Josiah Thompson
-
Posts
655 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Josiah Thompson
-
-
Thank you, Duncan, for making the obvious point. I was going to make it but ended up not thinking a reply to this kind of thing was worth it.
Josiah Thompson
Duncan,I'm not sure which mistakes you're referring to, since you weren't specific.
As for JFK's head moving back and to the left, it undeniably does. However, there is general agreement that it moves forward first, as you said. It is pretty reasonable to speculate then, as many of us have over the years, that he was hit by almost simultaneous head shots from the rear and then the front. My point about the backwards movement is that there is no question about it, and it clearly contradicts the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all the shots from behind.
I was just trying to come up with a list of items that are either unquestionable (i.e., the impossibility of the single bullet theory) or solid indications of conspiracy that have seemingly been abandoned by many researchers for no apparent reason.
Don,
I wasn't specific because you make so many assumptions of things which you say are undeniable facts. For example, you say that Josiah tells us that the Zapruder film does not show the umbrella man pumping the umbrella up and down, well he's 100% correct, it doesn't show any pumping movement, it shows a twirling of the umbrella from left to right, and nothing more. If you have footage which shows the pumping movement, I'd love to see it. As for researchers abandoning their positions, I don't see anything wrong or sinister about that at all, it's called evolution of their opinions based on their research and consideration of other research sources over the years.
Duncan
-
Jason, you deserve some sort of prize! I've learned to have a pretty tough skin for brickbats but your latest wins the prize. You claim that Fetzer and I are cooperating in some devious plot to propogandize somebody. The problem here is that cooperation with Fetzer is essential to your theory and cooperation with Fetzer is impossible for anyone. Just ask the co-founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth who Fetzer excommunicated after a few months of being co-sponsors together.
Let me say with great simplicity that I take offense at your claim that there are any similarities between Fetzer's way of argument and my own. There aren't. If you would take the time to examine more carefully the actual posts made, I believe you would see this. I would agree, however, that at certain times I do lose my patience with Fetzer's outrageous duck-and-cover moves, and, on those occasions, I blast him. Hence, your point about mutual ad hominem attacks is not without some merit. Otherwise, what you're saying is basically silly.
Josiah Thompson
A lonely, frustrated man sat in his cell after world war I and reached an epiphany. He was so impressed by the effective use of American and British propoganda during world war I, he would later come to perfect it and use it with devastating results. He wrote..."Propoganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea" - Adolph Hitler
Fellow members of this and other forums, I propose that the great Fetzer/Thompson debate regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder Film was specifically created, effectively delivered and continues to be promoted for the sole purpose of polarizing allegiances and controlling behavior with regards to the JFK research community. In other words, I believe that this entire affair has been specifically engineered for nefarious purposes specifically aimed at creating dissention and turmoil within the community itself. If this sounds overly "conspiratorial" in nature then consider this...
"400 million is spent per year (by the American government alone) to employ 8,000 people to create propoganda..." (Praxteinis & Aronson p. 4)
That's well over 45 people per U.S. state alone dedicated towards the dissemination of propoganda alone. Consider Fetzer and Thompson in and of themselves. You are all aware of their differences now consider their similarities. That takes a little time but they're there. With regards to propoganda and public belief, in our case the research community, it's been written that propoganda is more effective when the message is delivered by "a higher degree of perceived authority". WHO would those individuals be?
"The higher degree of perceived authority that disseminates the message, the more likely the message is to be believed and internalized".
Consider WHEN this debate began and WHERE it originated over WHICH idea and WHO was involved. It matters little whether or not the message is right or wrong when it comes to propoganda. What matters is what the BEHAVIORAL reaction is of the recipients. If the intent of the debate was to polarize sides and cause stringent allegiances to one or the other, you can see clearly this has worked. The debate however has focused efforts by those caught in it's wake. Once the message was internalized by the recipients or became an idea to rally behind, members of the forums in a sense, became propogandists themselves.
Ad hominem attack, glittering generalities, black and white arguments are other methods of propoganda. Can you see their use around the Fetzer/Thompson debate?
There is the possibility that Fetzer and Thompson are propogandists themselves and that they are working in tandem along with select other individuals to polarize the research community. I've considered this on numerous occassions by watching the timing and location of the arguments. I'd encourage others to do the same. Part of an effective propoganda campain is "argumentum ad populum" or using sources to "appeal to the people". At that point, once the masses have been reached, the creation of chaos and unworkable relationships is solidified by "consensus gentium" or agreement of the clans. Here, it's not whether or not the Z-film is authentic for agents engaging in propoganda, it's that clans and all the behavior and beliefs of clanship have in common been effectively formed. If it's to far of a stretch to believe Fetzer and Thompson working this together then consider that they needn't be. Consider this old adage which might be just as effective...
"The enemy of your enemy is a friend. Introduce them together whenever you can". This scenario would have known polar opposites brought together over a singular issue in which it is known by the propogandist the two perceived authorities would clash over with effective results.
When you find yourself embroiled in this battle again and again over the years (consider how long this has been going on and WHEN it typically fires up again) I think it's important to take a step back from this and ask yourself if you are MEANT to engage in a debate that seems quite deliberately manufactured to have a myriad of outcomes and sub arguments.
Jason
-
I didn't even know this post was here. Fetzer has taken to channeling David Lifton on several sites at the same time. Hence, it is difficult to keep up. Below is my reply to Lifton in bold face:
Welcome, David Lifton.
Fetzer has pointed out that you "confronted" me on the issue of the hole in the
windshield and that you have shown that I am "willing to cannibalize [my] own
book." Then he reproduced on this board the email you sent me with a copy to
him. When I received your email I asked permission to answer it on this board.
Since Fetzer has already posted your email on this board, I no longer require
your permission to quote it and reply to it.
Your email reads as follows:
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:40:06 -0700 [02:40:06 AM CDT]
From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink. net>
To: gum226@sbcglobal. net
Cc: "James Fetzer, Ph.D. "
Subject: "Contamination" with "non-facts"
Josiah Thompson,
You write:
"In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls away, one can see damage
to the windshield at the location later described as a non-through-and-through
hit from the rear."
"Later described". . . By who? Oh, I get it. . . You're referring to the
windshield which was examined in March, 1964?
As I noted, the report of Secret Service Agent James Taylor--who witnessed the
FBI examination that very night, November 22, 1963 – states that "of particular
note [to the FBI team conducting the examination] "was the small hole just left
of center in the windshield. . . "
This is a direct quote from SS Agent Taylor's report, which is part of
Commission Document 80.
And who was the first to publish CD 80? Why that was non other than you, Josiah
Thompson, in the appendix to your own work, Six Seconds in Dallas, published in
1967.
Now I have a few questions:
(1) Why did you publish this report, in your book, if you did not believe that
the report supported the hypothesis that there was a hole in the windshield? And
. .
(2) When did you change your mind on this matter? And. . .
(3) Why did you change your mind? (assuming you did).
Finally. . . , you write:
"Fetzer keeps making up these facts and offering them without qualification. In
doing so, he
contaminates the field with non-facts."
In what sense is anyone "making up ...facts"? The report of agent Charles Taylor
is rather explicit. He was there at the time the FBI conducted their
examination, and that this hole was "of particular note" to the FBI team
conducting the examination.
Setting aside the question of just who is "contaminating" the field with
"non-facts," perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:
You were the first to publish his report – which called attention to this
particular matter of their being a hole in the windshield.
Please do explain your line of reasoning by which you changed your position on
this matter. Just when did this change occur? And what was the "new
evidence"which caused this change?
DSL
What is immediately obvious is that you duck my main charge against Fetzer. I
wrote:
"The problem is that Fetzer and company are in the process of making up an
alternative reality based upon misinterpretations of witness statements and
ignoring important photographs. For example, in the post you are replying to,
Fetzer says, "This is related to the bullet hole in Altgens 5.." But there is no
bullet hole in Altgens 5. What Fetzer takes to be a bullet hole is a swirl in
the dress of a spectator seen through the windshield.... Just as he was mistaken
in thinking Bill Greer turned around and shot Kennedy with a chrome revolver
(based, as happens so often with Fetzer, on a blurry copy of the Zapruder film),
so he sees a bullet hole where there is none because he is looking at a blurry
copy of the Altgens photo. In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls
away, one can see damage to the windshield at the location later described as a
non-through-and-through hit from the rear. Fetzer keeps making up these facts
and offering them without qualification. In doing so, he contaminates the field
with non-facts.
I said Fetzer simply made up the fact that Altgens 5 shows a bullet hole in the
windshield when it doesn't. This is my illustration of why Fetzer's approach is
so pernicious because it contaminates the field of what is to be taken as
evidence. Since you ducked the basic charge I leveled against Fetzer, this
means to me that you are not about to get into a discussion as to whether
Fetzer's claim about the windshield is mistaken. Instead, you come on very
strong against my more innocuous statement that "in the later Altgens 6, taken
as the limousine pulls away, one can see damage to the windshield at the
location later described as a non-through-and-through hit from the rear."
You spend a lot of time dealing with CD 80, three pages of which are printed in
miniature in an appendix to "Six Seconds in Dallas." CD 80 is a January 6, 1964
letter from Chief Rowley of the Secret Service to J. Lee Rankin of the
Commission. You make a lot of a comment from a SA Charles Taylor of the Secret
Service. I had never heard of SA Taylor and his only appearance in the three
pages I published of CD 60 is the comment from Chief Rowley that "there is
attached a copy of a report of SA Charles Taylor of the Washington Field Office
concerning the security measures surrounding the car and the activity at the
White house garage in connection with the search of the vehicle."
Chief Rowley goes on to point out that William Greer never noticed the cracks in
the windshield as he drove to the hospital. SA Hickey drove the car to Love
Field and said the damage "was not extensive enough to affect his vision."
