Josiah Thompson

Thank you, Dean, for your kind words about Six Seconds. however, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since I wrote it and I am now trying to become conversant with all the evidence. David Wimp's study is part of that evidence and I think has forcefully showed how I made a mistake. I'm not too embarrassed about the mistake because apparently the Itek Study in 1976 made the same mistake. But if you see a mistake you ought to point it out. That's how inquiry proceeds.

JT

"...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

I'm having a hard time reconciling this definitive declaration that there was not a hole in the back of the head, with your earlier, reasonably expressed view that just because the Zapruder film doesn't show a massive blow out to the back of the head, that doesn't mean there wasn't one. I believe you also said you found the Parkland medical testimony, regarding this huge hole in the back of JFK's head, to be compelling.

So, within the space of a day, apparently on the strength of Pat Speer's post expressing his well known views on this issue, you are now completely certain there wasn't a hole in the back of the head?

I think Pat expresses himself well, and I respect his opinions, but is he really that impressive?

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

Thank you, Martin. You should know that I always appreciate the acuteness of your posts. Anything further on your work concerning the damage to the limo's windshield?

JT

Dear Josiah,

i've seen the posting's you made and discover integrity and honesty.

To admit a few errors is to me a great strenght an not a flaw.

That happen not often in the JFK research.

I think it's important for you to know that some little younger reseacher notice this very well.

By the way: "Six seconds in Dallas" was for me (i'am having mostly interest's in the photographic evidence)

one of the most captivating books i've read. For the record, i've read just some 30 books.

Please go on your own way. We are following your words.

My respect and my very best to you

Martin

You're a little behind the curve here, Dean. Did you really believe that I abandoned the double-hit between 312 and 313 because some guy sidled up to me at a bar and told me a story? Nope. David Wimp (not "Whimp") has produced a persuasive analysis of what blurring does to a frame of the Zapruder film. It was published on the Internet for many years starting in about 2004 or 2005 and was subject to much discussion. Wimp was invited to Jim Lesar's AARC Conference in Washington and gave a lecture on it there. He gives a couple of examples from the end of the Z film where the camera was moved horizontally and it appears to wipe out the dark width of a light post. Then he goes on to show that highly exposed areas if smudged horizontally will extend into darker areas. Since 313 is smudged horizontally as shown by the smearing of the chrome strip over the passenger compartment, he takes this to be occurring in that frame. The upshot is that the very bright strip against which I measured the movement of JFK's head is elongated, thus giving the impression that his head moved farther than I thought it did. Wimp's corrected figures show JFK's head moved about an inch forward between 312 and 313 and this is consistent with earlier forward movement of his head immediateley prior 312.

I would point out that just because it appears now that JFK was not hit in the back of the head between 312 and 313 this does not mean he was never hit in the back of the head at some other time. However, that discussion is something I don't want to get into just now.

Thank you for calling my earlier theory of a double-hit between 312 and 313 "well-researched." Unfortunately, it was wrong and I am anxious to admit the mistake and point out why it was a mistake.

JT

Jim

The double head hit on JFK is very important (not just to me because it is the center piece of conspiracy for my theory including Alteration)

Im am always happy to see you backing up the work that Tink has abandoned because of what one person (David Whimp I think?) told him

The double head hit proves conspiracy, Tink proved that in SSID

It bothers me to no end that he doesnt back up his well researched theory

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

Sorry Cliff. But I don't need to get involved in another controversy at this time.

JT

Of course, Pat. I understood when I went back in the thread and saw the photos. Thanks for the additional information about the Willises and Aubrey Rike. i wasn't aware of that.

By now it's clear that Fetzer's posts are all about Fetzer and not about the evidence. Difficult as it is, I guess the most intelligent thing to do is to ignore the insults and bombast and only address the marginal evidentiary claims he makes. Or better yet, ignore him entirely. I'll see if I can do that.

JT

Jim F. did ask a question I thought interesting: Tink, do you place JFK's back wound in the vicinity of the bullet defects in the shirt and jacket, at T3?

Of course, Pat. I understood when I went back in the thread and saw the photos. Thanks for the additional information about the Willises and Aubrey Rike. i wasn't aware of that.

By now it's clear that Fetzer's posts are all about Fetzer and not about the evidence. Difficult as it is, I guess the most intelligent thing to do is to ignore the insults and bombast and only address the marginal evidentiary claims he makes. Or better yet, ignore him entirely. I'll see if I can do that.

JT

This is really interesting stuff, Pat. I want to reiterate what I told you about the McClelland diagram. I gave McClelland's description to a medical illustrator who then drew it. I understand that a copy of the illustration has been posted with a note from Dr. McClelland saying that he had contact with me and that the illustration matches what he told me or drew for me. I have no recollection whatsoever of ever being in contact with Dr. McClelland ever... neither before the publication of Six Seconds nor after. Of course, my memory is not imfallible but that is what it is.

Phil Willis and Marilyn Willis were much too far back from the President to observe anything persuasive about the Presiden't head wound. Ed Hoffman? Beverly Oliver? I kind of have my doubts. I think you would do better to restrict your counts to Parkland witnesses. Even Elizabeth Loftus would point out that medical personnel practicing their craft where observations of wounds are critical are not just ordinary eyewitnesses. They should be considered much more reliable.

I hope this excellent post of yours will generate some good discussion because it is really important. Thanks for posting it.

