Josiah Thompson

For the last month or so, I have been trying to determine whether Officer Chaney was splattered with blood and brain tissue from the Z 313 impact. Certain members of this Forum were quite helpful to me in providing leads. Yesterday, I was able to listen to an mp3 file of a 58 minute interview with Chaney carried out by Fred Newcomb’s research team in 1971-1973. It is referred to in his book, Murder from Within. Like two other tapes, this tape begins with “John Whitney” on the line for James Chaney. “Whitney” is a pseudonym for Gil Toft, who was helping Fred Newcomb with his book. It becomes immediately apparent that “Whitney” has talked to Chaney before and sent him both a copy of the Zapruder film and the Altgens photo. It is clear from “Whitney’s” questions to Chaney that “Whitney” was hoping Chaney would be able to point out features of the actual event that do not coincide with what the Zapruder film shows. Chaney says he has watched the film a couple of times. “Whitney” then tells Chaney to look for various things: (1) look for “splices” in the film where there is some sort of jerk in the movement of the limousine, (2) watch Connally after the limousine emerges from behind the sign, (3) note that the limousine doesn’t even seem to slow down. This sets up the following exchange: (4 minutes, 53 seconds) Q: There are certain ways on film to be able to tell where someone has monkeyed around with the film. A: I know.. I don’t know whether the lead car ever stopped or not. I know that.. I mean Kennedy’s car. The one behind them apparently did because an officer could run from the left hand side in front of me. I know I stopped. Whatever happened there. I know Hargis, one of the officers riding escort on the other side, run across in front of me. Q: Yeah, Bobby. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago. There are, I think, at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop.. A: Whether or not the lead car stopped.. I don’t believe that it did. It slowed down though. What was this agent’s name? Clint Hill? Q: Right. A: Slowed down enough that he did get on that car. Now whether he was on there or not on.. Several different times during the procession there he would run up and jump on those little steps and ride there for a couple of seconds and jump off. It all depended on how fast it was going along and where we were at. So whether.. I don’t believe that it actually stopped. It could have but I just don’t.. The second car.. cause I recall it was Officer Hargis jumped off his motor and run across in front of me. Q: Cause that’s another.. A: I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor over on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have. Q: That stop is another thing to look for. And then another thing you can look for is to study Kennedy himself. It’s interesting then he gets that main shot that hits him in the head, blows his head up. Ah, all of a sudden you don’t see any blood or matter splashing anywhere, just one quick shot. A: On this film I’ve got, everything looks like its powdered in white, still white. Q: Right, right. You just see it that one split second. You don’t see anything flying anywhere. A: No. Q: Which is kind of strange.. A: Well, it was all over with as soon as you see it. It did splatter everything. Q: Right, right. You notice the way Kennedy’s body after he’s hit goes. Lots of things like that. Oh, by the way, did you get that picture we sent also? A: Yeah, the picture came with the film. (7 minutes, 43 seconds) Remember the discussion of a year or so back about Chaney accelerating ahead in front of the limousine to reach the lead car and tell Chief Curry what had happened? The claim was that since the Zapruder film (or any other film for that matter) failed to show this, the Zapruder film (and the others) were all faked up. This seems to put the nail in the coffin of that particular claim. Chaney says that “I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it, I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have.” Chalk this one up to the law of unintended consequences. JT

Sure thing, Robert. I don't recall ever asking Wright about whether he ever talked to the FBI. When I saw him, I knew that identification of the bullet was important and I had seen the memos or reports saying that Wright had not been able to identify the bullet and then the memo from the Washington Field Office saying he thought C1 and CE 399 looked similar. I didn't pursue the point with either Tomlinson or Wright and they didn't bring it up. At least, that's what my memory tells me after forty some years. Look, I know I made some mistakes back in 1967. Saying JFK's head went forward between 312 and 313 is only the most serious. I'm delighted to be able to remedy mistakes now. In part, that's what I'm trying to do with what I'm writing now. However, the vitriol that passes for discussion I find discouraging. JT