Hickey pointed out that the windshield "in the area around the damage was
spattered with debris." SA Kinney drove the car from Andrews Air Field to the
White House garage. He "noticed very little damage to the windshield when he
was loading it on the plane; that the damage was more noticeable when he arrived
at the garage." Two paragraphs in Chief Rowley's letter refer to the detailed
examination of the windshield made in the garage. They are the following:
"Special Officer Davis of the Secret Service and SA Gies stated that they
noticed the damage to the windshield when the car arrived at the garage, that
both of them ran their hands over the outside surface of the windshield and
found it to be smooth and unbroken, and that the damage to the windshield was
entirely on the inside surface. Both were present when the windshield was
removed from the car by the Arlington Glass Company and noticed that the removal
caused the cracks in the glass to lengthen, but the outside surface still
remained unbroken and there is no hole or crack through the windshield."
"Special Agent Gies has viewed the photographs of the windshield taken by the
FBI and states that the damage noticeable to the windshield when it was first
brought into the garage was not as extensive as reflected in this photograph:
i.e. the cracks were not so apparent. Apparently, there was only a small
spiderweb-like damage visible on the inside of the windshield when the car
arrived, but SA Gies is of the opinion that the temperature changes involved in
the flight from Dallas, the temperature change and vibration from driving the
car from Andrews Air Field to the White House garage, and then the storing of
the car in the warm temperature of the White House garage is responsible for the
change in the appearance of the damaged area of the windshield visible in the
photograph taken by the FBI. The photograph is attached and labeled Exhibit I."
From this letter, it appears that SA Agent Charles Taylor submitted a report
about "security measures surrounding the car" and activity "in connection with
the search of the vehicle." From the comment you quote, it would seem he
observed an FBI examination of the vehicle. Since you quote only one sentence
from Taylor's report, we don't know the basis for his observation. On the other
hand, we know from Rowley's letter that SA Geis and Officer Davis both "ran
their hands over the outside surface of the windshield and found it to be smooth
and unbroken, and that the damage to the windshield was entirely on the inside
surface." Later, when the windshield was removed, they noticed "the removal
caused the cracks in the glass to lengthen, but the outside surface still
remained unbroken and there is no hole or crack through the windshield."
You ignored these very telling facts and contented yourself with only quoting a
sentence from Taylor's report.
No further reply to your many questions is needed. It's clear, in this
instance, that you like Fetzer, only mention that part of the evidence that
favors your claim while ignoring the rest. This is the furthest remove from
true historical scholarship. Nor has this always been the way you operated. In
the past you showed less of an intent to be "right" and more respect for what
the evidence itself showed. Also in the past, you never made your points
accompanied by an unpleasant and unflattering smirk. I am sorry to see this
happen.
Josiah Thompson
All,
The gross deception involved in Tink's attack on me over the hole in
the windshield after I posted Lifton's query about SSA Taylor's report
has drawn a response from David, who has confronted him on the issue.
What is most stunning is that, in his childish determination to "get
Fetzer", he is willing to cannibalize his own book! That provides a
striking indication of the incoherence of his own thought processes.
This, I take it, is not the first time that he has been willing to
contradict SIX SECONDS, including his relatively recent denial of
evidence of the "double hit", which David Lifton had independently
discovered during his visit with Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in
physics, as he reports in BEST EVIDENCE. This new inconsistency has
thus reinforced my advice--that he (Tink) obtain professional help!
It is difficult to imagine the lengths to which the obsessed could
be driven in their frantic attempts to denigrate and destroy those
who incur their wrath. But, for someone whose "claim to fame" has
been a 1967 book published that led to considerable public acclaim,
including a cover story in The Saturday Evening Post, to dismember,
piece by piece, his own greatest achievement for the perverse pur-
pose of attacking his nemesis invites a Freudian interpretation.
His bizarre state of mind is further illustrated by his denial of
the obvious, including the excellence of the books on JFK that I
have edited. The first had 11 contributors, the second 9 and the
third 6. How plausible is it that none of these authors, whom I
invited to contribute as experts on various aspects of the case,
would have no discoveries of value? Yet that's what he contends.
Indeed, anyone who reads the reviews from Publishers Weekly and
the experts who have endorsed these books--including Cyril Wecht,
Peter Dale Scott, Michael Parenti, Stewart Galanor, Kerry Walters,
David Lifton, and Michael Kurtz--knows better. Egad! Even Vincent
Bugliosi has conceded that mine are the only completely scientific
books ever published on JFK! So what is Josiah Thompson doing in
attacking them? Objectively, they are exceptional contributions!
Indeed, the only chapter he has ever praised--by Gary Aguilar in
MURDER--which focuses on the massive defect at the back of JFK's
skull, turns out to support a proof that the Zapruder was altered,
which has led him to remove that single sentence from his hatchet-
job review, because it undermines his persistent denial of proofs
the film is a fabrication and reflects his detachment from reality.
That he cannot accept proof after proof that the film is a fake--
many of which I have repeatedly reported on this forum--represents
one more indication of the gradual but continuous deterioration of
his mental competence. A man who devotes himself to perpetuating
deceptions may find himself no longer capable of separating truth
from fiction, reality from illusion. And that, I am sorry to say,
is how things stand with this pathetic man, whom I used to admire.
Jim
________________________
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:40:06 -0700 [02:40:06 AM CDT]
From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>
To: gum226@sbcglobal.net
Cc: "James Fetzer, Ph.D. " <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>
Subject: "Contamination" with "non-facts"
Josiah Thompson
You write:
" In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls away, one can see
damage to the windshield at the location later described as a
non-through-and-through hit from the rear."
"Later described". . . By who? Oh, I get it. . . You're referring to the
windshield which was examined in March, 1964?
As I noted, the report of Secret Service Agent James Taylor--who witnessed
the FBI examination that very night, November 22, 1963--states that "of
particular note [to the FBI team conducting the examination] "was the small
hole just left of center in the windshield. . . "
This is a direct quote from SS Agent Taylor's report, which is part of
Commission Document 80.
And who was the first to publish CD 80? Why that was non other than you,
Josiah Thompson, in the appendix to your own work, Six Seconds in Dallas,
published in 1967,
Now I have a few questions:
(1) Why did you publish this report, in your book, if you did not believe
that the report supported the hypothesis that there was a hole in the
windshield? And . .
(2) When did you change your mind on this matter? And. . .
(3) Why did you change your mind? (assuming you did).
Finally. . . , you write:
QUOTE:
"Fetzer keeps making up
these facts and offering them without qualification. In doing so, he
contaminates the field with non-facts."
In what sense is anyone "making up ...facts"? The report of agent Charles
Taylor is rather explicit. He was there at the time the FBI conducted thei=
r
examination, and that this hole was "of particular note" to the FBI team
conducting the examination.
Setting aside the question of just who is "contaminating" the field with
"non-facts," perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:
You were the first to publish his report--which called attention to this
particular matter of their being a hole in the windshield.
Please do explain your line of reasoning by which you changed your position
on this matter. Just when did this change occur? And what was the "new
evidence"which caused this change?
DSL
____________________
-
I can't tell you how grateful I am for the quote from Frazier saying he received CE 543 and 544 from SA Vincent Drain on the morning of November 23rd. That answers my original question without having to go to Fraizier's lab notes. Thanks so very much.
I seem to remember that the Frazier testified (or Hoover said in a letter) that what you call "the scrape/scratch mark" was a mark from the magazine follower. Am I wrong on this?
I certainly enjoy talking about this issue with you, Tom.
Josiah Thompson
You wrote: "Someone, who knows little, is certainly grasping for straws as well as gasping about a subject of which they know nothing as well as have not researched even the common sense side of."I take that I am the one you think is "grasping for straws." However, I don't grasp what straws you think I am grasping for.
On November 22nd, four bullets were loaded into the Carcano. Since it was found with a live round in the chamber, this means that CE 543, CE 544 or CE 545 would not have been the bottom round in the magazine that day. "Only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower."
Obviously, this applies only to the load order in the magazine as it was found on November 22nd and does not apply to any other load order at some other time. That is precisely my point. The magazine follower mark was not incurred on November 22nd but on some other occasion.
Am I just missing a point here? If so please educate me.
Josiah Thompson
CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times.Josiah: Does this mean that CE543 WITH A LEAD BULLET inside was cycled through the Carcano, or does the evidence indicate that it was already a "spent" shell when it was recycled?
The evidence refers to the cartridge case... that it had been cycled through a Carcano, possibly Oswald's, several times.
It had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.Pardon my ignorance of weapons, but could you elaborate on this a little bit?
Sure. I'm pleased to do so. A clip holding six bullets (each one made up of a projectile and cartridge case) is inserted in the top of the rifle and pressed down. As the clip moves downward it depressed a spring-loaded lever. This is magazine follower. It presses on the bottom cartridge in the clip, thus forcing the bullets in the clip upward. Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower.
A live round was found in the chamber, therefore the mark from the magazine follower could not have been incurred on November 22nd? I know I am missing something here. As a layman, I don't see why one follows from the other.
See above.
My copy of SIX SECONDS is in temporary storage, and I know this topic is discussed there, but I would really appreciate a refresher.
This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.Josiah Thompson
Yes, this topic might be mighty important.
"Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower"
Perhaps one should explain that the Carcano Clip is completely reversible.
Therefore, from the last loading of the clip (with ammo) into the weapon, what, on 11/22/63 was the first round fired aka/top round, could easily have been the bottom round within the clip during any previous time at which the weapon had the clip w/rounds installed within the housing.
Thusly, placing a follower spring "scratch" on it.
Not to mention that the cartridges could easily have been removed from the clip from some previously usage, and what was once a "bottom" round, thereafter end up anywhere within the round sequence as re-installed within the clip.
Someone, who knows little, is certainly grasping for straws as well as gasping about a subject of which they know nothing as well as have not researched even the common sense side of.
"I take that I am the one you think is "grasping for straws." However, I don't grasp what straws you think I am grasping for. "
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Post #1
For example, it had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Those who are grasping for straws are those who have attempted to present this as some form of evidentiary proof that this particular bullet was not even fired that day, not to mention not having been fired in the recovered Carcano.
1. Notice that Frazier gave no definitive testimony that the "scrach/scrape" marks as created by the magazine follower, could be absolutely matched as can rifling markings and/or bolt face markings. Therefore, to state that "scratch" marks found on CE543 were made by the magazine spring follower, is speculative.
Especially considering:
2. Each round chambered actually "scrapes" over the top of the next succeeding round in the clip. The more the clip is loaded to it's maximum of 6-rounds, the more tension/force the spring follower places against the bottom round and this pressure is thereafter exerted to the friction of the first round as it is chambered and scrapes over the top of the second round.
