Josiah Thompson
-
Posts
655 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Josiah Thompson
-
-
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
That looks like Dog Face Man to me, his snout pointed right at the camera.
In any case, it looks like a drawing. (Any real person that ugly would have drawn too much attention.)
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
Tink,
I was once in email contact with Newcomb's son. If I recall 1) Newcomb is still alive, and 2) his tapes are archived at the University of California Santa Barbara.
It has long been my feeling that ALL tapes of original witnesses prior to the HSCA investigation should be archived on a website and made publicly available. They are not personal possessions, IMO, but pieces of evidence in an unsolved murder.
As far as Chaney and Jackson, you are incorrect in stating they both told the FBI what they'd said earlier. They had in fact both changed their stories. Chaney, for example, had decided to toe the line with the official story and pretend the head shot was the least shot.
From patspeer.com, chapter 5b:
James Chaney rode to the right and rear of the President. Despite the fact he was the closest witness behind the President and that he had a private conversation with Jack Ruby on the day following the assassination, Chaney was not questioned by the Warren Commission. (11-22-63 interview on WFAA, as shown on Youtube) “I was riding on the right rear fender...We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15-20 miles per hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap, and uh, it was apparent to me that we were being fired upon. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I went on up ahead of the, to notify the officers that were leading the escort that he had been hit and we're gonna have to move out." (When asked if he saw the person who fired on the President) "No sir, it was back over my right shoulder.” (Note: some sources have it that Chaney also mentioned “a third shot that was fired that (he) did not see hit the President” and that he did see “Governor Connally’s shirt erupt in blood..” but I can not find a primary source for this part of the interview.) ((3-24-64 testimony of Mark Lane before the Warren Commission, 2H32-61) “James A. Chaney, who is a Dallas motorcycle policeman, was quoted in the Houston Chronicle on 11-24-63, as stating that the first shot missed entirely. He said he was 6 feet to the right and front of the President's car, moving about 15 miles an hour, and when the first shot was fired, "I thought it was a backfire." (12-8-63 AP article by Sid Moody) "His head erupted in blood" said Dallas patrolman James Chaney, who was 6 feet away from the president." (3-25-64 testimony of Marrion Baker before the Warren Commission, 3H242-270) “I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.” (9-12-75 FBI report) “Chaney stated that as the President’s car passed the…(TSBD), he was four to six feet from the President’s right shoulder. He heard three evenly spaced noises coming seconds apart, which at first he thought to be motorcycle backfire. Upon hearing the second noise, he was sure it was not a motorcycle backfire. When he heard the third noise he saw the President’s head “explode” and realized the noises were gunshots. He said that the shots did not come from his immediate vicinity and is positive that all the shots came from behind him.” (9-17-75 FBI report, FBI file 62-109060, sec 181, p168-170) “after making a left turn off Houston Street and shortly after the car had passed the School Book Depository, Chaney heard a noise which sounded like one of the motorcycles close to the President’s car had backfired…Chaney said he glanced to his left at the two motorcycles on the opposite side of the President’s car…Within a few seconds after Chaney heard the first noise, he heard a noise again and turned to his right to try and determine what the noise was and where it was coming from…Chaney said he then looked straight ahead to avoid colliding with the curb and presidential car and then looked at the President just as he heard a third noise. Chaney said while he was looking at President Kennedy, he saw his head “explode.” Chaney said he was positive that all the noises he heard were coming from behind his motorcycle and none of these noises came from the side or the front of the position in which Chaney was located. Chaney said the noises were evenly spaced.”
