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

Is it true that the Atkins photo of the Man in the Doorway that shows the damaged windshield was taken BEFORE the fatal head shot?

BK

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

Was the Atkins photo of the Man in the Doorway taken BEFORE the fatal headshot?

Thanks,

BK

"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

Appreciate that position indeed....

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...

In your heart of hearts... with virtually every piece of evidence against Oswald questionable

we would be allowed to see a film of what actually happened?

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; what you are saying is that picture 203 was taken at a time when the President's car had actually gone down Elm Street to a point past this tree that stands at the corner here, in the grassy area, outlined by Elm Street and a little street that runs down by the Texas School Book Depository Building?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head.

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.

Z342... Altgens at 15 feet from JFK

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

'nuf said...

cheers 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

Josiah,

Cheers for your acceptional sparing efforts... but he aint gonna learn what he dont wanna know....

Not really sure why the discussion must center on z317 when z323 is the most obvious representation of this black-out...

and if deep in shadow, what is that white spot on his jacket collar where there should be nothing but shadow?

Does it not seem obvious that if we see the back of the head avulsed in 335/337... that this was present at 323?

At the bottom left of this black area is a portion of JFK's skull which has been blown out yet not in deep shadow...

Z337 makes the blow out to the back of the head obvious and also makes the xrays offered useless... his face and forehead where not affected yet the xrays show massive defects in these areas...

This was why Jackie's statement was removed... "from the front, nothing"

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

"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

Why am I not surprised? Tink is giving us the old, "Who are you going to believe--me or your lying eyes?",

routine. He doesn't like being caught with his pants down, which I have done again and again lately, where

this is only the latest example. 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. 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.!

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

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

Lovelady

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

Calli,

You really need to find yourself another client, because this guy has turned into a joke. He long

ago sold his soul for a mess of pottage. If you are unfamiliar with our history, here's a sketch:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's hilarious is that you think you can talk your way out of this one, Tink. I am sorry, but the train has already left the station. I have explained why my directions work for normal scans, which I have even demonstrated here. And the perverse artifact--another spiral nebula on the bumper of the limousine--means precisely what I think it means.

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. Anyone with a sincere interest in the assassination ought to greet all of this as a major advance in our understanding, not belittle them.

And if we needed any more evidence that you are sloppy in your research, the review in THE FEDERAL LAWYER was by George Costello, not by John Costella. Why are you repeating questions that I have already addressed? You have turned into a joke on the forum. Get a grip on yourself before the men in white suits have to come and escort you away.

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

Robin,

Why don't you do something more useful, like overlaying this substitute windshield over the original on the Altgens? We were engaged in an important discussion of the Altgens, which this guy has diverted. Let's get back to Lee Oswald in the doorway.

I mean, this is JFK 101! I can't believe anyone is still being taken in by Joshia Thompson's endless stream of JFK rubbish. For those who want to read the complete Costello review of MURDER in The Federal Lawyer, go to http://assassination...com/george.html

Beautiful Robin. Just beautiful!!

JT

CE350 / NARA windshield Animated GIF

In the NARA image, the Nebular star shaped cracks have been extended, due to the windshield being kicked out during the removal process.

Nope.

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

There is a photo you have in your book of a bullet that a Mr Wright said he found on a gurney. Can you remember what caliber the round was?

Any info would be grateful.

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

There is a photo you have in your book of a bullet that a Mr Wright said he found on a gurney. Can you remember what caliber the round was?

Any info would be grateful.

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

Robin,

Why don't you do something more useful, like overlaying this substitute windshield over the original on the Altgens? We were engaged in an important discussion of the Altgens, which this guy has diverted. Let's get back to Lee Oswald in the doorway.

I mean, this is JFK 101! I can't believe anyone is still being taken in by Joshia Thompson's endless stream of JFK rubbish. For those who want to read the complete Costello review of MURDER in The Federal Lawyer, go to http://assassination...com/george.html

Beautiful Robin. Just beautiful!!

JT

CE350 / NARA windshield Animated GIF

In the NARA image, the Nebular star shaped cracks have been extended, due to the windshield being kicked out during the removal process.