And so on.
3. The extremely high probability that a "short stroke" occurred with the weapon, which certainly causes the non-ejected empty casing to scrape over the next round which is attempting to be chambered.
4. As stated, the reversibility of the cartridge clip which could easily mean that the first round fired (top round) was in fact the bottom round which would have been in contact with the spring follower during some previous loading.
Lastly, I have never found any indications that Frazier even came close to commission of perjury during any of his testimonies.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, returning to the cartridge cases which were marked earlier into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, and which, as I stated earlier for the record, had been found next to the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, can you tell us when you received those cartridge cases?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I received the first of the exhibits, 543 and 544, on November 23, 1963. They were delivered to me by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI Office.
And the other one I received on November 27(, 1963, which was delivered by Special Agents Vincent Drain and Warren De Brueys of the Dallas Office.
Certainly, if created by the magazine spring follower, the scratch marks on the found empty casing could not have occurred on 11/22/63.
There are and will continue to be those who promote this as if it were some sort of proof of something.
-
You wrote: "Someone, who knows little, is certainly grasping for straws as well as gasping about a subject of which they know nothing as well as have not researched even the common sense side of."
I take that I am the one you think is "grasping for straws." However, I don't grasp what straws you think I am grasping for.
On November 22nd, four bullets were loaded into the Carcano. Since it was found with a live round in the chamber, this means that CE 543, CE 544 or CE 545 would not have been the bottom round in the magazine that day. "Only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower."
Obviously, this applies only to the load order in the magazine as it was found on November 22nd and does not apply to any other load order at some other time. That is precisely my point. The magazine follower mark was not incurred on November 22nd but on some other occasion.
Am I just missing a point here? If so please educate me.
Josiah Thompson
CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times.Josiah: Does this mean that CE543 WITH A LEAD BULLET inside was cycled through the Carcano, or does the evidence indicate that it was already a "spent" shell when it was recycled?
The evidence refers to the cartridge case... that it had been cycled through a Carcano, possibly Oswald's, several times.
It had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.Pardon my ignorance of weapons, but could you elaborate on this a little bit?
Sure. I'm pleased to do so. A clip holding six bullets (each one made up of a projectile and cartridge case) is inserted in the top of the rifle and pressed down. As the clip moves downward it depressed a spring-loaded lever. This is magazine follower. It presses on the bottom cartridge in the clip, thus forcing the bullets in the clip upward. Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower.
A live round was found in the chamber, therefore the mark from the magazine follower could not have been incurred on November 22nd? I know I am missing something here. As a layman, I don't see why one follows from the other.
See above.
My copy of SIX SECONDS is in temporary storage, and I know this topic is discussed there, but I would really appreciate a refresher.
This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.Josiah Thompson
Yes, this topic might be mighty important.
"Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower"
Perhaps one should explain that the Carcano Clip is completely reversible.
Therefore, from the last loading of the clip (with ammo) into the weapon, what, on 11/22/63 was the first round fired aka/top round, could easily have been the bottom round within the clip during any previous time at which the weapon had the clip w/rounds installed within the housing.
Thusly, placing a follower spring "scratch" on it.
Not to mention that the cartridges could easily have been removed from the clip from some previously usage, and what was once a "bottom" round, thereafter end up anywhere within the round sequence as re-installed within the clip.
Someone, who knows little, is certainly grasping for straws as well as gasping about a subject of which they know nothing as well as have not researched even the common sense side of.
-
Thank you, Tom, for the very complete answer. I have another point for you.
The live round, CE 544, and CE 545 all have an indentation on the shoulder of the cartridge case. [This indentation is shown in "Six Seconds"] CE 543 lacks this indentation but has a dent in the lip. The cases ejected during fire arms identification tests have very mild indentations on their shoulders in the same location as the dents seen on the live round, CE 544 and CE 545. This suggested to me that there was some protrusion in the chamber that made a dent in the cartridge case when it was fired and which caught the lip of CE 543 when it was dry-fired in the weapon.
What in your opinion might cause this lack of a shoulder dent on CE 543 and its presence on the other casings, a presence that gets dimmer as more and more rounds are fired.?
Josiah Thompson
I have been told by others that in such a "short-stroking" situation the short-stroked cartridge case rides over the next bullet in the clip and lodges in the breech of the weapon where it has to be removed by shoving a cleaning rod down the barrel. If this happened, the weapon would have been found with a stuck cartridge case in the breech. Is this true about short-stroking?Josiah Thompson
YES, but!
The Carcano operating mechanism (clip) is quite diffferent than, say the M-1 Garand.
The Carcano clip holds ONLY the base of the cartridge in place. Thusly, when the bolt is pulled back, the magazine follower spring pressure exerted against the bottom round in the clip causes/allows the bullet nose of the top (next in line to be loaded) round to rise at an angle and thereafter "point" upwards toward the weapon chamber.
During normal operation, when the bolt comes forward, it catches the top edge of the cartridge rim and then drives the round forward and "upwards" which drives the round into the chamber.
When the round is sufficiently driven into the chamber, and the round becomes sufficiently horizontal in plane, then the cartridge rim is forced up into the bolt face and becomes fully seated in the bolt.
Therefore, when a "short stroke" occurs and the bolt still holds an empty casing, it is driven forward, the lower edge of the bolt will frequently still pick up the cartridge rim of the full round still in the clip and, dependent on a variety of factors either carry this round forward (along with the empty cartridge casing), or actually scrape over the top of the round, which can cause bottom edge of the bolt face as well as the seated empty cartridge casing to scrape over the top of the live round below it.
In eather case, we have a full bullet attempting to enter the weapon chamber with the bullet nose on a slightly elevated plane as well as an expended round casing attempting to enter the chamber on a horizontal plane, which DON'T FIT!
Therefore, it is not unusual for the forward area of the expended/empty cartridge casing to come into contact with the forward area (nose) of the live round which is attempting to enter the chamber. All of which seldom will result in a jammed round in the chamber and which usually results in a dent becoming formed in the empty/driven forward casing nose.
All based on the force of the forward thrust of the bolt.
Hope that is more clear than mud.
Tom
-
Thanks for this very informative post, Tom. You said:
However, one can easily create this same "dent" when he short-strokes the bolt of the rifle.In "short-stroking", the bolt is not fully pulled to the rear and thus the ejector does not release and "flip" the empty cartridge out of the weapon.
However, the moment the bolt is pulled forward, the bullet nose of the next-in-line projectile rises and aligns itself with the rifle chamber. If one then pushes the bolt forward with the empty cartridge still locket into the bolt fact, the front lip of the cartridge will, each and every single time, encounter the bullet nose as both are now being directed towards the chamber of the weapon. With only normal force, this creates a "jam" in which the empty cartridge forward lip is easily bent/slightly flattened as it is driven against the bullet nose of the next-in-line cartridge. The only way to correct this is to re-operate the bolt and thus fully eject the "jam fire" empty casing and thus allow the the next-in-line bullet to be picked up at it's bottom by the bolt face and thus driven forward. Therefore, there is nothing whatsoever uncommon in regards to the "dented/flattened" casing lip of the one casing.
I have been told by others that in such a "short-stroking" situation the short-stroked cartridge case rides over the next bullet in the clip and lodges in the breech of the weapon where it has to be removed by shoving a cleaning rod down the barrel. If this happened, the weapon would have been found with a stuck cartridge case in the breech. Is this true about short-stroking?
Josiah Thompson
Is it possible to say that one of the cartridges found on the sixth floor has not been fired, or if fired then with a lighter load than the other two?One of the cartridges has a 'crimped' rim at the bullet end.
One may expect this to cause the sides to bulge out.
Even so, the size of this rim fits within the other two indicating that this cartridge end has not expanded like the other two before being 'crimped'.
the total area of this cartridges hole where the bullet would have fitted is 6 to 8 % smaller than the other two.
What are the expected deviances from a set of fired cartridges. Does this third cartridge fall within this expected deviance or is it sufficiently outside of it and can therefore be said to have not been fired?
The image is derived from careful matching of the rulers in the photos from the HSCA on maryfarrels site.
The crimped cartridge rim is oerlaid on the other two and the black surround being the larger areas of the two fired cartridges.
John:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. FRAZIER - I am sorry--yes, 543, 544, and 545. These three cartridge cases were placed one at a time on the comparison microscope, and the surfaces having the breech-face marks or the bolt marks were compared with those on the test cartridge cases, Exhibit 557. As a result of comparing the pattern of microscopic markings on the test cartridge cases and those marks on Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, both of the face of the bolt and the firing pin, I concluded that these three had been fired in this particular weapon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Robert Frazier was at times mislead in regards to evidence which he had/played no part in the actual physical examination, I have never found a single instance of his having committed perjury or even come close to telling an intentional lie.
His work on examination and comparative analyis of the firing pin imprint marks as well as the bolt face marks on the three found empty cartridges is as definitive and as factual as it gets.
And, in this regards, he also completely dispels any potential for "short load" as these imprints would not have been/would have carried the capability for the exact duplication.
In event one wishes to continue to foster and chase this, which has been fostered by those who quite obviously have checked none of the ballistic facts, and continued by those who grasp for straws, then so be it. Have at it for another 40+ years.
Of course, those who recognize the "ballistic fact" of the toolmark work, then want to get into the same boat as the "Planted Bullet" scenario and thus claim that the shells were also planted.
Which would of course leave everything as having been "planted" in this great scheme of their minds.
As to the dented casing: A Chiropracter by the name of Zimmerman once had a website (he posts on the alt. assassination/McAdams sight, and although his novice work in obtaining and test firing a Carcano is highly commendable, work such as his creation/having reproduced the dented casing is open to debate as to the exact cause.
Personally, I have never created the extent of dented lip on the ejected/empty cartridge which Chad claims to have duplicated.
However, one can easily create this same "dent" when he short-strokes the bolt of the rifle.
In "short-stroking", the bolt is not fully pulled to the rear and thus the ejector does not release and "flip" the empty cartridge out of the weapon.
However, the moment the bolt is pulled forward, the bullet nose of the next-in-line projectile rises and aligns itself with the rifle chamber.