Douglas Jackson rode on the far right of the President. (Notes written on the night of 11-22-63 as reprinted in The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979): Officer C “we turned west onto Elm Street. Drove only a short way traveling very slowly. About that time I heard what I thought was a car back fire and I looked around and then to the President’s car in time for the next explosion and saw Mr. Connally jerk back to his right and it seemed that he look right at me. I could see a shocked expression on his face and I thought 'Someone is shooting at them.' I began stopping my motor and looking straight ahead first at the Railroad overpass and saw only one Policeman standing on the track directly over the street. I looked then back to my right and behind me then looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me. Mrs. Kennedy pulled him toward her. Mrs. Connally pulled Mr. Connally down and she slid down into the seat. I knew that the shooting was coming from my right rear and I looked back that way but I never did look up. Looking back to the front again I saw the Secret Service Agent lying down across the car over Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy, the presidential limousine was beginning to pick up speed and the Secret Service men were running past the presidential car drawing their guns as they ran. I said to Jim Chaney "Let's go with them" and we sped away, he pulled past the President's car and up toward Chief Curry's car.” (As quoted by Fred Newcomb in Murder from Within, an unpublished manuscript from 1974) "Mr. Connally was looking toward me. And about that time then the second shot went off. That's the point when I knew that somebody was shooting at them because that was the time he [Connally] got hit - because he jerked. I was looking directly at him…he was looking…kind of back toward me and…he just kind of flinched." "…that car just all but stopped…just a moment." (9-17-75 FBI report, FBI file 62-109060, sec 181, p171-173) “As the presidential vehicle was proceeding down Elm Street, and Jackson was turning the corner from Houston to Elm Street, he heard a loud report which he first thought to be a motorcycle backfire. He looked at the Presidential car to see what the reaction was and observed Texas Governor John Connally turn to his right in the car. At the same time he heard a second noise and saw Connally jerk to his right. At this point, Jackson had just rounded the corner from Houston to Elm Street and he recognized the second noise as a definite gunshot. At this point, he was 15 to 20 feet away from the Presidential vehicle and he stopped his motorcycle in the street and looked toward the railroad overpass, directly in front of the Presidential car. He observed a police officer with his hands on his hips, looking toward the Presidential car. As this appeared normal, he then looked to his right and rear in the direction of the Texas School Book Depository and the intersection of Houston and Elm Street and observed many bystanders falling to the ground. He looked toward the Presidential vehicle and at the same time heard a third shot fired. He observed President Kennedy struck in the head above his right ear and the impact of the bullet exploded the top portion of his head, toward the left side of the Presidential vehicle. Jackson immediately knew that Kennedy had been hit and that the shot had been fired from his right rear. He turned and looked back at the intersection of Houston and Elm Street, however, did not look up at the windows in any of the buildings. When he looked back toward the Presidential car, a Secret Service agent was climbing onto the trunk of the vehicle and the car was picking up speed. Jackson then told Officer Chaney that they should go with the vehicle and Chaney proceeded forward to Chief Curry's car and then cleared the way toward Parkland Hospital...Jackson advised he had recognized three distinct noises at the time President Kennedy was shot and could identify two as definitely being gunfire. He further stated he is positive the shot that struck President Kennedy in the head was fired from the right rear, the vicinity of the Texas School Book Building."
-
Thanks very much, Kathy. That's a great lead.
JT
Tink,
Get ahold of Debra Conway. Newcomb's children have had that book reprinted, and they were at the Lancer Conference. Debra should have their contact information, and they could probably help you with this.
Kathy
-
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
Does anyone know anything about Harrison Salisbury's reporting on the assassination of JFK?
-
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
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
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
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
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
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
-
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
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
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
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
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.
-
A very curious interview with Mary Moorman who seems to have fallen out with Jean Hill,
http://www.conspiracy.co/forums/main-wall/8966-mary-moorman-breaks-her-silence.html
An even more peculiar interview with Tink in The New York TImes on the Umbrella Man,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/opinion/the-umbrella-man.html
OP-DOCS
‘The Umbrella Man’: A video interview with the author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967)
The Umbrella Man: On the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Errol Morris explores the story behind the one man seen standing under an open black umbrella at the site.
By ERROL MORRIS
Published: November 21, 2011
COMMENTS (254)
For years, I’ve wanted to make a movie about the John F. Kennedy assassination. Not because I thought I could prove that it was a conspiracy, or that I could prove it was a lone gunman, but because I believe that by looking at the assassination, we can learn a lot about the nature of investigation and evidence. Why, after 48 years, are people still quarreling and quibbling about this case? What is it about this case that has led not to a solution, but to the endless proliferation of possible solutions?
Years ago, Josiah Thompson, known as Tink, a young, Yale-educated Kierkegaard scholar wrote the definitive book on the Zapruder film — “Six Seconds in Dallas.” Thompson eventually quit his day job as a professor of philosophy at Haverford College to become a private detective and came to work with many of the same private investigators I had also worked with in the 1980s. We had so much in common — philosophy, P.I. work and an obsessive interest in the complexities of reality. But we had never met.