JT

Thanks for the encouragement. I referenced the Willises, Oliver and Hoffman because they are among the 18 witnesses Groden presents in his book, which many find convincing. (The slide in which I showed these witnesses didn't take in my first attempt, but I fixed it a minute ago.) 2 of Groden's witnesses--Phil Willis and Aubrey Rike--actually never saw the wound. Phil was apparently reporting what his wife and daughters told him, and Aubrey only felt the wound through a head covering.

In sum, while these 18 witnesses undoubtedly suggest that the wound was toward the back of the head, they also suggest that it was not on the LOW back of the head, centered in the occipital bone, as claimed by so many for far too long.

"...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

What is important about Pat Speer's post is not what he argues there, which is relatively easy to dispatch, but the response from Josiah Thompson, which is why I am replying directly to his post and not to Pat's. Given the conditions under which these observations were made, it would not be surprising that there might be relatively minor differences in the descriptions given by different observers. Yet they come from such a wide variety of sources, including witnesses in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland, and even at Bethesa, that it is difficult to imagine how they could possibly be mistaken, not in subtle details but in their general placement, which has now been dramatically confirmed by Clint Hill's reports of peering down into a "fist sized" blow-out in the back of his head, as I have explained in "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film", and which is stated baldly in THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010), page 217: "And slumped across the seat, President Kennedy lay unmoving, a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head." These many witnesses reported the wound at approximately the same location because that is the location where they observed it!

So what drives Pat Speer? He apparently entertains the (in my view, highly implausible) theory that the blow-out was actually to the side of his head, where the skull flap appears. I have addressed this in several places, where I have discussed the reports of Bill and Gayle Newman, who were on the knoll side of the limousine. (See especially "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid".) I have no doubt that, when the frangible bullet blew open the skull flap, it was a dramatic moment, which made an indelible impression upon them. Because of their proximity to JFK, they appear to have been so overwhelmed by the blow-out of the skull flap that they did not observe the brains being blown-out to the left-rear, where they impacted Officer Hargis with such force that he thought he himself had been shot. Pat Speer, for some reason, doesn't mention that. Which means that he is violating one of the most basic principles of scientific reasoning, namely, that conclusions must be based upon all of the available, relevant evidence. His is not.

Indeed, the situation is even worse. In particular, he has never responded to my observation that physician after physician at Parkland reported cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound. That's something else he glosses over, for the obvious reason that CEREBELLUM COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXTRUDING FROM THE SIDE OF HIS HEAD. The cerebellum is a compact part of the brain at the base of the skull. Extruding cerebellum therefore supports the possibility that the wound was somewhat lower on the back of the head, but it confirms that it was at the back of the head! I like Pat personally, even though his views about this wound, in my opinion, have no merit. I don't quite know what causes him to pursue his theory with such zeal and determination, but it is most certainly not because the evidence, in its totality, supports it. The witness reports, which now include those of Clint Hill, the blow-out of brains to the left rear, and the extruding cerebellum actually refute it. His theory of the wound cannot possibly be true.

So why is Josiah Thompson praising Pat Speer for a post in support of an indefensible theory? Well, think about it. The kinds of arguments Pat is presenting here are suppose to weaken our confidence in the conclusion, which Gary Aguilar, especially, has championed, that there was a convergence of witness reports in support of a blow-out at the back of the head. If you and I know that Officer Hargis was hit so hard by his brains and debris when they were blown out to the left rear, that Clint Hill has reported peering into a "fist sized" blow out at the back of his head, and that the Parkland physicians uniformly reported cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound, it cannot be because he thinks it is true. On the other hand, it is just the kind of argument that one might like if they wanted to create uncertainty about the location of the blow-out, even though, when the evidence is taken in its totality, there is no good reason to entertain any doubt about it. There was a massive blow-out, not on the side of his head, but at the back of his head.

And of course it has been corroborated by David Mantik's studies of the X-rays, Charles Crenshaw's diagrams (for me and for the ARRB), and by the discovery that the blow-out can actually be seen in late frames of the Zapruder film. So why would Josiah Thompson want to dispute that? Why would he even imply uncertainty about the McClelland diagram published in his own book? In HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996), Martin Schotz observes that the purpose of disinformation is not to convince us that Oswald was the lone assassin, but to create enough uncertainty that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. Which, I dare say, explains why he has been willing to attack my books without even reading them and to tacitly disavow even the one chapter of MURDER (2000) that he had previously endorsed, 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, which he is committed to denying as though it were the most important assignment of his life. If the wound was there, the film is fake. And for that reason, Josiah is even willing to praise the author of posts that promote an untenable theory.

This is really interesting stuff, Pat. I want to reiterate what I told you about the McClelland diagram. I gave McClelland's description to a medical illustrator who then drew it. I understand that a copy of the illustration has been posted with a note from Dr. McClelland saying that he had contact with me and that the illustration matches what he told me or drew for me. I have no recollection whatsoever of ever being in contact with Dr. McClelland ever... neither before the publication of Six Seconds nor after. Of course, my memory is not imfallible but that is what it is.

Phil Willis and Marilyn Willis were much too far back from the President to observe anything persuasive about the Presiden't head wound. Ed Hoffman? Beverly Oliver? I kind of have my doubts. I think you would do better to restrict your counts to Parkland witnesses. Even Elizabeth Loftus would point out that medical personnel practicing their craft where observations of wounds are critical are not just ordinary eyewitnesses. They should be considered much more reliable.

I hope this excellent post of yours will generate some good discussion because it is really important. Thanks for posting it.

