Josiah Thompson

Hi Bill, There is no damage to the windshield shown in the Altgens photo of the man in the doorway that was taken at Z255. The next Altgens photo, taken after the head shot as Clint Hill is climbing on the back of the limousine, for the first time shows damage to the windshield at the location later shown in FBI photos taken on the night of November 22/23rd at the Secret Service garage. Since there is no damage visible at Z255 and there is damage visible after the head shot, it would seem reasonable to think that the damage to the windshield was caused by a fragment from the head shot. The damage was found to be non-penetrating with a lead smear on the interior of the windshield. Blood spatter on the interior of the windshield is also visible in photos taken on he night of November 22/23. All this is also described in Robert Frazier's notes of his examination of the car at that time. JT

Hi Bill, The Altgens photo with Lovelady in the doorway was taken at Z255. This was established some time ago by locating the position of the limousing. The killing head shot occurred at Z313. JT

"Yet... it remains very difficult to imagine that the one piece of evidence offering the most definitive view of the assasiantion is authentic... when so many less significant pieces are obviously not authentic..." Well, it might be the ridiculous system that placed the film of a homicide in LIFE's hands within 24 hours plus the proliferation of copies. It might be that this meant that this film ended up being protected from alteration by its unusual history and provenance. Would there really have been any real challenging of received opinion in this case if it weren't for the existence and survival of the Zapruder film? Challenges to the single-bullet theory? head shot from the rear, etc.? By the way, both what Altgens and Brehm report is perfectly understandable when we understand they are talking not about 313 but about what happened less than a second later. This is what I'm working on. JT

Honestly David, it's very difficult to tell what we are seeing in these frames. In 335, Jackie's while glove may be hiding the lower part of JFK's head and giving the impression that the upper back part of his head is exploded backwards. Even on the MPI transparencies, it was extremely difficult to tell. You understand that I don't doubt for a minute the descriptions we get from Parkland. That we don't see exactly the same thing in the Zapruder film means only that all this was not visible in the milliseconds after the 313 impact. That's all. JT

"Anyone who enlarges the image from MURDER can see that the damage to the windshield resembles the small, white, spiral nebua. It is the same size, the same shape, and the same color." Just do it. Enlarge the image and see if what Fetzer says is true? It isn't. JT

You say, "Well, if you click on the photograph, you can see the white, spiral nebula. It is from the side, of course, and we could certainly perform the experiment over and over again to test the result he reported. It's called replication and is fundamental to science." Okay folks, click away and see what you get. You can't see anything like this if you put your face up close to the microdotted photo in your book. How come you just make this stuff up to get out of a bind you got yourself in. Then you talk about "replication" and give us a lecture about "replication" and the philosophy of science. But you never tried to replicate any of this, did you? You just got a letter from some dude with a bleary photograph and bought into the the whole thing. You have never been able to produce anything in the way of evidence and now you're stuck. You have to tell people to "click on the photograph" and when they do that they will see that you.. undeniably and with malice aforethought.. are just blowing smoke. JT

Unbelievable photo work, Robin. Terrific! JT

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.'s, self-proclamations of "victory" are about as reliable as a Newt Gingrich stump speed (nor does the resemblance end there!). With respect to his ever-mountiing series of claims, eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. For weeks, he has been claiming that the ordinary version of the MPI video offers some confirmation for the claimed 317 "black patch." For example, among the specious self-congratulations Fetzer sends himself below is this: "And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too." You can go to Robin Ungar's very excellent web site and check out frames from the MPI video by clicking on: http://www.jfkassass...5804&fullsize=1 Right around there you can also find other Zapruder frames from the MPI video. What does the back of JFK's head look like in Z 317? Exactly like what the back of JFK's head looks like in 312, 313, 314, 314, 315, 316... there's a big old shadow there that matches other shadows in the frames. Confronted with the actual frames, Fetzer can now argue either (1) Robin Ungar has messed with the frames. OR (2) The frames don't show what they clearly show. OR (3) It doesn't matter becuase the version of 317 in LA trumps all this. Most likely, we will not hear this claim made again. JT

First where you're right. I misread "Costello" as "Costella". Big deal. You write: "Jim Lewis, by the way, has conducted his experiments many times. He not only discovered that the bullet passing through makes a small, white spiral nebula but also creates the sound of a firecracker in the process." Surely, given such an important "breakthrough," you would have photos of the "small, white spiral nebula" produced by "Jim Lewis' experiments." The last time you laid this claim on us you were able to produce butkus. Apparently, somebody wrote you a letter a long time ago claiming this and you believed it without asking for any backup. You put it in your book and now you're stuck with it. Photos produced in tests of bullets through windshields don't show "spiral nebulae". They show a circular penumbra of cracked glass around the hole. Since you can't pruduce anything but empty windage with regard to "Jim Lewis," what arguments do you have left with regard to your silly bullet-through-the-windshield claim? Lay them out. JT

Nope. Did he say if the size of the bullet was similar?