This is a really useful thread in terms of what I'm working on just now. Back in the late 70s I gave many of my files to the AARC in Washington. A recent visit there turned up a 71 page transcript of an interview that Ed Kern and I did with Holland in November 1966. The interviews shown just let Holland tell his story. Kern and I cross-examined Holland's story as he was telling it. We asked all the questions a doubter might ask at the time. Holland came through with flying colors. His memory was sharp and he never changed his story from the very beginning. What is impressive is the convergence of witness testimony around this point. Holland and his coworkers hear a shot fired from near the corner of the stockade fence. Their attention is drawn to that area and they see smoke moving out away from the fence under the trees. Holland and two others then run around behind the fence to the location of the sound and the smoke. There they find new foot prints in the mud and on the fence and cigarette butts. Holland and his companions executed affidavits that afternoon and their stories have never changed. What is even more impressive is the fact that several Dallas cops submitted reports saying they had run in into railroad men there who said they saw smoke under the trees. Almost nowhere else in this case do we get such a convergence of evidence pointing to the same thing. The footage of rifle shots fired from the tower on the University of Texas campus is new to me and really impressive. So much for the smokeless powder arguement. JT

Just curious, Duncan. Why did you put my name in the title? This guy is news to me. JT LOL I agree, Ron. It does look as if it has been drawn in, that's why I put the question mark in the subtitle.

As usual, Pat, you are right on target! Thank you so very much. I checked the UCSB website and found no listing for Fred Newcomb but a listing in the library's special collections for the "Perry Adams -- Murder from Within Collection. Sadly, it is made up of "correspondence and a typescript draft." I have written the library for more information. You are of course correct about the changes from 1963 to 1975 and I am adjusting my text accordingly. You are a true prince, Pat. I owe you one. JT

Thanks very much, Kathy. That's a great lead. JT

From the midsixties, it has been apparent that the motorcyclists behind and to the left of the limousine were sprayed with impact debris. Riding to the right were Chaney and Jackson. Jackson wrote out an account of that day and mentioned that he had blood on his left boot and left pantleg. In his account, he said this came from him climbing into the limousine and helping get Kennedy and Connally out of the car. That leaves Chaney. Chaney gave an interview to Bill Lord of ABC at the DPD headquarters on the night of the 22nd. He did not mention being hit with any debris. He’s wearing his motorcycle helmet and it appears clean. Following the interview, there is perhaps a ten second addition from Lord sitting at a newsdesk in a studio. Lord says: “This patrolman was so close to the President that following the three shots his uniform was splattered with blood.” Chaney was interviewed at the time by the FBI but only about his chance encounter with Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza on November 23rd. He was interviewed again by the FBI again on September 8, 1975 about his experience of the shooting yet once again makes no mention of being blood-spattered. This is especially interesting because of the circumstances that brought about Chaney’s interview. A few days before Chaney’s interview in 1975, a Dallas FBI agent was standing on a corner in downtown Dallas talking with Lt. Jack Revill of the Dallas Police. According to the agent’s report, Revill told him that former Dallas police chief Jesse Curry told him that he still believes that two men were involved in the Kennedy assassination. “Why?” asked the agent. Revill replied that Curry said he believes this because one of the motorcycle officers said “he had ridden through a spray of blood at the time the shots were fired.” Revill went on to say that only a few moments before meeting Brown, he had been talking with Officer James Chaney. Chaney told Revill “that he had never been interviewed by anyone following the assassination.” The report on the Revill conversation worked its way up to FBI headquarters and soon a request comes down to interview both Chaney and Jackson. Both are interviewed within ten days with no surprises; they relate the same stories told earlier in Jackson’s account and Chaney’s TV interview. Since the FBI’s interest in both was kindled by Curry’s remark concerning a motorcycle officer being hit with “a spray of blood,” it is curious that neither was asked if they ran into any blood spray. One final point. Here’s a quote from Murder from Within by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams published in 1974: The two motorcycle officers on the right rear of limousine were closer to the President than those on the left. James M. Chaney, on the right, stated that all four were hit with the “spray.” The bloody condition of Chaney’s motorcyle and clothes were later noted by Sgt. Stavis Ellis at Parkland Hospital. Also on the right rear of the limousine was Douglas L. Jackson, who stated he was not hit. This is possible because Jackson had begun to lag behind the limousine and was about 10 feet away from it at the time of the fatal shot. Officer Chaney, who was riding in front of Jackson, could have screened him. Fig. 3-8 shows the positions of the four officers and the limousine at the time of the fatal shot. The shaded area represents the zone where debris was forced out by an exiting bullet from the back of the President’s head. The cone-shaped pattern indicates a shot was fired from directly in front of the President. (page 60) The sentences dealing with Chaney, Stavis Ellis and Jackson are all footnoted to author’s interviews with Chaney, Ellis and Jackson. No dates are given for the interviews or additional information. The book contends that “the President was facing forward and slightly to his left when he was struck by the fatal bullet fired by the driver.” (p. 55) It contains a diagram (p. 311) showing at Z 313 an entry in the center of JFK’s forehead with impact debris strewn to the right rear. A section at the end mentions that all interviews were done on a reel-to-reel tape recorder and were later put on CDs. Does anyone have any idea where these CDs might be? Does anyone have any additional information on this question? JT