JT

This is really interesting stuff, Pat. I want to reiterate what I told you about the McClelland diagram. I gave McClelland's description to a medical illustrator who then drew it. I understand that a copy of the illustration has been posted with a note from Dr. McClelland saying that he had contact with me and that the illustration matches what he told me or drew for me. I have no recollection whatsoever of ever being in contact with Dr. McClelland ever... neither before the publication of Six Seconds nor after. Of course, my memory is not imfallible but that is what it is.

Phil Willis and Marilyn Willis were much too far back from the President to observe anything persuasive about the Presiden't head wound. Ed Hoffman? Beverly Oliver? I kind of have my doubts. I think you would do better to restrict your counts to Parkland witnesses. Even Elizabeth Loftus would point out that medical personnel practicing their craft where observations of wounds are critical are not just ordinary eyewitnesses. They should be considered much more reliable.

I hope this excellent post of yours will generate some good discussion because it is really important. Thanks for posting it.

JT

WARNING: I think I mentioned yesterday what Sylvia Meagher used to say about knowing people's opinions. She said it doesn't matter who believes what. The only thing that matters is what evidence someone can put forward for their beliefs. Hence, it seems to me that my beliefs about anything are profoundly unimportant. However, the good Professor keeps prattling on giving my opinons about all sorts of things independent of what I say or what the facts are. Anyone who takes Professor James H. Fetzer's word for what I believe or don't believe should have his/her head examined! In the future, I won't take the trouble to try to correct his prattling.

JT

"Josiah ducks and feints and doesn't address the questions. Notice that, in responding to the citation of a study from Harvard that showed observers were 98% accurate and 98% complete regarding features of situations they took to be salient--where features are "salient" when they are important to the observer--he quotes some puff piece from the book cover! Well, David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., first discovered this finding, which he cites on page 278 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), where I confirm it on page 210. David has a Ph.D. in physics from Wisconsin and an M.D. from Michigan. My Ph.D. is in the history and the philosophy of science, where my dissertation was on the relationship between probability and explanation. My most recent book, my 29th, is a collection of studies by a dozen distinguished philosophers entitled, THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010). David and I are most unlikely to be wrong about this."

It turns out that you and Mantik are wrong about this... all the letters after your name not withstanding.

"Eyewitness Testimony" by Elizabeth Loftus was published by Harvard University Press. The Press summarized the book on the back cover as follows:

"As pertinent today as when it was first published more than a decade ago, this engaging and highly praised study makes the psychological case against the reliability of the eyewitness."

"By shedding light on the many factors that can intervene and create inaccurate testimony, Elizabeth Loftus illustrates how memory can be radically altered by the way an eyewitness is questioned, and how new memories can be implanted and old ones altered in subtle ways. She thus calls into questin today's widely held assumption of eyewitness authority over the details of a crime or other events."

"Eyewitness Testimony provides a sobering counterpoint to today's theatrical reliance on eyewitness accounts in the media, and should be required reading for trial lawyers, psychologists, jurors, and anyone who considers the chilling prospect of confronting an eyewitness accusation in a court of law."

Just as the summary indicates, this book has revolutionized the treatment of eyewitnesses in court and the procedures law enforcement uses in dealing with eyewitnesses. Numerous persons have been convicted on eyewitness testimony and later exonerated. There is simply no question about the forceful argument Loftu puts forward in this book: eyewitness testimony is unreliable because it is haunted by a slew of factors that degrade its reliability.

To back your argument about the Zapruder film, you and Mantik cherry-picked the book and pulled a page out of Loftus' summary of the Marshall article. I asked Loftus about the Marshall article back in 1998 when this first came up. (I've known Elizabeth Loftus for some twenty-five years. We've worked on several cases together, most recently a death penalty case in Alabama.) Back in 1998, I asked her about the Marshall study. She made the common sense point that there's a real problem in defining what "salient" means. Salient for one person may not be salient for another. Her conclusion was that for this reason it was perilous to try to apply the data from this experiment outside the actual experiment. (Don't worry. I may even have the email from her.)

Yet this is exactly what you have done. This is perhaps a longer explanation than your point deserves. It shows how multiple letters after your name innoculate no one from making mistakes of generalization.

JT

Josiah ducks and feints and doesn't address the questions. Notice that, in responding to the citation of a study from Harvard that showed observers were 98% accurate and 98% complete regarding features of situations they took to be salient--where features are "salient" when they are important to the observer--he quotes some puff piece from the book cover! Well, David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., first discovered this finding, which he cites on page 278 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), where I confirm it on page 210. David has a Ph.D. in physics from Wisconsin and an M.D. from Michigan. My Ph.D. is in the history and the philosophy of science, where my dissertation was on the relationship between probability and explanation. My most recent book, my 29th, is a collection of studies by a dozen distinguished philosophers entitled, THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010). David and I are most unlikely to be wrong about this. Josiah studied the Danish mystical philosopher, Kierkegaard, about whom he wrote a book. Kierkegaard did not believe in reason, just as Josiah does not believe in statistics. If you doubt my implication that he is pulling one of his patented "snow-jobs" here, continue after his dismissal of everything else--which was a citation from Gary Aguilar, M.D., about the reliability of the witnesses reports regarding the blow-out to the back of the head, which was certainly salient. And it should be obvious why: the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296! Why do you supposed he wanted to cut off his response at precisely that point? Students of JFK are going to have to decide if they care about reason and evidence or side with obfuscationists and irrationalists.