If one then pushes the bolt forward with the empty cartridge still locket into the bolt fact, the front lip of the cartridge will, each and every single time, encounter the bullet nose as both are now being directed towards the chamber of the weapon.
With only normal force, this creates a "jam" in which the empty cartridge forward lip is easily bent/slightly flattened as it is driven against the bullet nose of the next-in-line cartridge.
The only way to correct this is to re-operate the bolt and thus fully eject the "jam fire" empty casing and thus allow the the next-in-line bullet to be picked up at it's bottom by the bolt face and thus driven forward.
Therefore, there is nothing whatsoever uncommon in regards to the "dented/flattened" casing lip of the one casing.
However, what this does of course require is a longer bolt operation time for the weapon (firing time), as the bolt must now be operated twice.
Now! When one actually checks what history will eventually designate as the actual firing sequence, they will find that there is approximately 5.6 to 5.9 seconds between the first shot (CE399) and the second shot at Z313.
With an immediate and rapid third shot thereafter.
So, exactly WHY? is it that LHO/the Shooter, took over twice as long between shot#1 and shot#2, as the expended time between shot#2 and the final shot#3 down in front of James Altgens.
You have demonstrated the excellent trait of examination of evidence by empirical methods. However, in demonstrating the ballistic as well as often forensic facts, one must either accept what is written by true experts or else take the time and effort to acquire a Carcano and WCC 6.5mm Carcano ammo and thereafter conduct their own testing.
Personally, I utilize the former as a tool for learning, and the latter for verification as to what I think I may have learned.
ALWAYS,
Doubting Thomas
-
CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times.
Josiah: Does this mean that CE543 WITH A LEAD BULLET inside was cycled through the Carcano, or does the evidence indicate that it was already a "spent" shell when it was recycled?
The evidence refers to the cartridge case... that it had been cycled through a Carcano, possibly Oswald's, several times.
It had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon.Pardon my ignorance of weapons, but could you elaborate on this a little bit?
Sure. I'm pleased to do so. A clip holding six bullets (each one made up of a projectile and cartridge case) is inserted in the top of the rifle and pressed down. As the clip moves downward it depressed a spring-loaded lever. This is magazine follower. It presses on the bottom cartridge in the clip, thus forcing the bullets in the clip upward. Since a live round was found in the rifle on November 22nd only that live round (not CE 543) could have been in contact with the magazine follower.
A live round was found in the chamber, therefore the mark from the magazine follower could not have been incurred on November 22nd? I know I am missing something here. As a layman, I don't see why one follows from the other.
See above.
My copy of SIX SECONDS is in temporary storage, and I know this topic is discussed there, but I would really appreciate a refresher.
This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.Josiah Thompson
Yes, this topic might be mighty important.
-
I would like to ask for assistance on a piece of research I’ve been working on for some time. It is carried out far from the internet with a scientist who is a friend of mine. He is working on a new book on the case. I don’t want to mention his name because I don’t have his permission to do so. Let me say that he is a true scientist and a very bright historical researcher. The point at issue concerns the provenance of CE 543.
The three cartridge cases found near the 6th floor sniper’s next ended up with the designations CE 543, CE 544, CE 545. CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times. For example, it had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon. Most importantly, it has a dent in the lip that makes it impossible to have contained a projectile in its present form. The dent was studied by experts from the House Select Committee who claimed to have produced a similar dent by working the action on Oswald’s weapon very fast. However, the dent so produced does not replicate in many ways the dent on CE 543. Could the dent have been incurred as the House Committee believes during the ejection process? Maybe. At least one researcher in the United States, says he has produced a similar dent with a Carcano and 6.5 mm ammunition by cycling the weapon very fast. According to this individual, the cartridge case spins back after being ejected and hits the metal top of the Carcano. Another individual in England, has replicated the dent by dry-firing cartridge cases in the Carcano. Other indications supplied by Director Hoover in a letter make me suspect that the true cause of the dent was the dry-firing of the cartridge case in a Carcano prior to November 22nd. If this is the case, then CE 543 was never fired on November 22nd but dropped at the scene. If this could be proved, the importance is obvious.
My friend, the scientist, has opined that the dent may have been caused by the Dallas police while the rifle and CE 543 were in their possession. If some Dallas policeman inserted CE 543 into the Carcano and dry-fired it, this would violate every protocol known to the police about the protection and sanctity of evidence. It would, in fact, be a crime. And why would this be done? The live round in the chamber of the weapon showed conclusively what ammunition the rifle fired. I have argued this with my friend but he is still unconvinced.
What do we know of the provenance of CE 543?
We know that two cartridge cases and the live round were picked up from the Dallas Police on the evening of November 22nd and flown to Washington for examination in the FBI Crime Lab. The third cartridge case was picked up from the Dallas police on November 27th by the FBI. The three cartridge cases were given FBI numbers of C6, C7, C38. CE 543 had the earlier FBI number of C7.
In Six Seconds in Dallas, I argued that CE-543 had been retained by the Dallas police and only turned over to the FBI on November 27th. I argued for this on the basis of some confusing testimony by Lt. Doughty concerning the cartridge cases. It seems to me now that I was wrong... that CE 543 was turned over to the FBI on the evening of November 22nd. First, it only seems natural that the first two cartridge cases to reach the FBI lab would bear the numbers C6 and C7 while the third case (that arrived days later) would bear the FBI number C38. Secondly, someone sent me FBI 302s from the time Six Seconds was published. One contained a long analysis and criticism of Six Seconds that asserted that CE 543 was picked up from the Dallas police on the evening of November 22nd.
So which was it? Did CE 543 leave the custody of the Dallas police on the evening of November 22nd or several days later? The obvious way to find out would be to look at Robert Frazier’s lab notes concerning evidence when it arrived at the FBI Lab. I know John Hunt has done some good work in this area. Just a day or so ago, Gary Murr was able to give a very full answer to a question asked by David Healy. He stated on the thread “Z-frame numbering and Gary Murr” on 3/26/09 at 9:08 PM:
“Unfortunately, this documentation is currently only available if one travels to NARA II in College Park, Maryland, the reason being that it is from one of the massive bulky lab files generated by that division of the FBI in conjunction with their examination of all evidence given to them that related to the assassination event. Shaneyfelt and others in the FBI lab, in particular fellow agent Robert Frazier, constructed numerous files of worknotes when they were examining evidence and this surviving documentation is both historically important, relevant, and useful in trying to ascertain a wide variety of matters pertaining to the issues of evidence and provenance.“
Gary Murr’s report would confirm that the FBI Lab made complete notes on each bit of evidence when it arrived at the lab. Certainly, the arrival date of C7 and its condition (dented lip and all) should appear in these noted. Would Gary Murr or anyone else who has interest or knowledge about this please reply? This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.
Josiah Thompson
-
What crass nonsense! What self-aggrandizing malarkey! So being "a researcher" is to be taken as some sort of honored title, a title that cannot be awarded without a full study of Jack White's contribution to the understanding or misunderstanding of the backyard photos. Let me say for a lot of folks who have full busy lives... because we have interest in one thing does not mean that we have interest in another. We pick and choose what we choose to have interest in. To say you have to have studied any particular thing in the Kennedy assassination to be credible is nonsense.
Josiah Thompson
In relation to your post Kathy......In your first paragrph you might substitute Dr.Fetzerfor Dr.Thompson..."".Josiah Thompson said the photos are "probably genuine." Please note the modifier "probably."
He even gives a reason for it, and now someone is going to write him off for that.
Amazing! Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do? And how much must he believe,
until he is accepted by those of you complaining."
I have read where Dr.Fetzer has used the word probably, within his studies.....and you are very correct,
when you state,
"Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do?.And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining? ""
and there have been many complaints...re Dr.Fetzer's Moorman studies..on this forum...and some were within your posts.
Bernice,
I make no apology for disagreeing with Dr. Fetzer. Honestly, I don't think his study follows a logical path.
I thought the Moorman study that was presented by Josiah et al, was clear and concise, and his response to the question of the backyard photos was a fair evaluation of how he felt based on his lack of study of it. I was merely stating in my post, albeit it was not word for word, just meant by what I wrote, that the one item (his phrase "probably genuine") seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back with respect to being considered a conspiracy theorist. I don't think anyone has questioned whether Fetzer is or not. I see these as two completely different things.
The underlying idea, best I can tell, is that there must exist some set of beliefs that one must ascribe to in order to be a CT, and a member in good standing of the "party line'. Evidently, if one falls short of harboring the set of beliefs, one is looked at suspiciously.
I assume the backyard photos' fakery is part of that set.
Kathy
BTW, I have always thought that they looked fake, but I haven't really studied them either. Haven't got around to it yet.
Surely you jest. You claim to be a JFK researcher and have never studied the backyard photos? Just cause to look at
you suspiciously!
Jack
-
Someone I don't know asked me if the backyard photos were genuine or not. I said I thought they "were probably genuine" but that the evidence surrounding them was "a tangled mess." This gets translated into a firm belief on my part that the backyard photos are genuine. Huh!? Again, Len has emphasized the same point that concerned me... Why would Marguerite Oswald of all people lie about these photos and what she did the day after the assassination?
Sometimes it seems to me that some of you are like medieval philosophers ready to excommunicate anyone who doesn't agree with the strictest interpretation of the HOLY BOOK. Let me be clear. I never did spend a lot of time studying the backyard photos. Other parts of the case absorbed my interest. What I know was expressed exactly in what I said. They are "probably genuine" and the evidence was "a tangled mess." Instead of excommunicating and labeling me some sort of neo-con (Ha!) you might start discussing just what the evidence is on both sides concerning the backyard photos. My best bet is that a reasonable person will conclude that nothing is clear about them and that the evidence is "a tangled mess." However, that means one has to actually deal with the evidence and not with the conformity or non-conformity of someone else's views with your own.
Josiah Thompson
Kathy,The backyard photos are important because they make absolutely no sense unless one accepts the official fairy tale that Oswald acted alone. I don't think it's possible to accept the authenticity of these curious pictures and still maintain a belief in conspiracy. If someone believes that, they would have to explain why an innocent man posed for such pictures. Of course, this is without even taking into consideration the obviously fraudulent nature of the photos. Indeed, the many problems with the backyard photos are one of the strongest indications that there was an effort to frame Oswald.