The photo you have in mind I believe is on page 175 with CE 399 just below it. From O. P. Wright, I understood this was a hunting round of some sort, a .30-30 or .30-06 caliber. I photographed it back at the Sheraton Hotel with a hotel key in the photo so that width or caliber might be readily figured out. However, Wright was clear that the bullet did not depict the caliber of the bullet he held and turned over to Agent Johnsen but only that the pointed shape was similar to the bullet he had briefly in his possession. JT

Back in post #72 on this thread, you wrote: "When looking at more conventional scans, it is precisely where I describe. When we look at these blow ups, it is only APPROXIMATELY at the location of his left ear. So what? Notice how he does not address the points I have made about Doug Weldon's brilliant study, which anyone can find in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pages 129-173; and Jim Lewis's research on junked cars, which I discuss especially on page 436 of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)" Now we can all look at page 436 of your book. There is a muddy photo of a junked station wagon with apparently some damage to its windshield and what may be some sort of dummy seated in the back seat with a circle around it. The photo has this caption: "Windshield D: Jim Lewis has fired a high-powered rifle through a windshield at 200 yards and hit a dummy in the neck, evidence in support of Windshield A." Windshield A is, of course, a copy of the Altgens photos. So just maybe you might like to explain what this junked car shown in a muddy photo sent to you by someone called "Jim Lewis" has to do with the Altgens photo, or, for that matter, anything. More precisely, you might want to explain how this photo somehow is "evidence in support of Windshield A." What this photo really shows is the quality of material you claim as evidence and publish in your books. Then you cite such junk in later posts as if the junk has any significance to anyone. What, of course, would be relevant here is a photo of a windshield penetrated by a rifle bullet. Such photos are widely available since law enforcement types have done a lot of research on shootings and what a windshield looks like after being hit by a bullet. When this was discussed years ago, it just about sunk your obstinately repeated claim that a woman's tan purse in the background of the Altgens photo is really a bullet hole in the form of a nebula. You never, ever admit you're wrong so you condemn this board to endless discussions of things that have already been decided definitively against you years ago. Perhaps also, you might explain why anyone would want to read a review of your book by your pal, John Costella. JT

Beautiful Robin. Just beautiful!! JT

No Professor, I don't think so. Yesterday on this thread in post #55 you said: "When you expand this image, you can see the faint but dark hole at the center of the white spiral nebula on the windshield right where JFK's left ear would be if it were visible. This image confirms the bullet hole; it does not refute it." Now you're saying that claiming the nebula was on the windshield and blocking JFK's left ear,was just a statement vaguely locating the nebula. Sure thing, now that you have to admit that it doesn't block JFK's left ear, you come up with this as a lame excuse. Cool. Whatever floats your boat. Next you claim that "Robin caught them in the act with this image, which has a SECOND spiral nebula on the bumper of the limousine." Wow! First, who are the "they." Second, what are you claiming? Robin buys a photo from Corbus and it has some sort of artifact on its bumper. Are you claiming that someone at Corbus... or from a shadowy intelligence agency... planted a nebula shaped form on the bumper by mistake. Huh? I can tell you the prints I got in 1966 from AP and UPI don't have any artifacts? What's the point? Have you crossed over to some twilight zone where absolutely everything is sinister? Finally, why not put up page 436. It's hilarious. What are you waiting for? JT Just to demonstrate how sloppy and irresponsible he is--even in responding to my post about just that-- here is a conventional scam. What is an easier way to locate the spiral nebula than to say, "It's where his left ear would be if it were visible"? If you follow those directions, you can locate it relatively effortlessly. Moreover, I think that Robin "caught them in the act" with this image, which has a SECOND spiral nebua on the bumper of the limousine, which can only mean they were concerned about it and were contemplating either moving or removing it. What else could this signify? Whatever the source, they wanted to deal with it. When I am citing Doug Weldon's brilliant work, I am not inflating my own CV. Jim Lewis' research could be replicated and I have scanned the page, but Tink is trying to distract us. He is using it as a classic red herring, so I will post it on another occasion. This post itself demonstrates that he is being both sloppy and misleading.