Beautiful Robin. Just beautiful!!

JT

CE350 / NARA windshield Animated GIF

In the NARA image, the Nebular star shaped cracks have been extended, due to the windshield being kicked out during the removal process.

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

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

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

JT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JT

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

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

We are all in your debt, Robin.

JT

A few observations:

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks in advance--

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

Unger's Altgens Files

Josiah / Calli

Thanks for the generous comments.

.

Credit: Martin Hinricks

Altgens / Croft ( Lady 8 )

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

We are all in your debt, Robin.

JT

A few observations:

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks in advance--

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

Unger's Altgens Files

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

Due to multiple posts being 'lost' between 5:25~11:25 A.M. 24/01/2012, this post has been re-submitted 26/01/2012 2:32 A.M. GMT

My responses to Prof. Fetzer, in red.

Sure--and for every other important aspect of the case, we can EXCLUDE the best witnesses to those events! Pretty soon, we will discover that what was actually going on was a circus parade--except we will have to EXCLUDE the witnesses to those events, too! In this case, the witness list is simply unimpeachable, since it includes persons who may well have been involved themselves!

The way I see it, is there is no 'best' witnesses to your version of events, other than the lead car occupants. There is not one person watching the motorcade who states that a bike passed the limo before the underpass. No matter how you slice it. Quoting witnesses and then saying that these were the guys who may have been involved, works both ways. Why would you assume Curry, Lawson, and Sorrells were truthful?

Why would Secret Service agents, motorcycle patrolmen, and the Chief of Police have been wrong about this? There is no good reason to suppose they would have been. Next you will ask me to prove what Clint Hill has reported saying over the past nearly 50 years--but EXCLUDING CLINT HILL! Too much was going on. There is no reason to suppose everyone there noticed everything.

In regards to Chaney, I've got every reason to suspect everyone there noticed nothing.

They would have been wrong if the chain of events made them look inadequate, or negligent, or just plain slow, in their actions. This is why Sorrells says he was worried about the limo passing, that he knew they should have been in front. Unfortunately, the limo did pass them (Daniels, McIntyre). This is stated by Lawson in his testimony :

Mr. Lawson.

"When the Presidential car leaped ahead" (emphasis mine), although there was quite a distance, not quite a distance but there was some distance between the two cars, they came up on us quite fast before we were actually able to get in motion. They seemed to have a more rapid acceleration than we did.

Mr. Dulles.

Did they actually pass you?

Mr. Lawson.

No, sir; they never did. We stayed ahead of them.

Daniels and McIntyre show Lawson, still under oath, was 'economical' with the truth. Lead car occupants playing CYA.

Anyone who is serious about getting to the truth of these matters has to take to heart what Clint Hill has been telling us for nearly 50 years now. Not only is there unimpeachable testimony of Officer Chaney motoring forward, but Clint Hill's testimony confirms it. That Tink and now Calli SHOULD BE IN SOME STATE OF DENIAL ABOUT ALL OF THIS is utterly beyond belief!

There is NO 'unimpeachable testimony' that unequivocally states Chaney passed the limo before the underpass. What Clint Hill has to say about the wound(s), has nothing to do with the Chaney issue. Interestingly, neither himself (Hill), Greer, Kellerman, or any of Halfbacks agents mention a bike pulling forwards either. The 'unimpeachable testimony' you keep citing, is vague, almost to the point of being cryptic.

"As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.

"His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.

No mention of motorcycle.

Not only does Clint's description of the wound contradict your characterization, but his account is consistent with what Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry have told us about about Chaney, which refutes the film's authenticity.

My characterisation of what? I'm not talking about Clint Hill, or what he proclaimed to see of the President's wounds, Jim. Curry is vague. Sorrells, imo, is misremembering, or covering his ass.

Tink has repeatedly claimed this happened AFTER the limo had already passed the TUP and that we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, . . ."

See above reply.

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off . . . .”