In the fall of 1966, we heard at LIFE multiple reports that Salisbury was heading a team from the NYT investigating the Kennedy assassination. However, we never found any footprints from this purported team in the field. It may have been a mirage. JT

Yes, Pat. I think you are right on target. I think Errol Morris is an odd kind of genius. In terms of filmmaking, he's clearly a genius. Just take a look at "Gates of Heaven" or "Thin Blue Line" or "The Fog of War." But unlike many geniuses or most geniuses, he's also a really smart guy. I think what you said is basically correct. When you said the "blurriness of our existence" you said something he would clearly approve of. And while we're talking of things blurry, I gotta disclose something that shows just how blurry my own head is after all these years. The guy who gave me the good steer to the two deputy sheriffs just emailed me. He found quotes from both of them on pages 119 and 120 of a book published ages ago. The book was called "Six Seconds in Dallas." Am I an idiot or what!! JT The two Sheriff's Deputies admitting they'd been told of the smoke that I was able to find were McCurley (19H514) and Oxford (19H530). Is that it? Or was the second one you mentioned someone other than Oxford? I had looked it up, and found those two, but didn't want to post it until I had the time to read through more of the statements. So you missed nothing. Unfortunately, I let myself get side-tracked by some of the nonsense in this thread. You spent six hours talking to Errol Morris. Did you get the feeling he was out to make all CTs look wacky? I've seen most of his movies and have read many of his articles and interviews, and doubt he'd be interested in doing a hit-piece on CTs. Most of his films and articles deal with the blurriness of our existence, and the elusive nature of truth. As a consequence, I suspect he's mostly interested in the "unknowable" and the attempts of some to know it anyhow, and not in telling the American people what to think. Am I on the right track? Or did he seem to have an agenda?

There are Bill. There are both statements and interviews of men with Holland on the Triple Overpass. Several of these men observed the smoke near the fence. Since these are simply guys who gathered there to see the President come by after, say, 11:30 AM, there is no reason to believe they would have observed the back of the Depository earlier. JT Why are there not interviews with the railroad men themselves? Reports giving their names and statements rather than just reports from cops they talked to? And as I mentioned before, these railroad men should have been questioned about seeing Oswald walk from Frazer's car to the TSBD, and what he was carrying in his hands, as well as eyeballing the people who came out the back and side doors of the TSBD after the assassination. BK JFKcountercoup

Nope, Pat, those were the two. Did you mention them in your earlier post and did I, the dummy, miss your mention of them? Do you know of any more? JT The two Sheriff's Deputies admitting they'd been told of the smoke that I was able to find were McCurley (19H514) and Oxford (19H530). Is that it? Or was the second one you mentioned someone other than Oxford?