My brief replies are in bold-face:

Always nice to see Bill Kelly here, as elsewhere, kissing Tink's ass. Not to make too fine a point of it, but this guy has not explained how he reconciles the massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head with his advocacy of the authenticity of the Zapruder film. What this demonstrates is that there is a fundamental incoherence at the core of his position, an inconsistency that deprives it of any probative significance. From inconsistent premises, every conclusion follows!

Always nice to see you once again, Professor, leading with your chin! The Moorman photo was taken at Z 315 from the left and rear of the President. It was taken from a position much closer to the President and from a much better angle to show the "massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head" you keep trunpeting. Was it too faked up? The only sensible conclusion is that neither the Zapruder film nor the Moorman photo show such "a massive blowout." This does not mean that later observations by Parkland personnel are incorrect. The evidence concerning the President's head wounds is an immense mess. Anyone like you who claims to have a simple and clear understanding of what they are is just blowing smoke. To do this tangle of evidence justice requires acute and prolonged study. Something you apparently do not have time for.

I would also observe that Tink grossly misrepresents the findings of Elizabeth Loftus. As David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., already explained in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), page 178, a Harvard study she cites shows that, when it comes to the salient features of a situation, subjects were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their recollections. So if he understands this study, which is reported in her work, then he has to know that he is misrepresenting the findings.

Elizabeth Loftus' defining work Eyewitness Testimony revolutionized the treatment of eyewitnesses by thousands of attorneys in tens of thousands of cases. Just for starters, the back cover of her book states: "As pertinent today as when it was first published more than a decade ago, this engaging and highly praised study makes the psychological case against the reliability of the eyewitness." In her book she did cite a study by J.K. Marshall, K.H. Marquis and S. Oskamp entitled, "Effects of kind of questions of interrogation on accuracy and completeness of testimony," Harvard Law Review 84 (1971): 1620-1643. I have that article. Its published abstract states: "Underlying the rules of courtroom procedure and evidence are assumptions about human behavior. The authors, interested in how people perform as witnesses, conducted an experiment to measure the effects of various modes of interrogation on the quality of testimony. Their results cast some doubt on the soundness of the present rules for examining witnesses and suggest several new procedures." You say that by citing this article Elizabeth Loftus somehow undermines the thesis of her book that I have accurately stated. Nonsense.

The rest of your post is your characteristic bloviation that is not worth a reply.

JT

He is blowing smoke and planing his game of dodge and fake, which is his technique. And in this latest post, he shows again the complete lack of respect for truth and evidence that distinguishes the later stages of his career, where, in order to make the argument he has made here, he has to completely discard Gary Aguilar's impeccable point about the improbability of the witnesses to the back of the head wound being mistaken, as Bernice pointed out in her post #114:

JOHN F. KENNEDY'S FATAL WOUNDS:

THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS

FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT

by

Gary L. Aguilar, MD

San Francisco, California, August, 1994

If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem.

So which is it, Tink? You, not I, are the master bloviator when it comes to evading the crucial question. You have come down on both sides of the question regarding Gary Aguilar's work. You want to discount witness testimony by grossly distorting Elizabeth Loftus's work. Yet Gary had made the compelling case that it is overwhelmingly improbable that they are wrong. So what's the score: Do you stand by Gary's work or do you continue to insist the film is authentic?

This man not only betrays the search for truth but he is willing to denigrate or misrepresent the work of those with whom he likes to align himself. He grossly misrepresents the work of Gary Aguilar by using his misrepresentation of Loftus to create uncertainty about his findings, even though Gary spelled it out as you have seen. And he evades the crucial question of whether there was a massive hole in the back of the head, which would invalidate the Zapruder film.

In order to deny the presence of a massive hole in the back of the head, Tink has to distort or ignore the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza; Clint Hill, who was the first person to see it "up close and personal"; physician after physician at Parkland, who described cerebellum extruding from this "fist sized" defect at the back of his head; others at Bethesda (before Humes enlarged it), and even the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, who prepared the body for burial.

Abraham Lincoln observed that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. It is a very simple proposition: Does he agree that there was a massive defect to the back of the head? Because if he does, then his defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if he does not, then his credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink? Tell us.

Many thanks for your valuable input Tink,

Bill Kelly

“Neither of these issues, Baker or Z film animation, are worth what he [Fetzer] puts into them. I mean what mobility have they given the JFK case? What will the other side do to these issues? Anyone want to take a guess?”

How’s this, Jim, for a guess.

In October 2013 (as the 50th Anniversary approaches), various TV producers are beating the bushes for Kennedy assassination interviews with live people. One popular network has had it in for “assassination buffs” for almost those fifty years. A producer (“Todd”) and anchor (labeled in the business, “the talent”) meet to discuss their anniversary show:

Todd: You won’t believe what I’ve stumbled on. Take a look at this FOX excerpt from Hannity. This dude James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. is a gas.

The Talent: That’s great... although it was so bad, I almost ended up feeling sorry for the schlub.

Todd: Not so quickly. This guy is all over the internet with silly-ass claims. He says Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield shot down Senator Welstone’s plane with some “directed energy weapon.” Oh, and pretty much the same thing for the Twin Towers. They were dropped by some super “directed energy weapon” in space. Fetzer started some organization called “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” with another guy. When the other guy found weapons from space too much, Fetzer excommunicated him and 80% of the “scholars” went with the other guy.