So let's see if I got this right. You write:"When looking at more conventional scans, it is precisely where I describe. When we look at these blow ups, it is only APPROXIMATELY at the location of his left ear. So what?... a minor misdescription by me!" I guess this is as close to ever admitting you are wrong that you ever get. When looking at "conventional scans" (whatever they are), you are right. Otherwise, your are only "approximately right" and "approximately wrong." If we don't understand what that means, we are all cretins and should take your course in critical thinking where all of this is made clear. You wrote: "Notice how he does not address the points I have made about Doug Weldon's brilliant study, which anyone can find in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pages 129-173;" Translation: If you want to know more about my brilliance, please see my CV. If you want to know anything else, see my books that contain brilliant studies of just about everything. You wrote: "and Jim Lewis's research on junked cars, which I discuss especially on page 436 of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)." I'm going to try to attach a photo of page 436 because it's hilarious. There is a muddy photo of a junked station wagon with a caption saying that someone fired a rifle bullet through it's windshield. No discussion. No suggestion as to what this has to do with anything. Just an old car that someone shot up. Your wrote: "Notice he again cites only the evidence that favors his position: a minor misdescription by me! How many times do I have to demonstrate that he commits blunder after blunder, fallacy after fallacy? He is a Yale Ph.D., for crying out loud. He has to know better. He has to be doing this on purpose. Otherwise, he has to be one of the sloppiest and most rresponsible students in the history of JFK." Cool. Lacking anything intelligent to say about what we've been discussing, you spray insults in your leaving... skunklike! Really great, really revealing. JT P.S. Couldn't figure out how to attach page 436. Too bad. It's hilarious!

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

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

You must be kidding! You say in Post #54: The Altgens we have used was scanned from LIFE, which I thought was an appropriate choice. In a discussion as to whether a particular person in the Altgens photo is Lee Oswald or Billy Lovelady, why on earth would you start your researches with a microdotted, printed photo? Why would you consider this "an appropriate choice"? Your argument collapses once anyone looks at Robin's post #60 of "Groden Scan Large." Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., claims the "spriral nebula" hides John Kennedy's ear and hence must be a windshield feature. Hogwash? Take a close look at the photos offered together by Robin Ungar. You see the woman marked #8 in the Croft photo? Now focus in on what looks like a square, tan purse in front of her. Remember its shape. Now look at the Altgens photo also shown below. Note that her location in Altgens has been marked. Notice that the square, tan purse has become Fetzer's "spiral nebula." For an even better view of the purse that Fetzer calls a "nebula" go to Robin's site and click on "CorbisAltgens6_Large1.jpg, 281 views." It's a usual feature of discussion between intelligent people that, once a view has been shown to be wrong, the proponent of that view admits the error so that discussion can move to more fruitful areas. Both of these socalled "problems" were debunked forty years ago in the 1960s. What's the purpose in trying to coax a dead horse to its knees? JT Robin Unger has an Altgens 6 from Corbis, and has posted it both here and on his site. Unger's Altgens Files Josiah / Calli Thanks for the generous comments. . Credit: Martin Hinricks Altgens / Croft ( Lady 8 )

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

The succinctness and precision with which you sink this claim is just a breath of fresh air in a cloud of language. And you were modest and right to also praise Robin with "Robin, your clips and pics say it all." Is there really anything left to talk about with respect to this claim? It looks to me to be as dead as "Moorman-in-the-Street." Nice going! JT

Front and rear, Mr. Block. I take it that it is your proposal that the alterationist cospiritors didn't have enough time to really cover things up so they patched over the head but left the big old left-backward snap intact. This, of course, would be the dumbest of all possible choices at that time. Leave in the left backward snap which leads people to look with great attention to the back of JFK's head where they will find a humonguous patch. Sort of like putting a neon arrow there saying, "Look what I faked up!" More to the point, the smartest thing to do would have been simply to seize the film... not do a half-ass job of altering it. Seizing leaves all your options open to be adjusted as events shape the future. Why not do that? Isn't that the smartest course and doing a quickie, half-assed job the dumbest choice? You say "any decent copy of the film" shows the artwork you focus on. That's false. The MPI transparencies show nothing like that. Go take a look yourself if you don't believe me. The David Lifton's copy of frame 317 doesn't show it. My own copy of 317 or other frames don't show. "Decent copies" of the film show the exact opposite of what you claim they show. But then this has only been pointed out about five times in the past. JT