A really nice thing happened to me last night. Given all the unhappy feelings that are being expressed in this thread I thought you all might like to know about it. One of the facts of the assassination that gets better and better in terms of proof is the claim made by S.M. Holland and several other railroad men that at the time of the shooting they saw smoke just south of the stockade fence. This was just over the fence from the spot where Holland and others found cigarette butts and fresh footprints in the mud. This claim is made strong by the fact that the various accounts are interlocking and were given shortly after the shooting. I recalled that I had seen somewhere reports of one or more law enforcement officers that they had encountered at the scene within seconds or minutes of the shooting railroad men who had claimed to have seen smoke near the fence. I knew I had read these reports but I could not figure out where. Rather than wrestle in the mud with Professor Fetzer by defending myself from his spurious claims, I thought I would ask if anyone could direct me to these law enforcement reports. First, Pat Speer was kind enough to take a shot at it. Unfortunately, his suggestion didn't end up helping that much. Then last night I got an email from a researcher whose work I've admired for many years. If you're dividing us up into churches, I guess he would fall into the congregation of the lone assassin believers. He has done wonderful work for decades and we never have had much contact. He suggested: "Try 19H514." I did and found the report of Deputy Sheriff A.D. McCurley who reported: "I ran over and jumped a fence and a railroad worker stated to me that he believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a stockade fence which surrounds the park area." Since I had the vague memory of there being more than one report of this, I started reading reports in Volume 19 around this one. Soon I had a second sheriff's deputy saying basically the same thing. These reports are important evidence since they lock down the evidentiary weight of the railroad men who said they saw smoke near the fence. But the importance of this is even greater. I am putting together material for a book that will argue that Kennedy was shot both from the right front and from the rear. And here I get help from someone who, overall, probably would throw his cards down on the side of Oswald being the lone shooter. The most important point here is that Fetzer and his ilk can whine 'til the cows come home about someone not being loyal to the orginal mother church. However, we are not religious people having a theological debate. We are trying to do contemporary historical research. The more we help each other in that research the farther all of us get. The less time we spend on demanding loyalty oaths from our fellow inquirers the more time we'll have for real work. In the "9/11 truther" movement, we can see what happens when historical research is overtaken by zealotry. It begets schism after schism reminiscent of the history of the early church. My experience last night was the contrast domain to what Professor Fetzer deems to be important. JT

Thanks so much, Pat, for trying to help me out. I’m having a lot of trouble trying to figure out just where Earle Brown was at the time of the shooting. I’m beginning to think he may have been on the railroad overpass over the Stemmons Freeway and not looking down at Dealey Plaza at all. What do you think? Let me tell you what I’m trying to run down. I remember reading somewhere a report or interview of a DPD or sheriff’s officer (in fact, perhaps more than one) that they had run into the knoll/railroad area and encountered one or more railroad employees who said they had seen smoke at the time of the shooting in the area in front of the stockade fence. Obviously, this gives even more credibility to these reports if cops in the area say quite independently that railroad employees told them this on the site. So that’s what I’m trying to run down. I appreciate your willingness to help on this. JT Tink, one of the little-appreciated facts about the assassination is that one of those on the railroad bridge claiming he saw and/or smelled smoke WAS a Dallas Police Officer. From patspeer.com, chapter 7: Earle V. Brown was a Dallas police officer stationed on the south end of the railroad bridge. (12-23-63 FBI report on a 12-9-63 interview, CD205 p39) "He stated he heard the shots that killed President Kennedy, but did not see the shots take effect and stated he could not furnish any information which would assist in identifying the assassin. He advised that he believed he could smell gunpowder in the air on the overpass but believed it was probably brought there by the wind." (4-7-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H231-236) "the first I noticed the car was when it stopped...After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped." (When asked if it made a complete stop) "That I couldn't swear to." (When asked how many shots he heard) "Three." (When asked from where the shots came) "Well, they seemed high to me...It came it seemed the direction of that building, that Texas...School Book Depository." (7-15-64 signed statement to the Dallas Police Department, 22H600) "I heard the shots and they seemed like they were coming high from the direction of the book depository building. There was a terrific echo." (11-09-83 AP article found in the Indiana Gazette) "I was down there early at about 10 a.m. and I had this vision of a rifle sticking out of a window. It was very strange. Then I heard these shots," said Brown. "It was a premonition and it has always really shook me up when I think of it. It was like someone was trying to tell me something." About two hours later, Brown said, he heard shots and saw two or three puffs of white smoke wafting toward the bridge. The president, he said, was lying in his wife's lap as the car passed beneath him. "I still see that," he said.