The Talent: Yeah, but we saw on TV the second plane hit the South Tower and about 10,000 people witnessed the same thing.

Todd: Fetzer claims the TV coverage was faked up. I’m not sure what he says about the 10,000 witnesses but I heard something about the government using a hologram. He offers the same sort of drivel about the Kennedy assassination. The Zapruder film was faked up and maybe Zapruder never took a film in Dealey Plaza. When you point out that the other films show the same thing, he says they were faked up too. The best thing is what he says about Mary Moorman.

The Talent: Who’s that?

Todd: That’s the poor woman who took a Polaroid just as Kennedy got hit in the head. The Zapruder film shows her standing in the grass taking her photo. Fetzer claims she was actually standing in the street to take her photo and that the limousine came to a full stop.

The Talent: How’re we gonna deal with that?

Todd: We’ve got segments from two other films taken in the Plaza that show her standing right where she stands in the Zapruder film, right where she testified she was standing in the Clay Shaw trial.

The Talent: I’m still worried about him coming across as such a schlub that people will feel sorry for him... I did.

This is no drill, Jim. This could really happen. In fact, it probably will happen.

JT

Thank you, Josiah, for detailing your views for us. However, the question I asked was very simple, and you didn't quite address it directly in your post.

Simply put; how do you reconcile the photo/film/x-ray record with your belief that the head shot came from the right front? Without that massive blowout in the back, where did such a shot exit?

I humbly suggest that this is really the issue that defines the whole film alteration debate.

I could not disagree more with this last statement. And it shows just how polarizing this has become.

Robert Groden does not beleive the film is forged. Yet, he is one of the foremost advocates for this hole in the back of Kennedy's head. In fact, Fetzer uses his poster of the Dallas doctors to make this point.

Gary Aguilar does not believe the film is forged--or he is at least an agnostic. Yet, he is one of the foremost advocates of this hole in the back of Kennedy's head. In fact, Fetzer uses his chart to make this point.

So then how does this issue "define the whole film alteration debate"?

It does not. If you ask Groden about the hole in the back of Kennedy's head in the Z film, he will say, "Yes you can see it. Take a look at especially the hard cover version of High Treason, the last plate."' How do I know he will say this? He told me this himself. And he will tell you that also Don. Did you ask him?

Bill Miller's coning frames are very compelling in this regard also.

So no, this sample above does not define the debate. Only with Fetzer does it define the debate since he has this blood feud with TInk. Kelley thanks TInk for his answers to Burnham's questions, and in Feetzer's world it is butt kissing. I answer Burnham's questions in advance from TInk's previous statements, then I am a shill. Even though Tink's eventual answers were what I predicted they would be.

I don't even know if Fetzer realizes just what a polarizing force he has become in the JFK community. He first did this with 9-11 where he alienated the more distinguished and responsible critics like Steve Jones and Mike Green. Now by forcing the issue on Z film alteration, and making it an unbelievably stupid all or nothing issue, he does the same thing here. I mean this is almost as dumb as what he did with Judy Baker.

And here is the bottom line: WHY???

Neither of these issues, Baker or Z film animation, are worth what he puts into them. I mean what mobility have they given the JFK case? What will the other side do to these issues? Anyone want to take a guess?

To do what he does here and with Baker, to split, insult and polarize the community simply because he is personally invested in the issue, and has this feud with Tink is to me, a guy who has lost his sense of balance and proportion. There are so many other things that the ARRB did a very good job on that further our cause without this baggage.

But as with Baker, he persists. Don Quixote with a buzzsaw.

BTW, he still buys Baker.

Whew.

Just to make sure I understand where Tink stands today on the assassination and Lee Oswald's role therein, here is a diagram of his theory of the shooting from THE SATURDAY EVENING POST (2 December 1967). At this point in time--and in his book, SIX SECONDS (1967)--he identified Lee Oswald as the shooter in the 6th floor window, the alleged "assassin's lair". Before I offer any comments on his position, I want to know if his views remain the same now, 44 years later, as they were in 1967:

The first shot, fired from the book depository, hit President Kennedy in the back. The second, from a building

on Houston Street, wounded Governor Connally. Then, as the limousine drove on, the third shot, also fired from the

depository, hit the President in the rear of his skull and instant before the fourth shot, coming from the stockade

fence behind the knoll, struck him in the right front of the head. [This caption accompanied the diagram in SEP.]

Do you still believe that Lee Oswald fired two shots, one that hit him in the back and the second in the back of the head? that the limousine continued moving (there was no limo stop)? that there was a shot from the grassy knoll that hit him in the right front? that the shot to his back hit where the shirt and jacket have holes? and that the final shot that entered his right front--in the temple?-- exited where? You no longer accept the "double hit" theory, but otherwise these are your opinions after 44 more years of study?

What you're doing here is just dishonest. I'm sorry to have say this but no other word fits. Never... I say again... never have I said that I believed Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter in the Depository. Six Seconds ends with a chapter entitled "Answered Unanswered Questions." The last fifteen page section... count 'em fifteen pages... is directed to the final question "Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot the President?" That section is made up of evidence after evidence (at that time unknown to the general public) undermining the claim of the Warren Commission that they had proven Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. When you don't have any evidence are you reduced to just making it up?

JT

"In order to deny the presence of a massive hole in the back of the head, Tink has to distort or ignore the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza; Clint Hill, who was the first person to see it "up close and personal"; physician after physician at Parkland, who described cerebellum extruding from this "fist sized" defect at the back of his head; others at Bethesda (before Humes enlarged it), and even the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, who prepared the body for burial."