Josiah's statement that these photos are "probably genuine" echo the kind of changing positions Gary Mack has taken in recent years, on a variety of issues. There is nothing personal here; I don't know either Gary or Josiah. However, the reason I take Gary's about face so personally is because I used to respect all the good work he did for "The Continuing Inquiiry" and know that he can't truly believe the official nonsense. Josiah Thompson was a real celebrity to many of us as youngsters first studying this case, along with Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Penn Jones, etc. Thus it is especially painful to have someone of his background label these photos "probably genuine." There is no reason to believe they are genuine in any way, shape or form. I don't know what he means by not being a "true believer." Are we to take this to mean that he doesn't truly believe in conspiracy? If not, what does he mean by that statement?
I don't believe in attacking anyone, but this is a crucial issue. Many of us looked up to Josiah as much as you presumably did, and it naturally disappoints us if he seems to be accepting the unacceptable official view of the backyard photos. How does he stand on some of the other aspects of this case that I mentioned- the ones that are part and parcel of the new neo-con platform? Does he think Oswald killed Tippit? Does he think the Umbrella Man was actually an innocuous guy named Steven Witt?
Bill Miller, please comment on the backyard photos.
********************
Don:
Putting any studies of the backyard photos aside......for now.....see below...
Yes, agreed at one time many of us looked up to Dr.Thompson, through his book.SSID..
and no I do not know any involved personally either...
and as one who agrees with your statement about the new neo-conspiracy peoples,
who imo have been making a slow appearance now for over a year, and are obviously
growing..and have posted about such,on another F...in the past......
...and IMO some names that are surfacing are surprising....perhaps...
I do not believe in all alterations, on the otherhand there are simply too
many, to ignore all... I do not follow anyone blindly, hell I am too ole now to even
think of doing so, and too damn stubborn, to even try....as I have been told, and
therefore am quite independent within the studies....
In relation to your post Kathy......In your first paragrph you might substitute Dr.Fetzer
for Dr.Thompson..."".Josiah Thompson said the photos are "probably genuine." Please note the modifier "probably."
He even gives a reason for it, and now someone is going to write him off for that.
Amazing! Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do? And how much must he believe,
until he is accepted by those of you complaining."
I have read where Dr.Fetzer has used the word probably, within his studies.....and you are very correct,
when you state,
"Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do?.And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining? ""
and there have been many complaints...re Dr.Fetzer's Moorman studies..on this forum...and some were within your posts.
Dr.Thompson, your attitude now towards Dr.Fetzer appears to me imo, to have taken a turn for the worse and not research.....
You have stated, on this forums board, words to the effect, you are enjoying it.....
So be it, and thank you for making very clear, that is what you are using this forum for....
I used to come here for research, of late all I mainly
see is a "get back at you" mentality.... and imo it sucks...
Don : Below.......re the backyard photos.......Putting aside anyones studies,
this below is from the W/C and has been available for many years..
This tells what they truly thought of such....in photographic form......and can be considered
another of their failures.....
Have a good look all at the chins...from the W/C....
Thanks..
B..
-
I do enjoy puncturing pomposity. Always have. And Fetzer is a huge target. So I guess it's obvious. But why is it "painfully obvious?" Shouldn't we enjoy what we do?
Josiah Thompson
Josiah,Once again, it is painfully obvious that you relish doing this. I can perhaps understand why you might thoroughly enjoy puncturing a truly huge ego lke Bugliosi's, but this is clearly personal, imho.
-
"Now, I'll ask you the simple question that Dr. Thompson has yet to answer. Is it correct the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm Street was taken a few day's AFTER JFK's assassination, then put back up a few day's later? A simple yes or no is fine, thanks!"
I don't know. Why don't you find out?
Josiah Thompson
I think we all should have more fun in doing research on the Kennedy assassination. I've had a little fun over the last hour or so putting together what might be a template of future debunkings of the many claims concerning Z-film alteration. They are all over the place and not restricted just to the books of Fetzer. I offer the following as the first in what could become a very funny series. Care to join?Burial #1: Perplexed by Parallax
Location: “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax”
Date: 2003 - 2004
Claim: Jack White modestly claims, “2 DPD photos crucial to proving Z film is fake!” The two photos were taken by the DPD crime lab from Zapruder’s pedestal on 11/27/63. One shows the area immediately across Elm Street from the pedestal. White believes this one has something to do with the “yellow curb stripes [being].. lengthened to make photo replications difficult.” [We’ll leave this little beauty for later debunking!] The other photo shows a familiar shot of the northern end of Elm Street with the Stemmons Freeway sign in place.
White intends to compare this photo taken on November 27, 1963 by Pete Barnes of the Dallas Police Department Crime Lab with a frame from the Zapruder film. Here is frame 200:
White published the DPD photo with this commentary: “This photo can be overlaid with Zapruder frames to show that the Zapruder sign and the lamppost are not placed correctly. Dr. John Costella has done an extensive scientific analysis of the Stemmons sign and declares it the most important ‘smoking gun’ of Zapruder film alteration.” A few pages later, White goes on to say that “this photo taken from the pedestal by the Dallas police is the smoking gun when it comes to proof that the Z film is a fake. It can be shown scientifically that the back view of the Stemmons sign does not match the Zapruder film – absolute proof of fakery!” Later in Fetzer’s book, John Costella jumps aboard, publishing an overlay of the Zapruder film on the DPD photo and declaring: “This comparison confirms a discrepancy that has been recognized for many years: that between the extant film and Dallas Police Department photographs taken five days after the assassination.”
Debunking:
The discrepancy may “have been recognized for many years” by its purported “discoverer,” Jack White. But that is as far as it goes. In a remarkable stroke of luck, a photographer for the Dallas Times-Herald actually snapped a couple of shots of Pete Barnes standing on the pedestal taking his DPD photos. Comparing these with any number of November 22nd photos of Zapruder on the pedestal, we can see that Zapruder was filming from the front of the pedestal while Barnes was taking his photos from the back of the pedestal. The difference in position accounts for the discrepancy in the sign’s position. It’s called “parallax.”
Shovels: Five (5) shovels are awarded for a truly outstanding piece of analysis that yields a deliciously funny debunking. Lesser numbers of shovels are awarded for lesser achievements. I propose that this burial be awarded three (3) shovels in light of the deliciousness of the debunking moderated by the sheer luck of there existing photos of Barnes taking his photos. Once these photos were discovered, the debunking was quite simple.
Is it correct the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm Street was taken a few day's AFTER JFK's assassination, then put back up a few day's later? A simple yes or no is fine, thanks.
and btw, the Lone Nut's along with the preservers of the current Dealey Plaza film-photo record might do themselves well if they could find a Physicist with a bent towards *optics* to comment concerning pedestal parallax issue(s).
There seems to be a real shortage of lettered Lone Nut experts commenting on these very important issues.... TGZFH was first realeased in 2003, Dr. Thompson inadvertently came across a copy of the manuscript 6 months before that, after 6 years and counting, we still see no Lone Nut effectual scientific commentary by anyone concerning lenses and/or overlays other than Craig Lamson a commercial still photog. Mr. Lamson has been commenting on lens aberration on cameras other than B&H414 Producers series 8mm camera (used by Zapruder) and Moorman's Polaroid.
I'm goiving your parallax post here a 1.5 shovel, that's shorthand for DOA!
The issues here are issues as to what was captured through the lens of Marry Moorman's Polaroid, Zapruder's/Nix 8mm film cameras
Heres all you will ever need to know about the parallax issue for the sign and the lamppost, and it totally buries your "physicist" who can't understand real world physics deep in the outback, where it seem he is hiding out. Its also interesting to note that the study really has nothing to do with lenses either vintage nor current, but rather the very basics of parallax. The very bedrock assumption of Costella's argument has been proven false and that destroys his whole argument. Heck I even use his own specs. It's 5 shovels and this issue is dead. You don't need "letters" to understand this one, only your own eyes and a leaning lampost....
BTW, why don't YOU comment or try and debunk David, the tv techie....
www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm
you're really stretching there, son...... I was a studio technical director for 6 years much the same gig as one David Blackburst performs, then it was on to field testing cameras for Japanese manufacturing concerns in the ENG (electronic news gathering) marketplace (ya can google ENG for further clarification) then producing- directing, film/video compositing -- hell son, it's lengthy...
Now, I'll ask you the simple question that Dr. Thompson has yet to answer.
Is it correct the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm Street was taken a few day's AFTER JFK's assassination, then put back up a few day's later? A simple yes or no is fine, thanks!
Parallax? Let's stay focused (pardon the pun)... hmm, it's apparent after all these years you can't find a physicist with a bent towards optics to talk about this, eh? Now its parallax! Ya see Craig, if one keeps asking the correct questions, the competition is left to dancing...
-
Sorry, I'm not a true believer. As I said, I just see it as "a tangled mess of evidence." Someone asked me; I answered. So it goes!
Josiah Thompson
To answer your first question, I think the backyard photos are probably genuine. I say "probably genuine" because this is a tangled mess of evidence.Josiah Thompson
Josiah, You just lost forever someone who got his real intro into the 'Case' in a big way with your first book with the statement above. The backyard photos are patently false; fakes; to set-up a patsy. Add to this, remember how the number of 'backyard photos' kept increasing. Well....there is yet another....and when it is released you and others will be exposed as either fools or tools. Without that new one 'the case is closed' on the BYP. I now know to disregard your 'wisdom' on this case completely from here on out - and its parts: Z-film, Moorman and all. Sorry. A real fatal blow there....but I've had you on my 'likely to cross-off-the-list' list. Done.
-
I think we all should have more fun in doing research on the Kennedy assassination. I've had a little fun over the last hour or so putting together what might be a template of future debunkings of the many claims concerning Z-film alteration. They are all over the place and not restricted just to the books of Fetzer. I offer the following as the first in what could become a very funny series. Care to join?