Unless Hargis actually stopped to talk to Chaney, how does he know what Chaney is going to do, or say? Recall the statement of DPD motorcyclist Jackson, whose passage I posted previously. Jackson wrote his account of what happened the night of the 22nd, specifically for the reason that he did not want his recollections muddied by the passing of time. It is, in essence, a first day report. Jackson states that he spoke to Chaney 'Let's go after them'

Meaning : The limo has gone, we better go after them'. Hence Hargis stating he watched Chaney slam his bike into first gear, then motor off. Why would Chaney need to slam his bike into first gear, if he was already gone?

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there . . ."

Vague. The 'speeding up' is the limo now catching, and soon to pass, Curry's car. The 'about this time' is a generalisation with no specific location given.

How is that unimpeachable proof? They were tring to play CYA because they were caught napping!

James Chaney, Bobby Hargis, and Clint Hill WERE NOT OCCUPANTS OF THE LEAD CAR, in case you have not noticed. And citing other alleged reports and later interviews, whose authenticity is open to question, is not a very persuasive way to argue your case. In fact, such a case as you are attempting to contrive appears to be superfluous. WE ALREADY HAVE SUFFICIENT PROOF AT HAND.

I had noticed, I wasn't under the impression they were lead car occupants. I am aware that their recall of events is being twisted to suit your theory though. I was hoping for witnesses like Altgens, Moorman, Hill, anyone on the overpass, etc. You are cherry picking witnesses who are favourable to your outcome. Whilst i'm trying to find corroborating evidence for all of this, i'm coming up short. I'm trying to be impartial, believe it or not, but the evidence is against this happening as you posit.

Others can address your questions about how the films and photos were faked or altered, but the agency certainly has the ability to do that, where most of the evidence in this case has been fabricated. Since Chief Curry called for the building to be "surrounded" when Chaney told him JFK had been shot, which he did at the TUP, there really is NO POINT in fantasizing about the entrance to the freeway.

Understood, i'll await their input. I'm not denying the 'agency' (whoever that refers to, CIA?) have the ability to alter photographs. They would have needed a time machine for Daniels and McIntyre though.....

If this isn't enough proof for you on this point, I can't imagine what it would take to convince you. Since only Tom Robinson and Ed Reed watched Humes take a cranial saw to JFK's head, I suppose you want me to prove that but EXCLUDING TOM ROBINSON AND ED REED? And then it will be the limo stop but EXCLUDING ALL THE LIMO STOP WITNESSES? How dumb are we supposed to be?

No, it's not enough proof for me. Nothing will convince me Jim, because I know for a fact you are wrong. How many of your 'limo stop' witnesses can claim Chaney 'motoring forwards'? I don't want you to prove anything, Jim. I'll just shut up and take your word for it, shall I?

We are doing what we can to solve the case and you are doing something else. But the fact that someone like you has shown up tells me that we are making progress and that Tink has been outgunned. So they needed to send in the cavalry, which is why you are here. We all have better things to do, however, than to construct proofs WITHOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THEM.

The fact that I have 'shown up' here, should tell you that it is going to take a bit more than your blatant misinterpretation of events to pass as fact.

Thanks.

Calli.

P.S. Robin, your clips and pics say it all......

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

Here is what NARA itself has actually declared about Ms. Wilkinson's copy of the film that she received from them.

Below is a part of one of Ms. Wilkinson's private emails to me, where she shares her dupe neg element's genealogy which was sent direct to her from NARA early this past year.

---In Feb., 2011, Daniel Rooney, Supervisory Archivist at the National Archives at College Park, Maryland informed me in an email that

the lineage of our 35mm dupe neg. is:

Zapruder Camera Original 8mm - NARA 35mm Interneg - NARA 35mm Interpos - Our Dupe Neg

Consequently, he stated, "Your film negative can be said to be 3rd generation from the original."

I find Mr. Thompson's proposal of two hits to the head perfectly viable. I agree with him completely, as I stated in my very first posts, that there is no sign of a rearward exit wound at frames #313-314.

The artwork- the "blacking out" of the rear of the President's head begins at precisely frame #315 and not before. The easiest way to come to grips with the existance of the artwork is to take any really decent copy of the film, and view frames of Kennedy and the whole car before frame #315 and view the frames from #315 onward. The artwork is immediately apparent.