Last year, I finally got to meet and interview Tink Thompson. I hope his interview can become the first part of an extended series on the Kennedy assassination. This film is but a small segment of my six-hour interview with Tink.
Errol Morris is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker (“The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara”) and a recent New York Times best-selling author (“Believing Is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography”). His first film, “Gates of Heaven,” is on Roger Ebert’s list of the 10 best movies ever made, and his latest, “Tabloid,” has just been released on DVD. Mr. Morris has received five fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts, a Guggenheim Fellowship and a MacArthur fellowship. In 2007, he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He lives in Cambridge, Mass., with his wife and two French bulldogs.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: November 22, 2011 An earlier version of this article incorrectly described Josiah Thompson’s career. He left his job as a professor at Haverford College to become a detective — not to write “Six Seconds in Dallas,” which had been written earlier.
where this reader's comment (and there are more than 250) speaks volumes about Josiah:
23. HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
Mark M
New York, NY
November 22nd, 2011
6:16 am
This was wonderful. The best - and most convincing - debunking of any and all conspiracy theories I have ever seen, and in just 6 minutes too.
Here is what I have submitted, but if the Times is running performance art like this from Josiah, it is not likely that they are going to publish it:
Your Submitted Comment
Display Name
James H. Fetzer
Location
Oregon, WI
Comment
How can Josiah Thompson have written "the definitive book" on the Zapruder film when its fabrication has been proven beyond reasonable doubt? The limo stop was removed, the wounds were changed, and, having reduced the time frame, Clint Hill's activities--about which he has been consistent for more than 47 years--contradict what we see in the extant film. See, for example, "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" For more on how it was done, see "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". For a tutorial on some of the ways we know the film we have is not the original, see John Costella, "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax", http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ I dismembered Josiah's feeble defense of the authenticity of the film in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Check it out. The American people are entitled to the truth about the assassination of our 35th president. It isn't a close call.
I hate to say "I told you so", but I nailed Tink as an op a long time ago and was attacked for doing so. I also observed earlier that he was setting himself up to proclaim that there was no conspiracy, after all. How many falsehoods and misrepresentations does Josiah Thompson make in this six minute video?
Jim
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
[snip]
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.
(2) [snip] 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.
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
Mrs. Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass by the park on Elm Street between the underpass and the corner of Elm & Houston. I had a Polaroid Camera [sic] with me and was intending to take pictures of President Kennedy and the motorcade. As the motorcade started toward me I took two pictures. As President Kennedy was opposite me I took a picture of him.
Didn't she also say she stepped back up onto the grass after photo #3 or 4? No reason to believe she didn't jump out when the motorcade made its turn... took #3 and 4
then stepped back up to AVOID GETTING RUN OVER... look at Altgens - by this time she is well back off the street as seen by her shadow...
Look at Bronson below with Z embedded... Noone is in the street... Same with Muchmoore...
If Moorman was in the street, her photo doesn't work and she gets run over by motorcycles...
I am blown away by DSL promoting this idea when it is more than obvious from a number of sources that she was NOT in the street for the last photo...
In fact I don't think she was inthe street for #3 either based on the height of the windshield on the bike being similiar to that in Moorman 5..
If Moorman #4 was in the street... facing back UP the street toward JFK and TSBD it might have been tilted UP since both the street rose in that direction and she was so short..
THAT would have been the photo that shows shooters in the TSBD... a possibly on a different floor than the 6th... "possible"
Finally... is this moorman talking to someone... I thought she and Jean went across the street..
-
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
Josiah,
If you weren't asking people to speculate, what were you asking? Speaking for myself, I "made sense" of the evidence more than 35 years ago. It proves conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK, and that there had to have been some sort of conspiracy. What more could you expect average citizens, with no authority, budget or subpoena power, to do? I can guess that you'd call anyone speculating about the size and nature of the conspiracy to be irresponsible in doing so.
I don't know why anyone would be surprised that Rachel Maddow is a LNer. She's a typical msm shill, who is enamored with Democrats, much like Keith Olbermann or Matthews, as opposed to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, who are enamored with Republicans. All of them agree on quite a few things, first and foremost being a powerful hostility to any and all "conspiracy theories." I don't believe one can become any kind of mainstream "journalist" without at least publicly proclaiming a belief in the lone assassin fairy tale.