Burial #1: Perplexed by Parallax
Location: “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax”
Date: 2003 - 2004
Claim: Jack White modestly claims, “2 DPD photos crucial to proving Z film is fake!” The two photos were taken by the DPD crime lab from Zapruder’s pedestal on 11/27/63. One shows the area immediately across Elm Street from the pedestal. White believes this one has something to do with the “yellow curb stripes [being].. lengthened to make photo replications difficult.” [We’ll leave this little beauty for later debunking!] The other photo shows a familiar shot of the northern end of Elm Street with the Stemmons Freeway sign in place.
White intends to compare this photo taken on November 27, 1963 by Pete Barnes of the Dallas Police Department Crime Lab with a frame from the Zapruder film. Here is frame 200:
White published the DPD photo with this commentary: “This photo can be overlaid with Zapruder frames to show that the Zapruder sign and the lamppost are not placed correctly. Dr. John Costella has done an extensive scientific analysis of the Stemmons sign and declares it the most important ‘smoking gun’ of Zapruder film alteration.” A few pages later, White goes on to say that “this photo taken from the pedestal by the Dallas police is the smoking gun when it comes to proof that the Z film is a fake. It can be shown scientifically that the back view of the Stemmons sign does not match the Zapruder film – absolute proof of fakery!” Later in Fetzer’s book, John Costella jumps aboard, publishing an overlay of the Zapruder film on the DPD photo and declaring: “This comparison confirms a discrepancy that has been recognized for many years: that between the extant film and Dallas Police Department photographs taken five days after the assassination.”
Debunking:
The discrepancy may “have been recognized for many years” by its purported “discoverer,” Jack White. But that is as far as it goes. In a remarkable stroke of luck, a photographer for the Dallas Times-Herald actually snapped a couple of shots of Pete Barnes standing on the pedestal taking his DPD photos. Comparing these with any number of November 22nd photos of Zapruder on the pedestal, we can see that Zapruder was filming from the front of the pedestal while Barnes was taking his photos from the back of the pedestal. The difference in position accounts for the discrepancy in the sign’s position. It’s called “parallax.”
Shovels: Five (5) shovels are awarded for a truly outstanding piece of analysis that yields a deliciously funny debunking. Lesser numbers of shovels are awarded for lesser achievements. I propose that this burial be awarded three (3) shovels in light of the deliciousness of the debunking moderated by the sheer luck of there existing photos of Barnes taking his photos. Once these photos were discovered, the debunking was quite simple.
-
Thanks for this thoughtful post. I was thinking of something a bit more radical. Besides Fetzer and company there are others who have offered tries at proving Zapruder film alteration. Harrison Livingstone is one that comes to mind. David Lifton is another. None of these attempted "proofs" can survive examination. Nor can any of the purported "proofs" advanced by Fetzer and company. By designating a particular site as a "graveyard" we could gather together all the various "proofs" and their debunkings. This would make it impossible for Fetzer to do what he did with Moorman-in-the-street... that is, resuscitate a dead "proof" after a number of years. Life the exposure of the Nigerian con game, it would free research in the case to get back to substantial issues.
Later, I'm going to try out a possible way to organize burials. We might even assign a particular number of "shovels" to the efficiency of the burial. We could have lots of fun here.
Josiah Thompson
"A space devoted to argue against Z-film alteration would have a credibility problem, IMO, unless it gave equal time to evidence contradicting the single-assassin theory."Why? I don't see any connection between the two.
Josiah Thompson
There is widespread suspicion--you might even call it paranoia (I no longer do)--that any person choosing to focus on the errors of conspiracy theorists is someone with a pro-Warren Commission bias. At one point, I would have said I didn't get it. But after watching Inside the Target Car, where supposed conspiracy theorist Gary Mack helped push a whole lot of nonsense, all the while acting as though he was presenting a well-reasoned center, I've come to understand. (You can read my analysis of this con job here)
I just think your skills would be better spent debunking post Six Seconds single-assassin theorist nonsense (such as the Lattimer back wound location or Dale Myers' animation) than the findings of Fetzer and friends. There are points that can be proven to a reasonable certainty. The single-bullet theory trajectory does not line up. The back wound was at the same level or higher than the throat wound. The first shot did not miss. And yet single-assassin theorists and the mainstream media keep pretending these things aren't true. Let's change that.
Sounds good. But from what I've seen of discussions about Robert Kennedy's murder there seems to be some sort of general consensus out there among top researchers that Sirhan Sirhan was a programmed (mind-controlled) patsy who was somehow innocent despite firing all the bullets from a pistol and injuring several people. This might be or become an Article of Belief (based on very questionable evidence) similar to Z-film alteration idea(s) in the JFK case. It seems what Josiah is proposing is to concentrate information on all "points that can be proven to a reasonable certainty" regarding the illegitimacy of "the findings of Fetzer and friends" (Z-film alteration arguments). That's something that could be done without getting too ambitious on the numerous other issues involved in the JFK case.
So-called Conspiracy Research has a serious credibility problem if it involves debating about reptilian shapeshifters in Congress and armed midgets jumping out of gloveboxes in presidential limos. It should be just as important to debunk conspiracy theorist nonsense as it is to debunk single-assassin theorist nonsense, assuming we don't want to overlook or obscure the issues involved (with some who promote Z-film alteration arguments) for the sake of an imaginary unity.
-
Well, I guess I have to say to begin with that I don't give a damn where you think my skills at debunking should be employed. After all, they are my skills and I guess I get to choose where I'd like to employ them.
The more important point is that that you... and others... seem to think that research in the Kennedy assassination is some sort of tribal warfare. It isn't. At one point in time decades ago, research in the case had significant political importance. Now it doesn't. If someone believes it was possible for a single lone nut to have brought this off, then that is his/her prerogative. It bewilders me why I or anyone else should pay much attention to such an odd judgment. It seems to me that topics for research in this area should be chosen on the basis of what interests one. They certainly should not be chosen out of some misguided sense of what lyou propose "ought" to be investigated.
Fetzer is something else. First, he is such a pompous ass that taking him down has a certain enjoyment connected with it. Secondly, again because of his expanded ego, taking him down is not that difficult to do. Thirdly, because of the tactics he uses, he brings into disrepute not only research on the Kennedy assassination but also the integrity usually associated with being a professor of philosophy. Being a member of both groups, I find Fetzer and his "fetzering" not only an embarrassment but truly offensive. So that is why I continue to puncture his pomposity whenever I encounter it.
My other research interests are varied.
Josiah Thompson
"A space devoted to argue against Z-film alteration would have a credibility problem, IMO, unless it gave equal time to evidence contradicting the single-assassin theory."Why? I don't see any connection between the two.
Josiah Thompson
There is widespread suspicion--you might even call it paranoia (I no longer do)--that any person choosing to focus on the errors of conspiracy theorists is someone with a pro-Warren Commission bias. At one point, I would have said I didn't get it. But after watching Inside the Target Car, where supposed conspiracy theorist Gary Mack helped push a whole lot of nonsense, all the while acting as though he was presenting a well-reasoned center, I've come to understand. (You can read my analysis of this con job here)
I just think your skills would be better spent debunking post Six Seconds single-assassin theorist nonsense (such as the Lattimer back wound location or Dale Myers' animation) than the findings of Fetzer and friends. There are points that can be proven to a reasonable certainty. The single-bullet theory trajectory does not line up. The back wound was at the same level or higher than the throat wound. The first shot did not miss. And yet single-assassin theorists and the mainstream media keep pretending these things aren't true. Let's change that.
-
"A space devoted to argue against Z-film alteration would have a credibility problem, IMO, unless it gave equal time to evidence contradicting the single-assassin theory."
Why? I don't see any connection between the two.
Josiah Thompson
For a long time, the Nigerian sucker con still attracted people to send their banking information to a con man. You know the one... "I am the Undersecretary for Commerce in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and need to deposit my family funds in an overseas account of undisputed integrity. If you will deposit my funds in your account I will provide you with 35% of the funds deposited for every month they stay in your account. I wish to start with a deposit of $15.4 million. Please send to the address below your bank transfer information as well as your phone number (with international country code) so that I may contact you." The word got around and pretty soon the con was so well known that no one fell for it anymore.Why not do the same with the endlessly repeated litany of supposed z-film alteration claims?
On one recent thread, Jack White referred us all to Fetzer's site where five or six of Costella claims were outlined. Then, a week later, Craig Lamson debunked two of the claims with as nice a piece of empirically based argument you would ever want to see. We all thought that Moorman-in-the-street was a dead puppy back in 2002. And then,last fall, Fetzer resurrected it only to see it interred on this site over the last couple of weeks. The problem is that the debunkings of these claims are scattered all over the internet. What we need to do is to bring them together at some central place where any neophytes can be directed for education.
Is this a good idea? Where should we collect the claims and their debunkings? How can we assure ourselves that the work will stay up on the internet for some time? Does anyone want to volunteer to get the ball rolling? Any good ideas?
The beauty of this idea is that it doesn't depend on Fetzer at all. It all can be done without having to listen to him drone on mindlessly covering everything in sight with masses of irrelevant verbiage. And after it was done, it could stand there for good as a kind of monument to silliness.
Josiah Thompson
A space devoted to argue against Z-film alteration would have a credibility problem, IMO, unless it gave equal time to evidence contradicting the single-assassin theory.
A study of the film demonstrating that Kennedy was not bent forward enough for a bullet to enter has back and exit his throat (while traveling in a straight line) might prove enlightening to those still swallowing the SBT. A study of backspatter demonstrating that the bullet at frame 313 did not strike JFK on the back of his head might also prove useful.
-
For a long time, the Nigerian sucker con still attracted people to send their banking information to a con man. You know the one... "I am the Undersecretary for Commerce in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and need to deposit my family funds in an overseas account of undisputed integrity. If you will deposit my funds in your account I will provide you with 35% of the funds deposited for every month they stay in your account. I wish to start with a deposit of $15.4 million. Please send to the address below your bank transfer information as well as your phone number (with international country code) so that I may contact you." The word got around and pretty soon the con was so well known that no one fell for it anymore.
Why not do the same with the endlessly repeated litany of supposed z-film alteration claims?