In my earlier post which Mr. Thompson did not respond to, I explained clearly the likely reason the conspirator's altering the film "blacked in" the exist wound but left in the violent head snap backwards. (It's quite possible my post got buried in the huge morass of arguments, and he never read it.)

The black patch artwork could be accomplished with relatively simple work. Removing the head snap could not be done in a short period of time with a more minimal staff and equipment.

It's a matter of "what could be accomplished" in the window in which the conspirators had to work.

I still think everyone on both sides should take a breath and stop with the name calling and attacks. Both sides are guilty of it. It only causes dissension, when in fact, people who are interested in the truth ought to be looking at their common ground.

Mr. Thompson, could I hear the rest of your opinion on the nature of the shots? Are you thinking a head shot from the front and rear? Or two from the front?

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

Another proof the Zapruder film has been faked

The "black patch" on the back of JFK's head

Jim Fetzer

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. But there are other, more subtle, problems with MPI that have not been addressed here, in particular, because of which the claim that these are "state of the art" reproductions is not remotely defensible. Since many of those who post on the film do not show any signs of having read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), I want to share some important passages that were authored by John Costella:

"The MPI saga seemed to me to be a bizarre one--but in time I realized that it fit neatly into the pattern of supposed incompetence with which the entire assassination has been whitewashed, by those ascribing to the U.S. government's official view of the crime.

"The first problem was that MPI had ostensibly been somewhat at a loss in preparing their material for video reproduction. Images had obviously been resized and reframed a number of times resulting in a loss of clarity. And, in the end, the images were produced with the wrong dimensions: images of complete frames were overstretched, horizontally, compared to the real frames; highly zoomed images of JFK, in contrast, were compressed horizontally.

"The second problem was the MPI had, somehow, completely omitted three frames of the film (including the very last frame), resulting in incorrect numbers being allocated to the last 143 frames being shown, including two frames that were also interchanged in two of the sequences, but not in the others.

"The resulting DVD was, perhaps, of suitable quality for an average home video collection. I was flabbergasted to discover that it was also intended to be the final "reference" digitization for assassination researchers of the camera-original Zapruder film, because the latter was sealed and locked away in the National Archives. Apart from a small region surrounding JFK in a number of frames (shown in a highly zoomed sequence on the DVD), the resolution of each image was inferior to that published in Life magazine just two weeks after the assassination, as well as that already available from other sources." (HOAX, pp. 147-148)

Notice that the resolution of the individual frames is INFERIOR to those published in LIFE just two weeks after the assassination. We have already been told by Josiah that the "black patch" so conspicuous in frame 317 on other versions of the film, including the 3rd generation copy obtained by Sydney Wilkinson from the NARA, is not on the MPI slides, which by itself is extremely suspicious. Tink has told us that "downstream copies" display "contrast build up" and that this is supposed to explain the "black patch" at the back of JFK's head. But since John Connally is also in the same frames of the same generations of these films, why is there no "contrast build up" on the back of his head? And that is not the only suspicious problem with the MPI slides that Tink continues to tout. There is more.

Doug Horne personally witnessed the true original MPI slides photographed from the extant film in the Archives. It took over three days of effort to accomplish. Each frame, and portions of the preceding frame and following frame, were photographed on a 4 x 5 inch Ektachrome color positive transparency. Horne was the ARRB's representative at this event and was a neutral observer at the time, because he had not yet done research on the authenticity of the film. Silverberg also had a junior attorney there representing LMH Co. interests, where McCrone Associates was the Chicago company that did the work. The images went from the "camera original" to large transparencies and were then scanned digitally, which puts their RAW SCANS already one or two steps away from the "camera original".

The more serious question is why the black patch should be absent from the current MPI frames, when it is not only visible on the 3rd generation copy obtained from the Archives but is also present in the MPI re-created motion picture film that was produced by MPI and marketed to the public in 1998! This 1998 video shows the black patch -- not completely clearly, but it is definitely there -- in frame 317. Since Tink says it is not present on the MPI slide at The 6th Floor Museum, as I have asked before, just what could this portend other than ever more alteration? If other observers confirm that the black patch is no longer present (now) on the MPI slide of frame 317, then how can this be explained when IT IS PRESENT ON THE MPI MOTION PICTURE SOLD IN 1998, especially in the close-up version?

