the name of the agent. He assumed the film was processed by Kodak in Rochester but did not recall being told this explicitly. Still, I look forward to reading what Doug Horne has to say. What he has to say about the medical evidence will be especially intriguing. I’ve ordered all five parts of his work. Here are the relevant parts of Doug Horne’s interview reports. They’ve been around for about ten years: Meeting Report Document’s Author: Doug Horne Date Created: 06/18/97 Date of Meeting: 06/17/97 Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter interviewed by Doug Horne, Jeremy Gunn, Dave Montague and Michelle Combs He recalled that he and Homer McMahon worked with the Zapruder film very shortly after the assassination in 1963, just 2 or 3 days afterwards. At another point, he said it may have been the next day (Saturday) or Sunday, November 24, and he thought it was prior to the funeral of President Kennedy. He recalled that no one else from the NPIC (other than he and Homer McMahon) was in the building, which means it was almost certainly the weekend of the assassination; he also recalled that he had to drive from home to do this job, and that he was not already at work when the project was assigned. His memories of film content were limited to seeing a skull explosion, bone fragments and Jackie crawling on the trunk of the car. Apparently to those involved that night the film was only referred to as a “home movie,” but he seemed convinced that it was the Zapruder film based on subsequent viewings of it over the years... His impression is that the film was probably 16 mm. format, but was not of an double-8mm. film. It was his strong impression that they were working with the original, but when asked whether there were images present between the sprocket holes, he said that it was his reasonably strong impression today that there were no such images present between the sprocket holes in the film he examined at NPIC. At one point, he described the film as “not high resolution.” Meeting Report Document Author: Doug Horne Date Created: 8/14/97 Date of Meeting: 8/14/97 Meeting: Morgan Bennett Hunter, Homer McMahon, Doug Horne and Jim Goslee I asked both men if they still recalled that their occurred prior to the President’s funeral, and they both emphatically said yes. Mr. McMahon said he believes they performed their work the night of the same day the President was assassinated, and Bennett Hunter said he was of the opinion they did their work on the second night after the assassination (i.e. Saturday night). Homer McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester, and the copies of it were made in Rochester also, and he personally watched one of those copies projected at least 10 times that night prior to making the internegatives of selected frames. Mr. Hunter agreed that it seemed very likely to him that the copies of the motion picture film would “probably have been made at Rochester,” but did not independently recall that himself. Homer McMahon recalled that Captain Sands was a Navy Captain who was one of the duty officers at NPIC; Bennett Hunter never did recall the name “Bill Smith” (the Secret Service agent remembered by McMahon), even after discussing the matter with McMahon. Josiah Thompson

Since you don't think that the new information we provided pretty much settles the question as to whether there was a through and through hole in the windshield, maybe you'd like to run through the extant evidence and let us know why you think this question is still alive and kicking? Josiah Thompson

A question for you Pamela... We're doing some work on Evalea Glanges. It's pretty obvious that she ended up as an M.D. and not an R.N. However, I was wondering why you wrote that she was a "nursing student." Did someone tell you that or did you read it somewhere? It would be useful for us to know as we learn more and more about her. Could you oblige us? Thanks. Josiah Thompson Thanks, Don. As you may know, Fetzer's 'spiral nebulae' idea and the Weldon theory that was spawned from it have been a bete noir of mine for over ten years. I was booted off the DellaRosa forum (from which the article was generated) for butting heads with Fetzer over this -- as I recall, the statement that incurred the greatest outrage was my saying that it was the lack of damage to the limo, not extent of damage to the limo, that proved a conspiracy. So, as you can imagine, I am pleased to see that this issue is being picked up and run with by others who have access to that forum and are able to stand up to Fetzer's bullying. However, any appeal to authority is weak and in this case particularly ineffective imo.