On one recent thread, Jack White referred us all to Fetzer's site where five or six of Costella claims were outlined. Then, a week later, Craig Lamson debunked two of the claims with as nice a piece of empirically based argument you would ever want to see. We all thought that Moorman-in-the-street was a dead puppy back in 2002. And then,last fall, Fetzer resurrected it only to see it interred on this site over the last couple of weeks. The problem is that the debunkings of these claims are scattered all over the internet. What we need to do is to bring them together at some central place where any neophytes can be directed for education.
Is this a good idea? Where should we collect the claims and their debunkings? How can we assure ourselves that the work will stay up on the internet for some time? Does anyone want to volunteer to get the ball rolling? Any good ideas?
The beauty of this idea is that it doesn't depend on Fetzer at all. It all can be done without having to listen to him drone on mindlessly covering everything in sight with masses of irrelevant verbiage. And after it was done, it could stand there for good as a kind of monument to silliness.
Josiah Thompson
-
Good point, David. I don't know and I don't know if anyone knows when these notes were actually jotted down. They may have been written later in November or even early December. You certainly are right that making enlargements and story boards (so to speak) was something that went on for some time. Do you know when Shaneyfelt numbered the frames? My guess is that this was done much later than that weekend but I don't know that. I believe Gary Murr has done the definitive work on this NPIC chapter of the case. He sent me some chapters of a larger work years ago and it was great. If anyone knows how to get in touch with Gary Murr, he knows more about this than most anybody.
Josiah Thompson
This is great, Bill. One can see from these handwritten notes that the frames being looked at for possible shot impacts are approximately the frames that have always been picked in the present Z film. Hence, McMahon's claim (endlessly repeated by Fetzer) of 6 to 8 impacts is suspect. Ben Hunter's observation concerning no intra-sprocket-hole content means they were looking at the Z film copy sent to Washington on the night of the 22nd. The fact that they would pick out the same area of frames as subsequent investigators highlighted means that both NPIC and later investigators have been looking at the same film.Josiah Thompson
Doug Horne April 1997 Memo:http://www.jfk-info.com/zat-1.htm
I think the part requested is A1-1D, but I included the entire thing, because it is a fascinating, informative read.
Kathy
Thanks Kathy,
Here's some notes from NPIC.
BK
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=7
slow down Dr. Thompson.... these NPIC guys according to Horne's interview looked at the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination, and the references to Z-frames on these notes are numbered, amazing! NOW, when did Shaneyfelt say he numbered the Z-frames? After all, he is the claimed author of numbering the frames.... It had to be the day after the assassination, at the very latest, right?
Now if Shaneyfelt didn't number them, who did that assassination weekend? The NPIC? Did they number the frames? Or, are the NPIC guys lying about when they worked on (extracting frames for blow-up, talking point boards) and analyzed the Zapruder film? If they lied, why? I also believe those NPIC guys stated in the Horne interview they, or one of the two determined there were at least 4 eprhaps 6 shots (maybe more).... fired, eh? But let's keep focused on the frame numbering issue, eh?
Amazing that Dr. Thompson now finds these notes so interesting, I think these notes were published (in their entirety) 5 or so years ago in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, in a article by contributing author Doug Horne and edited by none other than Dr. Jim Fetzer... someone correct me if I'm wrong, maybe it was Murder in Dealey Plaza or Assassination Science...
p.s. I also believe one of the two NPIC guys has/had a beef about not recognizing some of the handwriting in those very notes.... CYA or F-E-A-R?
-
This is great, Bill. One can see from these handwritten notes that the frames being looked at for possible shot impacts are approximately the frames that have always been picked in the present Z film. Hence, McMahon's claim (endlessly repeated by Fetzer) of 6 to 8 impacts is suspect. Ben Hunter's observation concerning no intra-sprocket-hole content means they were looking at the Z film copy sent to Washington on the night of the 22nd. The fact that they would pick out the same area of frames as subsequent investigators highlighted means that both NPIC and later investigators have been looking at the same film.
Josiah Thompson
Doug Horne April 1997 Memo:http://www.jfk-info.com/zat-1.htm
I think the part requested is A1-1D, but I included the entire thing, because it is a fascinating, informative read.
Kathy
Thanks Kathy,
Here's some notes from NPIC.
BK
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=7
-
Thanks so much, Kathy. Of great interest is the mss. that Phil Chamberlain wrote in the 1970s chronicling his recollections of that afternoon. It is A-11. He lays out the scenario that other workers filled in concerning the development and copying of the Z film and its viewing by workers at the Kodak lab. Once again, when one gets past the rhetoric and back to the most elementary level of fact the chimeras disappear.
Josiah Thompson
Doug Horne April 1997 Memo:http://www.jfk-info.com/zat-1.htm
I think the part requested is A1-1D, but I included the entire thing, because it is a fascinating, informative read.
Kathy
-
Characteristically, Professor Fetzer only tells part of the story with respect to Homer McMahon and NPIC.
McMahon worked with Ben Hunter on the film for NPIC. Horne's meeting reports on interviewing both sequentially shows up numerous discrepancies between the stories told by McMahon and Hunter. Consider this paragraph from the report on Hunter:
"His impression is that the film was probably in 16 mm format, but was not an unslit 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 examined the film as "not high resolution."
If there were no images present between the sprocket holes, then the film viewed by Hunter was a copy... not the original that was retained by Zapruder in Dallas. We have a signed receipt (9:30 PM, 11/22/63) saying that a copy of the film obtained from Zapruder was sent by the Secret Service to Washington on the evening of the 22nd. It was flown there. In all likelihood, this copy is what Hunter is describing.
Josiah Thompson
HOW THE MOORMAN INDIRECTLY IMPEACHES THE ZAPRUDER FILMDavid, Thanks for your affirmation that the medical evidence does indeed
contradict the authenticity of the Zapruder film, where the Moorman photo
refutes the fallback that has been advanced to explain how brains blown
out the back of his head could appear on the film to be blown out to the
right front! You were not one of the "David"s I had in mind, who were in
fact David Mantik and David Lifton (along with Jack White and John P.
Costella), but I am glad you agree with me about this crucial question.
Indeed, in my view, it settles the matter decisively, which appears to be
why there will be a sustained effort to distract from these key findings.
Replying to you also offers the opportunity to present an expanded post.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry
about answers". - Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW (1973).
Earlier on this very thread on this forum, I noticed a response from Bill
Kelly to a post by Bernice Moore that struck me as quite bizarre. Bernice
was quoting from a report by Doug Horne, who would become the senior military
analysis for the Assassination Records Review Board, of an interview he did
with Homer McMahon, who was in charge of the color-photo lab at the NPIC in
Washington, D.C. McMahon testified that he had been bought a copy of a film
--he doesn't call it "the Zapruder", since he did not know its origin, and,
indeed, its contents do not correspond to the present film, which is why his
report is significant--that he had observed six to eight impacts from at least
three directions. This is eyewitness testimony reporting what he witnessed
when he watched this film, which he said he had watched at least ten times.
This is extremely important, since the present film does not show anything
like "six to eight impacts from at least three directions", yet the studies
of the medical evidence, especially by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., which
were published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) along with Doug Horne's
report about Homer McMahon and the conduct of (what turned out to be)
two supplemental autopsies, one with the real, one with a substitute, brain,
are some of our most important evidence that impugns the authenticity of
the Zapruder film. Since his work on the supplemental autopsies complements
the conclusions of Robert Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human
brain, that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National
Archives cannot possibly be the brain of JFK, in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE
(1998), I am worried that Kelly is not up to speed on the medical evidence.
He also appears to be out of his depth on the Zapuder, since the four shots
to JFK--one to his throat (from in front), one to his back (from behind),
and two to the head (one from behind and one from in front)--and as many
as three to John Connally (from the side) add up to a number between six
and eight from at least three directions. If Kelly is going to disregard
what we know from sources like these, where Robert Livingston was a world
authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, and David
Mantik is both a Ph.D. in physics and an M.D., who is board certified in
radiation oncology and makes profession decisions affecting life and death
on the basis of his interpretations of X-rays, then we are not going to be
able to make any progress at all in understanding what happened to JFK in
Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963!
This Kelly business reminded me of my latest exchange with John P. Costella,
Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties
of light and the physics of moving objects, which resolves the question of
why the conflict with the Moorman has been so sensitive to the gang in its
attempts to quash progress in understanding the case. The Zapruder shows
a massive blow out to the right front, which is inconsistent with the medical
evidence, as I summarize it below, because JFK's brains were blown out to
the BACK AND LEFT, not to the RIGHT FRONT. Roderick Ryan, an expert on
special effects who received the Academy Award for lifetime contributions
in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the brains and gore
had been painted in. So what we see in the film is a false depiction of the true
causes of the death of JFK. I don't know exactly what games Kelly is
playing here, but grasping the reasons for fabricating the film is not rocket
science. And his dismissal of the exceptional research of Doug Horn boggles
the mind! If you want to solve the case, you must ignore William Kelly.
Here, however, is where John Costella's post to me makes such a difference
in understanding why the Moorman issue has been so protracted and so contentious.
Barb's fallback seems to be that the Newmans saw JFK's brains and blood on the
side of his head, which is probably true. The frangible bullet that entered
his right temple appears to have also caused a flap of skull to crack open
and to have damaged his ear. But seeing brains and blood is not the same
thing as seeing his brains bulge out to the right front, which the medical
studies in MURDER by David Mantik and also by Gary Aguilar address. Indeed,
when Tink posted his first hatchet-job review of MURDER on amazon.com, he
complimented the author of only one chapter, namely: Gary Aguilar. But that
was a thoughtless act on is part, because Aguilar's chapter is devoted to
establishing the consistency of the observations of the wound to his head at
Parkland and at Bethesda, where he produces powerful proof that they were
consistent descriptions of the massive opening at the back of the head that
McClelland and Crenshaw had drawn, which Mantik had confirmed, and which can
even be seen in late frames of the film, such as 374. Which is no doubt why
he later returned to his review and removed the sentence about Aguilar.