On Thanksgiving morning, there is nothing like the smell of vitriol in the air. When Professor Fetzer loses an argument he calls the other party an “op” or stupid. Since he’s lost numerous arguments to me over the years, his claim is old and tired. In the good professor’s infinite wisdom, he also claims to know what I am going to do in the future. This too is a bit old and tired. According to him, I’m going “to proclaim there was no conspiracy after all.” Thank you, Professor. Once again you’ve given me the opportunity of proving you categorically, irredeemably WRONG!! For the last six months, I’ve been working on a new manuscript. I found in Washington at the AARC all my old transcripts of Dallas witnesses. They are quite wonderful. In addition, I went to Dallas and spent two afternoons looking at the MPI transparencies. They too are quite wonderful. The consequence of this work is that I think I can now correct some mistakes I made forty years ago. JFK’s head did not dramatically move forward between 312 and 313 and that means we are seeing the impact of a bullet from the right front, not the exit of a bullet from the rear. The last forty years have made certain aspects of the assassination much clearer. Although I cannot as yet come up with a complete reconstruction of what happened, I think I’ve made good progress on part of it. It’s appearance will prove once again that the Professor is not just wrong but silly. So what else is new. I’ve come to have great respect for the knowledge and acuity of many who post on this forum. I’ve also come to recognize that I don’t know all the answers and don’t even know where to look for the answers. I mention this because I look forward to raising research questions on this forum and asking for your help. Let me ask one now. It’s much more useful than jousting with Fetzer. I’ve read at some point or other that Dallas policemen who ran into the knoll area encountered railroad men who told them they saw smoke. We know that several men standing with S.M. Holland on the overpass saw smoke near the stockade fence. The fact that Dallas police officers submitted reports or said they encountered such individuals gives even more credence to their claims. Can anyone direct me to these reports by Dallas police officers? Thanks. JT

The copy of CD 385 that Greg Parker turned you onto I think is correct. I found it in the Archives in 1967 and published it in Six Secondson pages 308-309. It is an FBI 302 that contains the text of an affidavit signed by Carr. I never have seen the signed copy. JT

It's even stranger than it appears. Gary Aguilar and I did some work on CE 399 about five years ago. We can track C1 (that is CE 399) to the Dallas Field Office in June 1964. We found a memorandum anonymously authored by someone in Washington at FBI headquarters that said Agent Bardwell D. Odum showed C1 to both Tomlinson and Wright on particular days in June 1964 and they said that C1 was similar to he bullet they handled on November 22nd. I found Odum who turned out to be a delightful guy in his 80s. He lived in Dallas and practiced law for a long time after leaving the FBI. He said he was certain he had never had C1 in his custody and had never shown it to either Tomlinson or Wright. Gary interviewed Odum over the phone and we both visited his home and reinterviewed him together where he reiterated the phone interview. In addition, I understand that John Hunt has discovered some discrepancies or problems with the FBI Lab's paperwork on the receipt of C1. It is clear that FBI Agent Elmer Todd testified that he put his initials on the bullet he turned over to the FBI Lab. Todd's initials are not on CE 399. So it gets curiouser and curiouser... JT quote name='Gil Jesus' date='19 July 2011 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1311112673' post='230881'] Commission Exhibit 2011 ( 24 H 412 ) shows the break in the chain of custody of bullet 399. "Darrell C. Tomlinson...cannot positively identify the bullet as the one he found and showed to Mr. O. P. Wright." "Mr. O.P. Wright could not positively identify C1 ( CE 399 ) as the bullet that was found on November 22, 1963." "Special Agent Richard E. Johnson, United States Secret Service, could not identify this bullet as the one he obtained from O.P. Wright, Parkland Hospital, Dallas Texas, and gave to James Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service, Washington, D.C. on November 22, 1963." "James Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service, advised that he could not identify this bullet as the one he received from Special Agent Richard E. Johnson and gave to Special Agent Todd on November 22, 1963." All four of the people who handled the "stretcher bullet" before it came into the possession of the FBI could not identify CE 399 as being that bullet.