You wrote: "Frazier's notes etc are not the issue. Your 'publishing' them comes after they have been available on my site and Anthony Marsh's for over 10 years, also part of my 98 NID presentation and "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE." I went to Anthony Marsh's site, "The Puzzle Palace." I couldn't find any thing there specifically about the windshiel. One menu item was "Documents (CIA, FBI, Warren Commission, HSCA, ARRB, etc)". I tried "FBI". There were three ddocuments listed. Two had nothing to do with the windshield and were not availiable. The third was "FBI worksheet from examination of limousine on 11/22/63 at 1:00 AM." It was cut off a bit on the right but was the same diagram of the limousine and windshield that was among those we got from John Hunt and used in our article. So you were right with respect to one of Hunt's documents. I can't find any of Frazier's notes on your web site. Yet you say "they have been available on my web site... for over ten years." I asked you for a URL but you did not provide one. Surely, if it is on your web site you can tell us where it is. You stay oddly mum about Jerry Logan's find at the archives with respect to Agent Taylor. Were you aware of Taylor's viewing of the windshield and his affidavit? Josiah Thompson Thanks, Don. As you may know, Fetzer's 'spiral nebulae' idea and the Weldon theory that was spawned from it have been a bete noir of mine for over ten years. I was booted off the DellaRosa forum (from which the article was generated) for butting heads with Fetzer over this -- as I recall, the statement that incurred the greatest outrage was my saying that it was the lack of damage to the limo, not extent of damage to the limo, that proved a conspiracy. So, as you can imagine, I am pleased to see that this issue is being picked up and run with by others who have access to that forum and are able to stand up to Fetzer's bullying. However, any appeal to authority is weak and in this case particularly ineffective imo.

PB:You are missing the point. Frazier's notes etc are not the issue. Your 'publishing' them comes after they have been available on my site and Anthony Marsh's for over 10 years, also part of my 98 NID presentation and "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE. There is nothing new there that I can see. Perhaps the question is now what is 'new to you'? It would save us some searching if you could provide the url's where Frazier's notes were published before. Would you be so kind as to do that? Thanks Josiah Thompson

Craig Lamson apologized about a week ago for, in his words, "hijacking your thread." I thought it would stop. It didn't so I expressed my unhappiness with the "hijacking." What's the matter with that? I thought you might be appreciative of the fact that material from Jerry Logan and John Hunt took the discussion of this issue much further. There's something waspish about your criticism. First, you complain that someone else posted our piece. The answer to this was that the photos caused a problem; we couldn't manage it ourselves. Then you complain in generalities about our piece being simply an argument from "authority." My answer. Sure, it's a piece based on "authority"... the "authority" of evidence. No answer from you. Now you object to me complaining that the thread got hijacked... which it did. You were referenced in our piece. We pointed out that you described Evalea Glanges as "a nursing student at Parkland Hospital." Is that true? Doug Weldon interviewied her in 1999 and said she was in 1963 a second-year medical student at Southwestern Medical School and later became Chairperson of the Department of Surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Forth Worth. Could you clear up the confusion? Was Evalea Glanges a "nursing student" or a "medical student" in 1963 at Parkland Hospital? Josiah Thompson Varnell call this area he has marked in red as a "sideways ease". Varnell also claines this area is an "INDENTATION" All of which begs the question: How does the sunlight, coming from above, in front of and to the left, place this entire "indentation" (which also includes the area where the jacket collar should be see in direct sunlight) in shadow in a direct violation of the properties of light and shadow? The "gentle readers" must surely want to know. With all due respect, although one can control posting an article or not, how can one then claim the right to control the thread? Are you going to try to control the discussion on your piece on other forums too? This piece is mainly a rehash of 10-year-old information brought to the community by those other than yourself, me being one of them, who also worked very hard on their presentation. The windshield hole is discussed regularly on this forum and frequently digresses into other areas. Why take it personally?

I just don't think this is fair. Barb, Jerry and I put a lot of work into our paper. Craig Lamson and Cliff Varnell hi-jacked our thread and are continuing an argument that has literally NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR THREAD. If you guys want to continue an argument that seems interminable, leave us alone and start your own thread. Josiah Thompson Varnell call this area he has marked in red as a "sideways ease". Varnell also claines this area is an "INDENTATION" All of which begs the question: How does the sunlight, coming from above, in front of and to the left, place this entire "indentation" (which also includes the area where the jacket collar should be see in direct sunlight) in shadow in a direct violation of the properties of light and shadow? The "gentle readers" must surely want to know.