You hopeless ninny! How many times do I have to explain that I am not denying that Kennedy had a hole in the back of the head. The Zapruder film doesn't show such a hole but even more importantly the Moorman film doesn't show it either. Why is that important? Because the Moorman photo was taken at Z 315 and was taken from closer in than the Zapruder film and from a much better angle... behind and to the left of the limousine. Neither the Zapruder nor the Moorman film show a hole in the back of his head. Are you now going to say that the Moorman photo was faked up. Good luck.

The fact that neither the Zapruder film nor the Moorman photo don't show a hole in the back of his head doesn't mean that there wasn't such a hole. The testimony from Parkland stands on its own feet. These are professionals performing their professional duty where accurate observation of wounds is critical. They are eminently believable.

However, as I've said once already, the Kennedy head wounds are an evidentiary mess and have nothing to do with what you are trying to prove... that the Zapruder film has been faked up. So quit putting up straw men expressing opnions I've never had nor ever expressed.

JT

Don, you are completely right! After his song-and-dance about Elizabeth Loftus, where he evidently either misunderstands the study she cites or deliberately misrepresents it, he ignores my simple question--which concerns the existence on non-existence of a massive defect at the back of his head--as well. Is there a pattern here?

In order to deny the presence of a massive hole in the back of the head, Tink has to distort or ignore the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza; Clint Hill, who was the first person to see it "up close and personal"; physician after physician at Parkland, who described cerebellum extruding from this "fist sized" defect at the back of his head; others at Bethesda (before Humes enlarged it), and even the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, who prepared the body for burial.

Abraham Lincoln observed that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. It is a very simple proposition: Does he agree that there was a massive defect to the back of the head? Because if he admits there was, then his defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if he denies it, then his credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink? Tell us.

Let me repeat the question in case it escaped his attention: Does he agree that there was a massive defect to the back of the head? Remember, he was the first to publish the McClelland diagram in SIX SECONDS (1967), page 107. He seems to have understood then that it was from the occipital region of the cranium, which he diagrammed on page 101.

So surely in the 44 years since its publication, he has had the time and opportunity to decide whether or not there was a massive defect to the back of the head. Because if he admits there was, then his defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if he denies it, then his credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink?

Thank you, Josiah, for detailing your views for us. However, the question I asked was very simple, and you didn't quite address it directly in your post.

Simply put; how do you reconcile the photo/film/x-ray record with your belief that the head shot came from the right front? Without that massive blowout in the back, where did such a shot exit?

I humbly suggest that this is really the issue that defines the whole film alteration debate.

I don't think it does. A shot striking tangentially high in the temporal-parietal section of the brain would not blow out a section of the occiput. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that there was no avulsive wound in the back of the head. But I'll let you guys argue about it.

JT

Thank you, Josiah, for detailing your views for us. However, the question I asked was very simple, and you didn't quite address it directly in your post.

Simply put; how do you reconcile the photo/film/x-ray record with your belief that the head shot came from the right front? Without that massive blowout in the back, where did such a shot exit?

I humbly suggest that this is really the issue that defines the whole film alteration debate.

My brief replies are in bold-face:

Always nice to see Bill Kelly here, as elsewhere, kissing Tink's ass. Not to make too fine a point of it, but this guy has not explained how he reconciles the massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head with his advocacy of the authenticity of the Zapruder film. What this demonstrates is that there is a fundamental incoherence at the core of his position, an inconsistency that deprives it of any probative significance. From inconsistent premises, every conclusion follows!

Always nice to see you once again, Professor, leading with your chin! The Moorman photo was taken at Z 315 from the left and rear of the President. It was taken from a position much closer to the President and from a much better angle to show the "massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head" you keep trunpeting. Was it too faked up? The only sensible conclusion is that neither the Zapruder film nor the Moorman photo show such "a massive blowout." This does not mean that later observations by Parkland personnel are incorrect. The evidence concerning the President's head wounds is an immense mess. Anyone like you who claims to have a simple and clear understanding of what they are is just blowing smoke. To do this tangle of evidence justice requires acute and prolonged study. Something you apparently do not have time for.

I would also observe that Tink grossly misrepresents the findings of Elizabeth Loftus. As David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., already explained in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), page 178, a Harvard study she cites shows that, when it comes to the salient features of a situation, subjects were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their recollections. So if he understands this study, which is reported in her work, then he has to know that he is misrepresenting the findings.

Elizabeth Loftus' defining work Eyewitness Testimony revolutionized the treatment of eyewitnesses by thousands of attorneys in tens of thousands of cases. Just for starters, the back cover of her book states: "As pertinent today as when it was first published more than a decade ago, this engaging and highly praised study makes the psychological case against the reliability of the eyewitness." In her book she did cite a study by J.K. Marshall, K.H. Marquis and S. Oskamp entitled, "Effects of kind of questions of interrogation on accuracy and completeness of testimony," Harvard Law Review 84 (1971): 1620-1643. I have that article. Its published abstract states: "Underlying the rules of courtroom procedure and evidence are assumptions about human behavior. The authors, interested in how people perform as witnesses, conducted an experiment to measure the effects of various modes of interrogation on the quality of testimony. Their results cast some doubt on the soundness of the present rules for examining witnesses and suggest several new procedures." You say that by citing this article Elizabeth Loftus somehow undermines the thesis of her book that I have accurately stated. Nonsense.