I should have been clearer, David. By "all the cycles," I meant the two cycles that would have hit Moorman if she were standing in the street or would have had to take dramatic evasive action. No one saw Martin or Hargis do this. Secondly, the reason you don't see Hargis stop his cycle in the Zapruder film is pretty obvious. As he slows, he fades out of frame on the left side behind the limousine. Of course, he wouldn't be shown doing this in the Zapruder film. The Moorman photo itself shows her looking down on Martin and Hargis. Hence, the internal evidence of the Moorman photo matches what we see in the Zapruder, Muchmore, Nix and possibly another film that I've forgotten. Surely, you don't want to argue that all these films have been altered to place Mary Moorman in the grass when she was standing in the street. And why do this?? "To conceal the limousine stop," you say. This is incredibly risky... one might even say, stupid. Why? Because when the tourist from Topeka shows up with his movie film of the limousine stopping all your antics are exposed. In short, the balloon goes up. This is something that few people of the "alterationist" perspective are willing to conjure with. I believe Jack White and perhaps Professor Fetzer have announced that all the Dealey Plaza films and photos have been altered (even those that never were in government hands). However, anyone trying to pull off such a stunt could never know he had all the films. The logic of the situation runs like this: (1) You can't alter just one film or it's discrepancy with all the others would be readily discoverable. (2) You must try to alter all the films. (3) You can never know that you've done this. (4) Therefore, trying to alter any or all of the films from Dealey Plaza is a silly thing to try. Do you agree, David? I'm curious. JT JT I'm writing this post primarily to address statement number (2)--above--but first, let me address these comments about Moorman. First of all, I thoroughly disagree with the notion that the film clip I cited is not adequate to make a very firm judgement as to what Mary Moorman said. Its right there on camera. She says she stepped into the street, and even points to the street. Theorizing about what may have been left on the cutting room floor will not change these facts. Whether she actually took her picture when she was standing in the street is another matter. What concerns me the most is that she repeatedly said she was standing in the street, and the Z film does not show her there. Let's now turn to point (2). The statement there is simply incorrect--i.e., the notion that all the cycles are shown to "cruise down Elm Street right by the south curb." First of all, the Nix film --particularly the Enhanced Nix Film (on YouTube)--provides a plethora of evidence that at least three of the cyclists stopped. Jackson and Cheney are on the right hand side, and the Enhanced Nix shows them stopped. It happens quickly. And you have to watch carefully when Nix pans to the right. (You see Cheney turning his head to the right). Also , on the left hand side of JFK’s car, you see Hargis stopping (and that movement is quick, because Nix pans to the left) More specifically, re Hargis: Hargis completely stopped his cycle, AND put the kickstand down, AND then ran over to the light pole (as shown in frames from the Bell film). AND then he ran back to his cycle, remounted, and scooted off towards the Underpass. Interviews conducted by one researcher, years ago, with Malcolm Summers (who is shown falling in the Z film) indicate that Hargis cycle actually tipped over, and that he had to then place it rightside up, before leaving it, in the street, and running over to the light pole. Other films show Hargis' cycle upright, and simply standing there (upright) with the kickstand down, as Hargis is about to leave it (and/or has already left it) and run towards the light pole (see Darnell's film). None of this is shown on the Z film. Anyway, my point is that not ONLY are there cycle cops who SAY that they stopped, but that the films show that Hargis left his cycle, upright, and went over to the north curb, stood there, looked up at the monument area, and then returned to his cycle. So the statement that all the cycles simply "cruise[d] down Elm Street right by the south curb" is simply incorrect. DSL 7/1/11; 6:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, CA