"The best we can do is to weigh and evaluate what has come to light and decide for ourselves what to think -- not try an appeal to authority and make demands that others agree with us because 'we are right.' Everyone just goes around in circles. Oh wait, that is what has happened, isn't it?" Pamela McElwain-Brown has claimed several times that we use an argument based on “authority.” I don’t really know what she means by this. She may mean that in publishing the notes of Frazier and his testimony we are relying on an “argument from authority” –– that is, the forensic examination of the limousine and its windshield by the FBI forensic team. Does she mean that this evidence should be ignored because it comes from “the government?” If so, then we should fold our tents and creep away since a great part of the evidence in the case comes from “the government.” Or she may mean that we are relying upon the “authority” of evidence. If this is what she means, then I would certainly agree with her. We have shown that there is no damage to the windshield in the Altgens photo taken at Z-255 but that damage is seen in the second Altgens photo taken a few seconds later. The location and general character of this damage is next seen in a photo taken at Parkland Hospital and finally in a photo of the windshield taken by Frazier’s forensic team at approximately 1:30 AM on November 23rd in the White House garage. Frazier’s contemporaneous notes of his examination match the photos shown and he testified under oath on the basis of this examination. We also quoted from Rowley’s letter to Rankin where descriptions of the non-puncture quality of the windshield damage is attested to by various agents. Richard Dudman and SS Agent Charles Taylor gave descriptions of the windshield that seemed to indicate they had seen a through-and-through hole. These are eminently credible witnesses and what they say should be taken seriously. However, both these witnesses denied later having seen a through-and-through hole in the windshield. This leaves the only evidence of a through-and-through hole to lie in the reports of Freeman, Stavis, Glanges and Principe. We weighed these reports in the balance and found them wanting. We said in our paper: "It is not necessary to underline the lack of probative significance to be attached to the fragmentary reports of Freeman, Stavis and Glanges. Much of the windshield argument in the past has been based upon taking the absolute statements of casual observers like Freeman, Stavis and Glanges at face value and finding a contradiction between those statements and the reports of professional examiners. Of even less probative significance is the claim of a purported witness like Nick Principe who surfaces thirty-five years after the event on a conspiracy web site with a story contradicted by indisputable facts." We did not ignore witness reports as Pamela McElwaine-Brown alleges. We weighed the conflict in witness reports and resolved it on the basis of which reports were more believable. This is what anyone attempting to reconstruct an historical event must do. What we have tried to do is what any professional historian would do in looking at this question. If Pamela McElwaine-Brown believes we have failed in this task, she should do us the favor of stating how we have failed rather than lodging general criticisms with no stuffing to them. Josiah Thompson With all due respect, almost nothing in this case is 'unimpeachable'. You are entitled to your opinion, as Pat is to his. Unimpeachable: 1. Difficult or impossible to impeach: 2. Beyond reproach; blameless: 3. Beyond doubt; unquestionable: Sorry, I'm not offering opinion, just plain hard fact. The laws of nature as they apply to light and shadow are truly unimpeachable. Thats the facts...pure and simple. Pat's mistaken "opinion" is proven wrong by the properties of light and shadow. That too is uninpeachable. Of course I have no problem if someone wants to try, in fact I encourage it. lets just hope they have a better grasp of light and shadow than the childish Clif Varnell. Want few other unimpeachable pieces of work...with all due respect of course ( which we all know means the exact opposite) www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm www.craig lamson.com.apollo.htm. Unimpeachable is not hard at all... Once again, in this situation where everything could have been simple, nothing is absolute. The best we can do is to weigh and evaluate what has come to light and decide for ourselves what to think -- not try an appeal to authority and make demands that others agree with us because 'we are right.' Everyone just goes around in circles. Oh wait, that is what has happened, isn't it?