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., fills his posts with opinions. Now and then he drops in what he tells us is a fact. Recently, he wrote: "Tink made it a theme of his thread on "The Law of Unintended Consequences" that the MPI slides are supposed to be the "gold standard" for Zapruder film research, where I have faulted that claim on multiple grounds: The MPI version of the film has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332; does not include what ought to be frames 341, 350, and 486; does not include frames 155 and 156; and does not include frames 208, 209, 210, and 211." His criticism of “the MPI slides” is both wrong and silly. The MPI video has many problems but the individual transparencies do not. All frames were properly photographed in sequence. As Fetzer points out, Doug Horne was actually present during the process by which the original frames were copied onto 4" by 5" transparencies. Now consider Fetzer’s claimed “facts.” They are really “non-facts,” “factoids.” The transparencies show no reversal of frames 331 and 332. The transparencies include frames 341, 350 and 486. None are missing, nor has the entire set ever been "missing" as Fetzer claimed elsewhere. Since the transparencies are copies of the in-camera original film, there are no transparencies for the socalled “missing frames” (207 - 212) or 155 and 156. It was Horne himself ... not me... who recommended that the MPI transparencies be taken as the “gold standard.” He wrote: "Whereas Syd Wilkinson’s dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were to be declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than Sydney’s dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove that Sydney and her research team have not digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way." What Doug Horne described above has been sitting at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas since 1999 available for inspection. There is no question whatsoever that the MPI transparencies were made directly from the in-camera original. It is indisputably a “first generation copy.” At some point in the future someone may be able to show whether the Wilkinson copy is a “third generation copy” or a “fifth generation copy.” Right now all we have are different people saying different things at different times. However this turns out in the future, the Wilkinson copy is at least two generations downstream from the MPI transparencies and possibly four generations downstream. In Doug Horne’s own words, the MPI transparencies are the “control.” I’ve said many times that my examination of the transparencies and frame 317 in particular showed no indications whatsoever of the socalled “patch effect.” Instead of looking at the transparencies and seeing whether or not I’m right, Fetzer has started a new tune: “Since the MPI transparencies don’t show the same effect as the Wilkinson copy, the MPI transparencies must have been doctored by persons unknown.” So once again the conspiritorial alteration of the Zapruder film has to spin additional conspiracies to keep itself alive. At least, this seems to be Fetzer’s view. The other alternative is the simple photographic principle that direct copies are to be preferred to secondary copies and that each copying process leads to contrast build-up. Take your choice. Conspiracies piled on conspiracies or contrast buildup piled on contrast buildup. JT

Like so much of your bloviation, this is both stupid and wrong. The MPI video has many problems but the individual transparencies do not. All frames were properly photographed in sequence. None are missing, nor has the entire set ever been "missing" as you’ve claimed. The individual frames were copied as-is for the Zapruder family for the MPI project. They were returned to the family and the family later donated the transparencies and the film's copyright to The Sixth Floor Museum in 1999. The transparencies have been available for study at the Museum ever since. After about twelve years, the number of JFK researchers who have done so is extremely small... less than ten, perhaps less than five. I don’t know if Doug Horne is one of them. In the quote posted from his book, he basically designated these transparencies the “gold standard” as far as available copies of the Zapruder film go. JT

Let me try to answer your very direct and very simple questions,Ron. Fetzer and company claim that the "black patch" was added to cover up an avulsive wound in the back of Kennedy's head. No witness saw such an avulsive wound in Dealey Plaza and no film shows it. It was observed at Parkland Hospital by numerous medical personnel. By that time JFK had been hit a second time in the head and his body and head had been bounced around. Secondly, why would conspiritors cover up the back of Kennedy's head to conceal a shot from the front while leaving alone the whole left, backward snap that points unambiguously to a shot from the right front? For Fetzer's "black patch" scenario to work you have to assume that the mysterious co-conspiritors who doctored the film were both stupid and ineffective. What does the MPI set in the museum show? It shows the same thing that David Lifton's frame of 317 shows and my own copies of 317 shows. The back of Kennedy's head is in shadow as is his back and Connally's back, etc. The MPI set (which anyone can view and which Doug Horne claimed in his book was much superior to Wilkinson's downstream copy)shows no abnormalities in frame 317 or any other frame? Does it show any gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head? No, it shows just a shadow like other shadows in the frame. So Fetzer huffs and puffs to no effect. Since the MPI transparencies were made direct from the camera original film,they do not include frames that are preserved only on the three first-day copies. Do the transparencies have frames 331 and 332 reversed? Well, since the tranparencies are individual transparencies I imagine the Sixth Floor Museum was alert enough to remedy any mistake made in the production of the MPI video. Did Officer Chaney immediately motor forward to warn Chief Curry and passing the limousine in the process? Since Chief Curry explained that this encounter occurred on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway this is consistent with the film evidence that shows Chaney falling behind and only catching up with Chief Curry and the lead car later. Chaney recalled later that he saw Officer Hargis run across the street in front of him and this meant to Chaney that he must have stopped and only then proceeded forward after Chief Curry. This is exactly what the film record shows in Zapruder, Muchmore, Bell, Daniel and in the still photos of Altgens and McIntire. I hope your very direct questions have been answered and don't get lost in bloviation. JT

"Proof?" You mist be kidding. When you first put this up in another thread, I saw nothing in it to reply to. Now when you try to get a response by putting it up in a separate thread,it looks the same to me. I have better things to do than get ensnarled in quotes from John Costella from your own book and the opinions he expresses. Or for that matter, other opinions you express. Try citing some evidence sometime and, who knows, someone might respond. Or than again, they might not. JT