What John noticed, however, is that Barb's attempt to suggest that brains and
gore actually did bulge out to the right front of his location in the limo,
as the Newmans purportedly observed--when it was actually coming out the back
of his head--would require that JFK's head be turned dramatically to the left
(that is, his face be turned sharply toward his left shoulder). Then the
claim could be made that the Newmans saw brains and gore blown out that was
coming from the back of his head, WHICH IN THE ZAPRUDER LOOKS LIKE IT IS BEING
BLOWN OUT TO THE RIGHT FRONT! That is quite a stretch for those of us who
understand the evidence, but in a situation like this, it is not surprising
to see those who want to defend Zapruder authenticity, including Tink, Miller,
Lamson, Barb, Shackelford and Kelly, among others, to grasp after straws.
In this context, therefore, John's observation that the Moorman contradicts
that explanation and exposes it as a sham, because JFK's head is NOT shown
dramatically turned to the left, which means that the blow out of brains and
gore to the right front cannot be attributed to his having turned his head to
the left, which means the authenticity of the film has indeed been impeached
by the medical evidence! And this refutation of the film appears definitive!
Which, I now believe, is why Josiah has been so insistent on drawing attention
to distant background features of the film. If Jack and I are right about the
film having been taken from the street--and after all of the testimony from
Mary and from Jean, it is beyond any doubt!--then of course the film DIRECTLY
impeaches the Zapruder. But that issue hinges on subtle and complex issues,
where he has tried to create enough smoke to make it appear to be uncertain,
while the far more powerful INDIRECT proof based on the medical evidence lies
dormant. I therefore believe he has concocted this charade for more than one
purpose, both to defeat the direct proof but lead us away from the indirect.
We appear to have succeeded in exposing twin hoaxes, Zapruder's and Tink's!
And, of course, the answer to the question is that Zapruder did not take "the
Zapruder film" because NO BODY takes a fake film. It was concocted from
various ingredients using the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and
special effects as a fabrication that no one , including Zapruder, actually "took".
________________
All,
I found some of Barb's observations so extraordinary that I sent the below
post to several of those with whom I collaborate to make sure that there
wasn't something here I was missing. The passages that puzzled me include:
[Hide Quoted Text]
You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ...
which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping
wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said
they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back
of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements,
notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area
of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his
skull.
The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred
to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and the
back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the camera.
This, of course, makes me wonder whether Barb has ever looked at frame
374, for example, where the blow-out is visible, reviewed John's studies
of the film, which I have highlighted many times now, or ever read HOAX.
I would place a considerable bet that she has never read HOAX, but since
it is so easy to look at frame 374 or watch John's studies of the film,
(1) The third gif:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/
(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif
(3) The Wound Mistake:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html
I don't know what to make of her position, in light of the quantity and
quality of the evidence arrayed against here. In any case, John sent me
an extremely interesting suggestion about a possible relationship between
Mary's photograph and Zapruder's film, which I wanted to share with you.
Jim
----- Forwarded message from jpcostella@hotmail.com -----
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:28:54 +1100
From: John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>
Jim,
I still sit on Tink's side when it comes to the extant Moorman and what camera position
it implies, so make sure that the issues are disentangled.
Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The
explanation I like best is David Lifton's in Best Evidence about the time they got hold
of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my
website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL.
The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that
somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are
seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself
dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316,
and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required -- and as
you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318
but does not rotate left or right.
Indeed, maybe that's the point of all this Moorman guff. Forget about the pedestal
for the moment, and look at JFK. Place the Moorman next to Zapruder frame 315
or 316, and you have two (allegedly genuine) different views of the same instant
of time. That shows you that the "red blob" that explodes out the front of his head in
the Z-toon is indeed supposed to be coming out of his right temple. If his head had
been rotated massively to the left, we'd be able to see his face in the Moorman --
but we don't.
John
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:06:28 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
David and David, Jack and John,
I especially need your opinions on this issue. Am I right or wrong that the
medical evidence, especially of the massive blow-out to the back of the head,
is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which shows a massive blow-out to the right-
front side of the head? You can even see it in frame 374 of the film itself.
Here is my basic argument, which I have been advancing for quite a while now:
Tink adopted the pose that there is a simple choice between accepting
Mary's testimony and the alleged consistency of all of the films and
photographs, when their consistency is not enough to establish their
authenticity. That would dictate, for example, discounting the
massive and detailed proof that the Zapruder is a recreation! He
talked as though Costella were on his side, when he is actually Tink?s
greatest nightmare. It was as though Tink hadn?t read "New Proof of
JFK Film Fakery" presenting John's latest proof, much less THE GREAT
ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. None of what I have said here even reaches
to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the
right-front in the Zapruder film, ( the missing right-front in the
anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE
magazine with a caption saying that the right-front of his head had
been blown out (which was rewritten twice after twice breaking the
plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he
described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview on
television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Jackie
herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that
she had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back
of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even
the mortician! It's not just that Tink?s little boat has sprung a
leak. It has sunk like a sieve into the ocean of truth!
Jim
----- Forwarded message from barbjfk@comcast.net -----
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:25:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: Barb Junkkarinen <barbjfk@comcast.net>
You are preaching to the choir. I presented and exhibition ...
complete with gurney from a local hospital, JFK and Parkland personnel
stand-ins and a tasteful rubber wound made to the avg dimension
described at Parkland ... to show everyone there is NO doubt that with
JFK laying on his back on a gurney in TR1, the Parkland doctors could
without a doubt, see exactly what they said they saw ... and where
they saw it.
You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ...
which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping
wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said
they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back
of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements,
notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area
of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his skull.
The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred
to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and
the back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the
camera.
Think before you leap ... and you can't really think about anything in
this arena, let alone promote leaps of fancy, until you know and
understand the evidence.
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:06:28 -0500From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
David and David, Jack and John,
I especially need your opinions on this issue. Am I right or wrong that the
medical evidence, especially of the massive blow-out to the back of the head,
is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which shows a massive blow-out to the right-
front side of the head?
<
<
Assuming that I'm one of the Davids cited, I believe you are right within the strict limits of the question quoted. The "flap" is inconsistent with the Parkland staff's testimonies. It is, though, consistent with disputed autopsy photos, and thus discrepancy makes it suspect.
While the right rear of JFK's head is not exactly "mugging for the camera," as someone put it above, it is the part of JFK's head that, in the angling away of his face, is angled toward the camera. One would expect to see more than a lumpen "shadow" there, and also that the reported backspray onto the trunk and the motorcycle cop would be represented by more than a few of JFK's cowlick hairs out of place. Those few hairs that some researchers point to, however, do bolster medical testimony that the back of the head was "sprung open," with the rear skull in pieces under the hinging top rear scalp, as some readings of the available X-rays state.
This may confuse the issue, or my reputation here, in several ways, but... Once while watching the stabilized Z-film on Youtube (I have also seen Z projected and on DVD), I paused the film to study the shadow on the right rear head. I decided that the image was best studied in other media, and clicked to exit and start a different clip. In the moment of darkness between clips in the small Youtube frame, I briefly saw an afterimage of the small shadow as a blotch on the screen just before the next clip started. I was not staring at the screen at this time - I had sat back briefly to sip my coffee between films. I'm wondering if some interface effect between the electronics and the eye produces an afterimage of an addition to the original image of the head. I'm wondering, too, if this effect can be repeated under technical study of the image on film or in digitization.
-
Bill, what a wonderful question!
There are numerous finds in the Zapruder film that are more than just significant. They are truly important. I wish I had the time to respond fully to your great question. Unfortunately, I’m facing deadline on a case I’m working on and a report has to get done tonight. So let me just reply by citing one feature.
I think Ray Marcus was the first to notice this over forty years ago. Working on Ray’s find I was able to quantify the movement of Connally’s shoulders. As you run through the Z230s, Connally is turning to his right. The angle subtended by his shoulder with the side of the limousine gets smaller and smaller as he turns. Then dramatically, in frame 238 the shoulder drops and the angle widens. This all happens between frames 237 and 238 in an 1/18th of a second. More than this, in frame 238 we can see his hair is dislodged and his cheeks begin to puff. For forty years, this has seemed to me to be important evidence of a hit on Connally between Z237 and Z238. These effect seem to me to be the momentum transfer effects of a bullet hit and not some delayed reaction on Connally’s part. The bullet drives through his chest splintering a rib and blowing a hole the size of a 50 cent piece out the front of his chest. His hair is dislodged and the compression of the chest wall drives air upward, opening the trap door of the epiglottis and making his cheeks puff. The cheek puff becomes even more pronounced in 239 and 240. Because of Connally’s turn, the trajectory for this hit would lead back to the roof of the Records Building, kitty-corner across the street from the Depository. I have heard that a cartridge case was found up there on the roof of the Records Building years later. In addition, by the early 240s we get a glimpse of Connally right wrist which now seems to be hanging limply down.
This whole effect is seen naturally only in the Zapruder film. It’s been around for forty years but I don’t know if anyone has come up with an alternative interpretation of what we see in the Zapruder film. If so, perhaps someone could educate me. I’d love to hear what the thinking has been on this.
Josiah Thompson
The Zapruder Film - What does it tell us?If the Z film is an accurate representation of what happened at Dealey Plaza, what does it tell us, other than JFK was shot in the head by a bullet and murdered?
Does it tell us which direction the bullet came from?
Does it tell us how many shots there were and what damage they did?
Does it tell us Moorman was not in the street when she took the photo, and that witness testimony is not always accurate?
Does it tell us how the Secret Service did their job that day?
What does it tell us?
BK
Moorman-in-the-street? The logic of the paper Pt. I
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Fetzer's claim about Moorman-in-the-street claims that a sight-line in the Moorman photo places Moorman's camera at a location much lower than it appears in the Zapruder film. Obviously then, one cannot use the Zapruder film to prove anything about the Moorman photo since Fetzer's claim concludes that the Zapruder film is discrepant with Moorman and hence altered. Nowhere in the debunking of Fetzer's claim did we use the Zapruder film as proof of anything. If we had, that would have been stupid. We debunked Fetzer's claim about the Moorman photo by debunking directly the particular claims he made about the photo by using internal evidence in the Moorman photo.
Josiah Thompson
quote name='Pamela McElwain-Brown' date='Apr 21 2009, 02:13 AM' post='166056']
A theory about Moorman's line of sight for her photo can logically be developed by standing in Dealey Plaza. It can't be verified by the Z-film.
If you believe her photo was taken at Z316-17 those frames can logically be compared and contrasted to her photo.
Anything more than that seems to be apples and oranges.