Over on Lancer, Robin Unger posted two enlargements of photos from that we used in our study. They are clearer than what we posted and show windshield damage at Parkland Hospital and blood spots on windshield from a photo taken early on the morning of November 23rd. I thought you might like to see them. Hello Bernice, As always, you present an amazing collection of photos. Since we're testing Glanges credibility the most interesting photos would be those showing the limousine with its top completely on because, according to her, the limo sped off almost immediately after she leaned on it and commented on the hole. In the existing photos taken after the top was fully in place it's hard to see how two people got to the front of the limo and leaned on it. It's also hard to understand why Kinney, Hickey and Kellerman wouldn't have immediately ordered someone leaning on the car to get back. Instead, they stand by while Glanges and her friend are leaning on the the car examining the windshield - then the Secret Service agents jump in the car and race off without a word? And in that time frame how exactly did Kinney, Hickey and Kellerman know that a hole in the windshield would be a bad thing? And, if somehow they did know it would be a bad thing for people to see a hole in the windshield, then why did they let anyone get close to the car? Glanges said she almost had her hand pulled off by the unexpected force and violence of the limousine pulling away - it looks like that would have been really hard on the people standing behind the car. The photo you have showing the officer with the bubble top and the negative of that photo is very interesting. Do you have that negative or do you know the source of the photo? Best regards to you, Jerry

I'd love to have a "collegial discussion" but I don't want to talk about the back wound and its position. Maybe sometime I will. But not now. Okay? Josiah Thompson I'm not questioning "why" you did the study -- I'm challenging your assertions concerning the issue's importance. "The windshield" is NOT an important issue. We already know that JFK was struck from the front. Do you wish to share a collegial discussion on this issue, Dr. Thompson? It wouldn't be the first friendly, collegial discussion we've shared. Your co-author Barb Junkkarinen would rather have a root canal than discuss her high-back-wound/throat-exit-wound position. Indeed. Chief among these non-facts is the readily debunked claim that JFK's back wound was higher than T3, and that the throat wound was an exit. The fact that JFK's back wound can be readily proven at T3 renders discussions of the windshield, the police dictabelt, and the NAA moot, barely foot-note worthy exercises. There is direct physical evidence of the T3 back wound (clothing defects, Dealey Plaza photos showing the jacket dropping). There is contemporaneous, properly prepared documentation of the T3 back wound (Burkley's death certificate and the autopsy face sheet). More than a dozen people at Bethesda got a close-up, prolonged view of the back wound and all of them consistently describe it as being at T3 or lower. Barb J, John Hunt, Stu Wexler and a cast of dozens claim that JFK's back wound was at least two inches higher -- but none of them will dare attempt to make fact-based argument for same. They don't have an argument, but they cling to their hide-bound beliefs nonetheless and make absurd statements like the ones in your article. Tell me again -- who is behaving like a religious zealot in this instance?

You wrote: "Now, we are told that Dudman, Ellis and co. were "mistaken" about seeing a hole in the windshield." You didn't read what we wrote carefully enough. We pointed out with a citation that within a week of the assassination Richard Dudman told a family friend that he never saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. We didn't say Dudman was mistaken. We pointed out that he told someone else he never saw such a through-and-through hole. Then we pointed out that another credible witness to the purported hole in the windshield said he did not see any through-and-through hole. Then we published for the first time Frazier's notes when he examined the windshield starting a little after 1:00 AM on the morning of November 23rd. Then we pointed out that even David Lifton doesn't believe the spurious "spiral nebula" claim of a through-and-through hole in the windshield. As we pointed out, the consequence of this in-depth study is that there is no credible evidence of a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Why did we do this study? Because facts are important and a number of non-facts have begun to clutter up the fact pattern in this case. Apparently, you are more concerned with adherence to some kind of orthodoxy. Such a concern may be useful in religious circles but has no place in the unearthing of history, a fact-based activity. Josiah Thompson

Thanks Raymond. Since Frazier described a lead smear being removed from the interior surface of the windshield, it is clear that the hit on the windshield came from the rear was either from a totally lead bullet or a fragment from a military jacketed round. Since a lead bullet hitting the interior surface of the windshield would have penetrated it, we can be pretty sure we are dealing with a fragment hit. As we all remember, two large fragments from an M-C 6.5 mm bullet (firearms IDed as having been fired in Oswald's rifle) were found in the front seat of the limousine. In all probability, then, the windshield hit probably was incurred by one of those fragments. Of special interest to me was the report from Frazier's forensic team that brain and blood debris extended as far forward as the hood instrument on the limousine. I didn't know that and it gives powerful evidence of the results of a shot hitting Kennedy in the head from the rear. However, that does not mean that that shot occurred between Z 312 and Z 313. The importance of our piece is to show that there is no credible evidence of a bullet or fragment producing a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Even David Lifton says the Fetzer/Weldon claim concerning the "spiral nebula" is eyewash. As we pointed out, Lifton properly took seriously the reports of Dudman and Taylor. We have shown that both these individuals are clear they observed no through-and-through hole in the windshield. John Hunt was kind enough to give us copies of Frazier's notes. I had not seen them before and found them quite probative. Josiah Thompson Josiah Thompson My compliments to everyone involved in this study. If we now take it as a fact that the windshield was damaged FROM THE INSIDE, do the authors of this study believe that the damage was definitely caused by a bullet or bullet fragment? If so, does the damage tell us anything about what direction such a bullet or fragment came from? I ask that because if the damage was caused by a ricochet, I am not sure if the damage itself could tell us anything about the original source/direction of the bullet.