Instead of chastising me for being "fuzzy headed," why don't you simply elaborate on what you were saying in the quote this thread is based on? Please tell us how you've "made sense" of the evidence.
-
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.
JT
"How then did it happen?"
"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."
Josiah Thompson
Haverford, Pennsylvania
August, 1967
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From personal observation, it would appear that attempts to factually address the questions has actually digressed since 1967.
In that regard, I have been remiss in not including yourself (Josiah Thompson) within that distribution which has (factually) been answering the questions.
In event that you (Mr. Thompson) would like some factual answers, please send me your (snail-mail) address and they will be forthcoming.
Respectfully
Tom Purvis
"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
It isn't up to individual citizens to explain the exact details of the conspiracy that took the life of President Kennedy. The official, lone assassin story was completely demolished well over 40 years ago. Few people who aren't elected officials or mainstream journalists believe it. I'm not sure what Josiah was looking for here; I have the distinct impression that he now dislikes speculation of any kind. Evidently he felt differently then, and was encouraging speculation.
All critics have ever been able to do is analzye the official "investigation," locate ignored witnesses and interview them, pore over film, and try to make as much sense as possible of the mess the authorities left in the record. None of them, and none of us, will be given subpeona power or any kind of budget. With few figures connected to the events in Dallas still living, obviously any investigation at this point would be difficult, and there would have to be at least some speculation and theorizing involved.
Hopefully Josiah will share his present perspective on this with us.
-
Thank you, Tom. I just sent you my email address.
JT
"How then did it happen?"
"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."
Josiah Thompson
Haverford, Pennsylvania
August, 1967
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From personal observation, it would appear that attempts to factually address the questions has actually digressed since 1967.
In that regard, I have been remiss in not including yourself (Josiah Thompson) within that distribution which has (factually) been answering the questions.
In event that you (Mr. Thompson) would like some factual answers, please send me your (snail-mail) address and they will be forthcoming.
Respectfully
Tom Purvis
-
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
Tink,
Re the 312-313 movement of JFK's head, what you write sounds right. (Let's ignore our difference of opinion as to whether the Z film means anything.)
There are three ways to deal with the blur.
One is to take account of it in your calculations. I think ITEK did that way back when. I did when I measured it myself. And David Wimp no doubt did too.
The second way is to try to "deblur" 313. I've got an animated GIF that shows the result of that (overlaid on 312) at
http://assassination...ro/headmove.gif
I can't remember what the measurement came out at (and it depends where you are measuring I guess), but an inch sounds right. (Anyone can look at the animation and come to their own conclusion.)
The third way of doing it, that doesn't rely on one particular implementation of deblurring (because deblurring is not unique, no matter how cleverly you try to do it) is to instead blur 312, and then overlay the two. I don't have an image of that at hand, but I do know that it gave the same result as measuring off the animation above (or off the original that that animation was created from, I should say).
If one took the Z film to be genuine, I don't think the forward movement could be ignored -- it's not a backwards movement, for example -- but that's just my gut feeling.
John
-
Sure thing. Whatever. This thread is not about the question Cliff Varnell raised and I have no interest in trying to answer it.
JT
I don't know why you insist on jumping to the conclusions you jump to. What you call my "reasonably expressed view" stands. Just because the Zapruder film and Moorman photo don't show a hole in the back of JFK's head does not mean there was no such hole.
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
Josiah Thompson can now add "intellectual cowardice" to his list of attributes. We
can set Tom Wilson's work aside, if we want, and it does not affect my point that,
on his right shoulder, you can see a clump of hair, which indicates he incurred a
blow-out to the back of his head. Only citing evidence favorable to your side is
called "special pleading". Josiah does it ALL THE TIME. Consider the following.
We know from Clint Hill, from the physicians at Parkland, from Aguilar's study,
from Mantik's research on X-rays, from frame 372-374, and from the extruding
cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue that JFK had a blow-out to the back of his
head, which BY ITSELF refutes the authenticity of the Zapruder film, which of
course is why Josiah is backing down on his endorsement of Aguilar's study.
He is even being coy about whether or not he believes there was a blow-out
to the back of the head, which Sydney Wilkinson's film restoration team has
confirmed was painted over in black--and very crudely done. Why am I not
surprised that this guy won't answer obvious questions. Ask yourself why he
is unwilling to do that? Don't allow yourself to be taken in. The guy is smooth.