I think we have photos showing Jean Hill in her red coat running up the steps onto the knoll, David. I think we have another photo showing Mary Moorman sitting by herself in the grass. We know that reporter Featherstone spoke to Moorman while she was still in Dealey Plaza on the grass but I'm not sure the man shown is Featherstone. How many times does this silly ass claim have to be refuted? If you go to the CBS show DSL has given the link to, you will find that Moorman is only interviewed for a very short time... a number of seconds. I did my time with Dan Rather over several CBS shows and the problem is CBS controls the cuts. I was appalled a couple of times when I saw how CBS cut what I said. The same probably applies here to Mary Moorman. We have no idea what she said, say, a minute and one-half later, that was left on the cutting room floor. (1) Jack White claimed to have found a line-of-sight in the Moorman photo defined by the top left corner of the Zapruder pedestal and the botton right corner of a window beyond. If you establish this line-of-sight in Dealey Plaza it establishes a position in the grass by the south curb forty some inches above the grass. White used this to argue that Moorman was faked up in the Zapruder film because she was shown taking her photo from a standing position fifty some inches above the grass. But White made a mistake of observation. The two points named by White don't line up in the Moorman photo. Hence, White's line-of-sight is not to be seen in the Moorman photo. The true line-of-sight in the Moorman photos is some inches higher than the White line-of-sight. It matches perfectly the position of Moorman as shown in the Zapruder, Muchmore, Nix films. (2) Moorman and Hill's shadows standing on the grass by the curb are seen in the famous Altgens photo. That photo makes clear that had Moorman stepped into the street she would have been run over by DPD motorcyclists Martin and Hargis or they would have had to take dramatic evasive action to miss her. No witness saw the motorcyclists do anything but what the photos and films showed they did... cruise down Elm Street right by the south curb. (3) Moorman did step into the street to take two of her photos of DPD cyclists. We know this because the surviving photo shows her camera looking up at the 58" high top of the cyclist's windshield. (4) Bill Miller did a neat piece of investigation here. He tracked down one of the motorcade cycles to a museum in North Dakota or somewhere like that. He got the museum director to pump up the tires properly and determine the height of the windshield top from the ground. It was 58". Bill Miller than pointed out that the Moorman photo shows that the camera lens was looking down on the 58" top of the two cyclists' windshields. The only way the photo could have been taken from the street was if Mary Moorman put her camera either on her head or over her head. In short, the photo itself shows it was taken from the higher location on the turf and not from the street. It is also the case that Moorman testified under oath in 1969 at the Clay Shaw trial and identified her position on the grass during this testimony. The alterationists have been using this argument for over a decade and it's a drag to see it resuscitated again. Sorry, DSL, but this hound won't hunt, it won't even move! JT

Okay, here's the quote: "Up to now critics of the Report have gotten by with simply discovering the errors of the Commission and displaying them. It is the responsibility of future works to address themselves to the question asked above, to begin drawing all the evidence together and to attempt to make sense of it." Why you would think this is an invitation to people to speculate bewilders me? What I think I was saying is pretty simple: The Warren Commission report tried to reconstruct what happened. It has been shot full of holes. That leaves the question unanswered: What happened? That question gets answered as any historical question gets answered... by drawing together the extant evidence in a disciplined manner. The quote was simply setting the table for what I was trying to do in Six Secondsand had nothing to do with speculation. Obviously, I can't help it if you want to speculate about what I meant even when I tell you you're wrong. JT

Sorry Tom. I just misread your post and thought you were asking for my email address. I just emailed you my postal address. JT "Thank you, Tom. I just sent you my email address." Received! However, as those who are already on the "distribution list" will no doubt agree, it requires a U.S. Postal mailing address in order to accomodate the volume of (newspaper) publishing's generated to date. Recognizing that giving out one's postal address is frequently not unlike giving out your SSAN, perhaps those who visit here and are already on the distribution listing may offer comments and/or criticisms as to whether or not what you would be receiving would be worthwhile or merely more "junk mail". And, although my discussions with those such as: 1. Dr. J.T. Boswell 2. Dr. Malcolm O. Perry 3. Retired FBI Agent Robert A. Frazier 4. Retired FBI Agent (Spectrographic Lab Technician) Henry Heiberger 5. Retired FBI Agent (Spectrographic Lab Supervisor) John F. Gallagher 6. Dallas County, TX surveyor Mr. Robert H. West Do not necessarily serve to indicate any "proof" of anything, it just may serve to indicate that considerably more time has been spent on doing my "homework" than have most who proclaim to know something about the subject matter.