Thanks, Jack, for straightening us out with respect to the transit you rented. However, the problem is that you could point the transit anywhere. Would you like to reply now to my earlier question as to where you pointed the transit? David Mantik made some very precise measurements that day and is indeed a gentleman. He was kind enough to send me those very precise measurements. They show without any doubt that you pointed the transit to line up the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the window beyond. This, of course, is what both you and Fetzer pointed out was the critical line-of-sight. The only problem, of course, is that that particular line-of-sight does not exist in the Moorman photo. The true line-of-sight is somewhat higher.... in fact, just higher enough to place the camera at the level we see it in the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and Bronson films. Would you like to comment? Would like to tell us now where you guys pointed the transit? Josiah Thompson John...the Home Depot where I rented the instrument had a sign that said TRANSIT, $25 A DAY. Over the years I have employed several building contractors. They refer to this instrument as a TRANSIT. According to Wikipedia, it is more properly a BUILDER'S LEVEL. Note that the definition say it is used TO ESTABLISH A LINE OF SIGHT. Here is what Wikipedia says: A theodolite (IPA: /θiːˈɒdəlаɪt/) is an instrument for measuring both horizontal and vertical angles, as used in triangulation networks. It is a key tool in surveying and engineering work, particularly on inaccessible ground, but theodolites have been adapted for other specialized purposes in fields like meteorology and rocket launch technology. A modern theodolite consists of a movable telescope mounted within two perpendicular axes—the horizontal or trunnion axis, and the vertical axis. When the telescope is pointed at a desired object, the angle of each of these axes can be measured with great precision, typically on the scale of arcseconds. "Transit" refers to a specialized type of theodolite that was developed in the early 19th century. It featured a telescope that could "flop over" ("transit the scope") to allow easy back-sighting and doubling of angles for error reduction. Some transit instruments were capable of reading angles directly to thirty arcseconds. In the middle of the 20th century, "transit" came to refer to a simple form of theodolite with less precision, lacking features such as scale magnification and mechanical meters. The importance of transits is waning since compact, accurate electronic theodolites have become widespread tools, but the transit still finds use as a lightweight tool on construction sites. Some transits do not measure vertical angles. The builder's level is often mistaken for a transit but is actually a type of inclinometer. It measures neither horizontal nor vertical angles. It simply combines a spirit level and telescope to allow the user to visually establish a line of sight along a level plane.

Let's see if I can be of some help here, Pamela. You are replying to Part I of "Moorman-in-the-Street? The logic of the paper." Part II is also on this site although it's difficult to find. No one could have expected you to find it. By entering "Moorman-in-the-street?" in the search function you will be led to it. I think it's on page 2 or 3 of the search. There you will find that the Muchmore, Nix, Bronson and Zapruder films all show Moorman standing in the grass with the viewfinder glued to her eye. In addition, the famous Altgens photo shows the shadows of Moorman and Hill standing in the grass at Z frame 255. Hence, all the photographic evidence shows exactly the same thing... Moorman standing in the grass taking her famous photograph. In addition, as has been pointed out, her photograph itself shows she was standing in the grass. Both the proper line-of-sight found in her photo and the fact the photo shows it was taken from a position looking down on the 58" high top of the motorcycle windscreens show this. Jack White simply made an observational error in looking at the Moorman photo and the whole ruckus followed from that initial mistake. Now with regard to splices in the Zapruder film. When I was working as a consultant to LIFE in 1966 and 1967 I inquired about that. I was told by Herb Orth, head of the LIFE photolab, that the film had broken on the weekend of November 23rd and 24th as LIFE was rushing to get out its issue with the Zapruder film. It really doesn't matter since complete copies of the film were available on the copies made on November 22nd before the original came into LIFE's possession. These show the socalled "missing frames" and there is nothing remarkable about them. It's nice of you to inquire about this. I hope this may have helped answer any questions you have. If you have others, please raise them and I'll do what I can to answer them. Josiah Thompson Good. What would the Z-frame equivalent be? Pamela, This frame (the 36th in the Muchmore assassination sequence) probably was taken ever so slighly (a fractional frame) before Z-307. Edit -- adding Z-307: Is Moorman visible in the frame of Muchmore that would correspond to Z315-17?