The rest of your post is your characteristic bloviation that is not worth a reply.

JT

He is blowing smoke and planing his game of dodge and fake, which is his technique. And in this latest post, he shows again the complete lack of respect for truth and evidence that distinguishes the later stages of his career, where, in order to make the argument he has made here, he has to completely discard Gary Aguilar's impeccable point about the improbability of the witnesses to the back of the head wound being mistaken, as Bernice pointed out in her post #114:

JOHN F. KENNEDY'S FATAL WOUNDS:

THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS

FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT

by

Gary L. Aguilar, MD

San Francisco, California, August, 1994

If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem.

So which is it, Tink? You, not I, are the master bloviator when it comes to evading the crucial question. You have come down on both sides of the question regarding Gary Aguilar's work. You want to discount witness testimony by grossly distorting Elizabeth Loftus's work. Yet Gary had made the compelling case that it is overwhelmingly improbable that they are wrong. So what's the score: Do you stand by Gary's work or do you continue to insist the film is authentic?

This man not only betrays the search for truth but he is willing to denigrate or misrepresent the work of those with whom he likes to align himself. He grossly misrepresents the work of Gary Aguilar by using his misrepresentation of Loftus to create uncertainty about his findings, even though Gary spelled it out as you have seen. And he evades the crucial question of whether there was a massive hole in the back of the head, which would invalidate the Zapruder film.

In order to deny the presence of a massive hole in the back of the head, Tink has to distort or ignore the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza; Clint Hill, who was the first person to see it "up close and personal"; physician after physician at Parkland, who described cerebellum extruding from this "fist sized" defect at the back of his head; others at Bethesda (before Humes enlarged it), and even the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, who prepared the body for burial.

Abraham Lincoln observed that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. It is a very simple proposition: Does he agree that there was a massive defect to the back of the head? Because if he does, then his defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if he does not, then his credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink? Tell us.

Many thanks for your valuable input Tink,

Bill Kelly

A question or three for Tink:

1) Do you believe the Warren Report is essentially accurate or do you believe it is essentially flawed?

2) Are your current beliefs essentially unchanged from what they were when you wrote Six Seconds? Are they contrary? Is this a gray area?

3) Do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?

I'm not being as facetious as it might appear. I just haven't heard or read what you currently hold to be true about this subject in a vey long time.

Thanks--

Sure thing, Greg. Sylvia Meagher once pointed that it was not important what any particular person believed. What was important was the evidence (or lack of it) for that belief. But you ask rather simple and obvious questions that I’ll be pleased to answer.

“1) Do you believe the Warren Report is essentially accurate or do you believe it is essentially flawed?”

“Flawed” is too gentle a term for what the Warren Report perpetrated. As countless folks have pointed out over the years, its conclusions do not grow out of the evidence. In instance after instance, their conclusions conflict with the evidence.

“2) Are your current beliefs essentially unchanged from what they were when you wrote Six Seconds? Are they contrary? Is this a gray area?”

They are essentially unchanged. I made some mistakes... some minor, at least one major. But the overall claim of Six Seconds... that is, that shots came from more than one location... has become more and more indisputable as the years pass.

“3) Do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?”

I’m not sure that Lee Harvey Oswald even acted that day... not to say “acted alone.” I am persuaded that shots were fired from the Depository but I am not persuaded that Oswald fired them. I never have been so persuaded.

*******************

At the risk of boring you and others, let me add a few thoughts about this case.

From the beginning, the only thing I’ve been interested in concerns what happened that day in Dealey Plaza. Because of that, I’m largely ignorant of the numerous conspiracy theories about who did it and why did they do it. It seemed to me that there were three questions that had to be answered in logical order: (1) What happened? (2) Who did it? (3) Why did they do it? I’ve been stuck for forty-some years on the first question.

If you’re going to figure out what happened, you have to decide first and foremost what you are going to take as evidence. The researches of John Hunt, Gary Aguilar and myself with respect to CE 399 indicate the problems with only one piece of physical evidence. There were hundreds of people in and around Dealey Plaza that day and we have a plethora of their eye-witness observations. Some are credible some are not. All are subject to the caveats Elizabeth Loftus laid out in her groundbreaking studies on eyewitness testimony. Almost every factor Loftus lays out as degrading the reliability of eyewitness testimony was present in Dealey Plaza that day. Where, then, can we turn for some bedrock of evidence upon which to base our judgments of what happened in Dealey Plaza. It seems to me that we have to turn to the numerous films and photos taken that day by press photographers and ordinary citizens in Dealey Plaza. We know that the event happened in only one way. We know that photos or films of the same event should fit together without discrepancy except for the point of view of the photographer. If they did not fit together... if one film or photo was discrepant... it would stand out like a sore thumb. The fitting together of all the films and photos taken that day is both the test and guarantee of their authenticity. They form a seamless, self-authenticating whole. The zealotry of Professor Fetzer and his collaborators over fifteen years to show any discrepancy serves to buttress the authenticity of these films and photos. We should be grateful for their efforts. We would not know that these films and photos are authentic if no one had tried to show they were fakes and failed in that attempt.