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

Tink has made it a theme of this thread 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. But there are other, more subtle, problems with MPI that have not been addressed here, in particular, because of which the claim that these are "state of the art" reproductions is not remotely defensible. Since many of those who post on the film do not show any signs of having read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), I want to share some important passages that were authored by John Costella:

"The MPI saga seemed to me to be a bizarre one--but in time I realized that it fit neatly into the pattern of supposed incompetence with which the entire assassination has been whitewashed, by those ascribing to the U.S. government's official view of the crime.

"The first problem was that MPI had ostensibly been somewhat at a loss in preparing their material for video reproduction. Images had obviously been resized and reframed a number of times resulting in a loss of clarity. And, in the end, the images were produced with the wrong dimensions: images of complete frames were overstretched, horizontally, compared to the real frames; highly zoomed images of JFK, in contrast, were compressed horizontally.

"The second problem was the MPI had, somehow, completely omitted three frames of the film (including the very last frame), resulting in incorrect numbers being allocated to the last 143 frames being shown, including two frames that were also interchanged in two of the sequences, but not in the others.

"The resulting DVD was, perhaps, of suitable quality for an average home video collection. I was flabbergasted to discover that it was also intended to be the final "reference" digitization for assassination researchers of the camera-original Zapruder film, because the latter was sealed and locked away in the National Archives. Apart from a small region surrounding JFK in a number of frames (shown in a highly zoomed sequence on the DVD), the resolution of each image was inferior to that published in Life magazine just two weeks after the assassination, as well as that already available from other sources." (HOAX, pp. 147-148)

Notice that the resolution of the individual frames is INFERIOR to those published in LIFE just two weeks after the assassination. We have already been told by Josiah that the "black patch" so conspicuous in frame 317 on other versions of the film, including the 3rd generation copy obtained by Sydney Wilkinson from the NARA, is not on the MPI slides, which by itself is extremely suspicious. Tink has told us that "downstream copies" display "contrast build up" and that this is supposed to explain the "black patch" at the back of JFK's head. But since John Connally is also in the same frames of the same generations of these films, why is there no "contrast build up" on the back of his head? And that is not the only suspicious problem with the MPI slides that Tink continues to tout. There is more.

Doug Horne personally witnessed the true original MPI slides photographed from the extant film in the Archives. It took over three days of effort to accomplish. Each frame, and portions of the preceding frame and following frame, were photographed on a 4 x 5 inch Ektachrome color positive transparency. Horne was the ARRB's representative at this event and was a neutral observer at the time, because he had not yet done research on the authenticity of the film. Silverberg also had a junior attorney there representing LMH Co. interests, where McCrone Associates was the Chicago company that did the work. The images went from the "camera original" to large transparencies and were then scanned digitally, which puts their RAW SCANS already one or two steps away from the "camera original".

The more serious question is why the black patch should be absent from the current MPI frames, when it is not only visible on the 3rd generation copy obtained from the Archives but is also present in the MPI re-created motion picture film that was produced by MPI and marketed to the public in 1998! This 1998 video shows the black patch -- not completely clearly, but it is definitely there -- in frame 317. Since Tink says it is not present on the MPI slide at The 6th Floor Museum, as I have asked before, just what could this portend other than ever more alteration? If other observers confirm that the black patch is no longer present (now) on the MPI slide of frame 317, then how can this be explained when IT IS PRESENT ON THE MPI MOTION PICTURE SOLD IN 1998, especially in the close-up version?

"It is clearly the BLACKEST area in the frames." You recall that John Costella found the shadow at the back of JFK's head not to be "the blackest area in the frames" in the very excellent upstream copy of 317 provided by David Lifton.

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

If the black patch was added to hide something, what is it hiding? Specifically, what does the MPI set in the museum show, if, as is stated, the black patch is not there? Does the MPI set show a gaping hole in the back of the head, or what?

"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