Well, Jack, it is what it is. No matter how many times you say "Nonsense... Nonsense... Nonsense".... no matter how many times you publish the photo of the transit with the corpulent professor holding up a measuring rod.... no matter how many Ph.D.s or "Marine artllery officers" you show performing the experiment.... no matter all these things, the facts are what they are. What you don't show is where you pointed the transit. It is clear from Mantik's notes and from Fetzer's latter-day admission that you pointed the transit to line up exactly the two points (the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the window beyond) that you thought initially lined up. Apparently, you brought the worst copy extant of the Moorman photo (the socalled Zippo copy) to the Plaza to persuade Fetzer and Mantik that you were right. But now, it's all come out. You made a mistake. You thought those two points line up. That is exactly what both you and Fetzer said in MIDP. But sadly for you they don't. We've shown that all extant copies of the Moorman photo including the Zippo snapshot, show that they don't. This was simply an error of observation on your part. That error, and your and Fetzer's crazed obstinacy, have wasted numerous man hours of reserch over the last ten years. So why now, after all this, after the photos have been shown endlessly, after the gap has been demonstrated by digital science and by direct observation, why, Jack, don't you give it up? Can you possibly believe that anyone will be persuaded by photos of the corpulent professor and his assistants? You know what is really the case. You cannot help but know it. Why not, then, give it up? Josiah Thompson Then you are simply presenting an alternative theory to where you think Moorman was standing when she took the photo, aren't you? On what basis are you then claiming that anything has been debunked? Nonsense, nonsense and nonsense. Jack

Can you help me out, Pamela? You say, "An appeal to authority seems to have more glamour than persuasion through logic." For the life of me, I can't figure out what "appeal to authority" you are referring to. The consequence of Fetzer's claim about Moorman-in-the-street was that the Zapruder film was altered. Hence, whatever the Zapruder film showed it couldn't be used in either proving or disproving the claim. Other films show her standing in the grass taking her photo and not jumping into the street, so these films are relevant to the proof or disproof of the claim. No witness reported seeing her jump into the street so this clearly relevant evidence. The two motorcyclists (who would have had to swerve to avoid her) said nothing about some crazy woman jumping into the street, so this is clearly relevant evidence. All of this was part of the disproof. But the main thrust of the disproof aligned with the main thrust of the claim. Fetzer claimed there was a line-of-sight in the Moorman photo itself that was consistent with the photo being taken from the street and not from the grass. We showed definitively that the line-of-sight pointed to simply was not present in the Moorman photo. Actually, another line-of-sight was present in the Moorman photo and it indicated the photo was taken from the grass. Finally. the camera in the Moorman photo is looking down on the tops of motorcycle windscreens that are 58" high. Only a photo taken from the grass could plausibly be high enough to do so. None of these elements used in debunking Fetzer's claim have anything to do with "authority." In fact, they refer to evidence not authority. Most importantly, the main thrust of the debunking turns on showing the evidence used in the claim (the alleged line-of-sight) is just not present in the photo. Internal evidence from the Moorman photo itself sunk the claim. So this leaves me scratching my head and wondering what you have in mind by speaking of an "appeal to authority." Could you help me out by explaining further what you have in mind? Thanks. Josiah Thompson More than standing in Dealey Plaza was done. But since you've got that far, maybe you are catching on. Play some serious catch up, Pamela. Why not actually read the essay? LMFAO! Sorry..... so says the Oregonian rain goddess.... An appeal to authority seems to have more glamour than persuasion through logic.