After all, there IS that clump of hair on his right shoulder. And how could the
obscurity of the wound at the back of his head CARRY MORE WEIGHT than
the blow-out hitting Officer Hargis so hard that he thought he himself had
been shot? and debris covering the trunk, which nauseated Secret Service
agents when they observed it in Washington? And extruding cerebellum?
And what would my support for research on alternative theories about how the
Twin Towers were destroyed impact on the questions I have addressed to him?
He misrepresents my position, but how does attacking me on irrelevant grounds
answer these obvious questions? It's the very familiar tactic: if you don't like the
message (questions), attack the messenger. This is a classic Thompson snowjob.
Hilarious! Faced with the fact that neither the Z film nor the Moorman Polaroid show any massive blow out to the back of JFK's head, you don't take the obvious route by claiming what both you and Jack White have claimed in the past -- both the Z film and the Moorman photo were faked up. No. You cite Tom Wilson. You must be kidding. Tom Wilson and his "theory" are simply ridiculous and you should know it. If you really credit what he says then I'll leave it to others to educate you how off the wall his views are. Congratulation! You've now managed a trifecta: (1) directed energy weapon from space bringing down the Twin Towers, (2) Judyth Baker, (3) Tom Wilson.
As to your other questions... If you asked me what day it was, I wouldn't answer.
JT
Tink, You are the master of distraction. You would rather talk about anything
else than answer several rather obvious questions. Tom Wilson has analyzed
the Moorman and found the blow-out, though not conspicuous to the naked eye,
is indeed there--and he has done so in stunning detail in A DEEPER, DARKER
TRUTH (2009). You are making such a fuss about the Moorman that I strongly
suspect that some kind of darkening of the back of the skull took place in the
time it was not in Mary's possession. Plus you can see what I take to be a
clump of JFK's hair on his right shoulder, which is indicative of a blow-out.
Since photos and films can be faked and we have witness after witness to the
blow-out at the back of his head--which can even be seen in the later frames of
the film and which Sydney Wilkinson's group of Hollywood experts has confirmed
was painted over in black in early frames--I am now convinced you are indeed
going to discount the most important evidence, including even Clint Hill's report,
for the sake to promoting uncertainty about the evidence, even when it is simply
overwhelming. Thanks for that! We need to know exactly who we are dealing with.
Since I have answered your question, I think it is time that you answered mine:
(1) How many times was JFK hit and where?
(2) What were the shooters' locations?
(3) Who were they, if you can name them?
(4) What steps were taken to cover up?
(5) Were any of the photos/films faked?
(6) Who was behind his killing and why?
(7) Several shot sequences have appeared since yours.
Kindly explain how your sequence compares with these:
(7a) Richard Sprague, Computers and Automation (May 1970)
(7b) Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (1993)
(7c) James H. Fetzer, "Dealey Plaza Revisited" (2008)
Give us a summary of your position. I have explained many times that we have
more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the
hit; that the CIA/Military/anti-Castro Cubans/local law enforcement took him out;
that the FBI covered it up; and that Lyndon and J. Edgar were principals, with
financing from Texas oil men. Kindly provide us with a comparable overview, too,
and spare us your song-and-dance about "the good old days". We've heard that one
before and it has grown stale. Give us the benefit of the wisdom you have acquired
during the 44 years since SIX SECONDS was published. Inquiring minds want to know.
"...because of his belated realization that knowledge of the location of the wound to the back of his head--which we know beyond reasonable doubt, since there is no reasonable alternative--implies that the Zapruder film has been altered..."
Mary Moorman's photo was taken at Z315 from the left rear and much closer in than the Zapruder film. Neither the Moorman photo nor the Zapruder film shows "a massive blowout" to the back of JFK's head. If the Zapruder film was altered to not show this, then the Moorman photo was also altered to show this. This has been pointed out to you twice before on this thread and you ducked it each time. Why do you continue to duck this obvious point? Is it because the Moorman photo was copied within an hour or so of the assassination and put on the wire hence making altering of it absurd.
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. They observed what they observed and their observations are to be credited. All this means is that the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film show what they show and you'll have to get used to it.
JT
The Law of Unintended Consequences
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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