I think your post is a bit fuzzy-headed. The basic problem is not "speculation" but "advocacy." No historian of the first rank has been willing to touch this case over the last forty-some years. Those who have touched it have often been lawyers. Their efforts have amounted to buiding a case for this view or that view. The result has been a cacaphony of various voices that has left the general public sceptical. Last night Rachel Maddow listed the Kennedy assassination with UFO's, the claim the U.S. government was complicit in 9/11, the theory that the U.S. never made it to the moon in the 1960s, etc. These were all grouped by her under the rubric "conspiracy theories." The real distinction here is between advocacy and either scholarship or investigation. Over the last thirty-five years, I've helped numerous counsel build cases. That's what lawyers are paid to do. However, I also know that building a case is far afield from real investigation. Real investigation tries to get as close as possible to what is really out there... to what really happened,,,,warts and all!! This too is the aim of true scholarship... to find out what is really there and communicate it. "Speculation" has little to do with any of this. I'm puzzled why you're "not sure what Josiah was looking for here." I have made a lot of dumbass, confusing statments in my life but this was not one of them. And how you get that the statement was "encouraging speculation" beats me. I'll just chalk it up to "speculation" on your part. JT

Thank you, Tom. I just sent you my email address. JT

John, How nice to hear from you. First off, your GIF. At first glance, it seems to show JFK’s head moving forward an enormous distance. Both Itek and I measured this forward movement as slightly over two inches. However, if you look closer at the GIF you will note that Mrs. Kennedy and the Connallys also move forward (or to the right in the frame). I think this forward movement by everyone is illusory... the product of the blur in 313. Hence, what’s involved here is subtracting this illusory movement from the very real movement of JFK’s head. David Wimp did this with some very complicated math and came up with the figure of JFK’s head moving about an inch forward (or to the right) between 312 and 313. (No. Itek did not take the blur into account in their study; I’ll send it to you.) Itek determined that any such measurements are only accurate to about 0.2 inches and that seems about right. I’ve compared the measurements made by me (1967), done in the Itek Study (1976) and done by David Wimp (2005). I find it interesting and encouraging that all three measurements are about the same and except for movement between 312 and 313. Here Itek and I agree but Wimp drops the figure from a trifle over two inches to one inch. The difference, of course, is that Itek and I were both oblivious to the effects of the blur in 313. But that blur is crucial. If taken into account it shows that Kennedy’s head is moving forward before 312 and any movement between 312 and 313 simply continues this movement. As Jim DeEugenio acutely pointed out, this drives Ken Rahn nuts since it makes the bogus “jet effect” and “neuromuscular response” theories irrelevant. I’m delighted that you have an interest in this question. I’d like to send you Wimp’s study and also the Itek Study. Send me your email address and we can start an email correspondence about it. You will be able to understand the math involved a lot better than I can. Intelligent cross-examination of an idea always benefits us. Nice to hear from you. JT

Sure thing. Whatever. This thread is not about the question Cliff Varnell raised and I have no interest in trying to answer it. JT Josiah, I apologize for misreading what you wrote. I now see that I muat have misinterpreted your sentence, "The fact that no avulsive injury to the back of JFK's head shows in the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film in any way means that the Parkland witnesses were wrong." I think you must have meant to say "doesn't in any way mean." I think if you re-read it yourself, you might understand how I could come to the conclusion I did. However, I am now curious about your reply to Cliff Varnell's simple question about your views regarding the back wound to JFK. Why would you be getting involved in a "controversy" by stating an opinion about one of the true salient points in this case?

First Tom Wilson and now a clump of hair. Priceless. If you fiddle around with Photoshop a bit and change the exposures you can make JFK's right shoulder look like it may have something on it. His right shoulder is elevated and this may be a sliver of sunlight making it look like something on his right shoulder. Alternatively, this may be debris on his shoulder from the massive blow-out on the right side of his head. How could your "clump of hair" come the back of his head when both the Moorman and Zapruder film show nothing is missing? "Clump of hair?" That's a real reach. The important point is that the Moorman photo (like the Zapruder film) shows no such blow-out to the back of his head. That is just a fact that is shown by inspection. For years you've wanted to use the Moorman photo to impeach the authenticity of the Zapruder film. Here they confirm each other and you're trying desperately to deny that. For the fifth time, I'm saying that this does not mean the Parkland witnesses are wrong. They saw the head from close-up. The back of the cranial cavity could have been shattered and its appearance changed between 1/9th of a second after the hit and its appearance at the hospital. The only thing that's clear is that you cannot use later observations to impeach what the Z film shows. Moorman's photo (taken at Z 315) shows the same thing. Sorry, but that's just a fact you can't wiggle out of. And that is what the dispute was about. JT