Don Jefferies has complained that it’s difficult to determine my views on anything “that doesn’t pertain to Jim Fetzer.” It may seem that way. Actually, I have discovered a small community of folks who don’t often post on this or any board and I find my email discussions with them productive. I think the threshold question in this case is whether or not it is provable that shots were fired from a location other than the Depository. I’m working on that and finding that the accretion of evidence over time is impressive. Thus far, however, my project has not lent itself to discussions on the internet. I suspect this will change and I am looking forward to getting assistance and opinions from the members who post here.

Finally, I should indicate why I may have given Don Jefferies the opinion he holds. It has to do with the difference between advocacy and scholarship and between advocacy and investigation.

I learned a bit about scholarship while I was in the academic world. The scholar does not just advocate a point of view. He/she does not build a case like an attorney builds a case for trial. Rather, the scholar looks at both sides of a particular question, catalogues the evidence on both sides and then offers a solid opinion as to the emergent truth. He/she also is scrupulous about admitting a mistake when one has been made.

The same distinction is apparent in the world of the courts. Within the courtroom, the attorney is playing the game of persuasion. His job is to persuade the judge or jury of a particular version of the truth. His job is simple advocacy. Admitting he is wrong when he is wrong is not part of his job description. The job of the investigator is different. In criminal defense, the investigator of course has his eye out for those facts or possible interpretation of facts that buttress the case of one’s client. But that is not the sole job of the investigator. The proper job description is to find what is out there and report that back. For example, when I was working for Stephen Jones in his defense of Tim McVeigh, my job was not just to report back the facts that helped McVeigh’s case. As any defense attorney knows, he wants to know the good with the bad... the facts that hurt his case along with the facts that help his case. In this sense, the same distinction between advocacy and scholarship is found in the distinction between advocacy and investigation. I know how to build a case and I know how to investigate a case. With respect to the Kennedy assassination, I’m doing the latter.

Professor Fetzer shows again and again that he is doing the former and it gets my goat. For over a decade he’s been using an argument that 19th Century logic books label “poisoning of the well.” Since I used sketches drawn from the Zapruder film in Six Seconds, he’s been claiming that my defense of the Zapruder film’s authenticity is just an old fart defending his reputation. Of course, the same argument applies to Fetzer ten times over since he has been trying to make his reputation by impugning the Zapruder film. This is pure advocacy that has nothing to do with scholarship or evidence. It’s the sort of thing a lawyer might or might not try before a jury he took to be stupid.

But no one reading this needs a catalogue of Professor Fetzer’s style of advocacy. It’s there for all to see.

JT

"... it seems to me that an occipital blowout as you would visually expect to see it cannot be seen either. What I do see is that extra hair has been raised up and parted corresponding to the right occipital area, like what you'd see with an Indian scalping a pioneer, but I otherwise see skull area where bone should be either parted or clearly removed, though that area is arguably slightly grayer than the rest. Further, I see this same effect at 372, 373, and 375, not just 374. My educated guess would be that the occipital blowout was colored in to attempt to look like there was bone and skin (although, again, a case can be made that it is too gray, but there should be brain extrusion as well that is not detectable in those frames)..."

Fascinating! Forget the problem that the area in question is on the side of the head and not on the back of the head. What we see is not what we would expect to see, says Pincher. No matter. We'll take care of that by speculating that "the occipital blowout was colored in to attempt to look like there was bone and skin." Just fascinating!

JT

Thanks Duncan and Robin. You two have really done this well. Since Professor Fetzer has simply ignored your refutation of his claim, it will be interesting to see if he ignores the refutation in the future.

JT

This is where i see the grey area in Zapruder.

I agree with that, Robin.

To be more precise, it's at the right side of the head, ie, at the back end of the right side of the head, and NOT on the back of the head.

Hi Duncan.

As early as frame Z-357 we can see the grey patch, and also a clearer view of the skull flap in relation to it.

Click on image to view full size:

"I am not going to address the obvious absurdity of Josiah Thompson's revised version of the wound to the back of JFK's head, which others are dealing with very clearly."

I wasn't aware I'd given any "revised version of the wound to the back of JFK's head." The only revision was Robin's in explaining your mistake in believing the the side of Kennedy's head was really the back of his head. Are you still insisting you made no mistake?

JT

I am not going to address the obvious absurdity of Josiah Thompson's revised version of the wound to the back of JFK's head, which others are dealing with very clearly. I only want to point out that, as Doug Horne explained in the Appendix to Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Sydney wanted an unimpeachable source film for study, where the National Archives provides a so-called "forensic copy", which she purchased, as Josiah would know if he had read Horne's masterpiece. As I explained to Mike Pincher, it appeared to me that the superficial defects--the scratches and grainy images--of the copy they obtained do not appear to matter to the issues they were studying. Anyone who bothers to read what Horne explained about their work ALREADY KNOWS that the artwork involved in painting over the blow-out at the back of the head was COMPLETELY CONSPICUOUS to these experts in film reconstruction. So I don't quite understand why Josiah Thompson should be here belittling what they HAVE ALREADY DONE. His own years and years of study of the film has never revealed anything as simple and straightforward as their discovery, which far transcends any of his work on the film. His denigration of what they have already done further demonstrates that he can no longer be regarded as an expert on the film or, for that matter, on the assassination itself. After his many rejections of his own work, which he pretends are "advances", we know far more today from this new Hollywood group--namely, that THE FILM HAS BEEN ALTERED--than we ever learned from him. And as for his alleged "mistake" about the double-hit, when David Lifton showed these frames to Richard Feynman at CalTech--where Feynman is one of the most renown physicists of our time--he (Feynman) detected the forward motion in JFK's head between frames 312 and 313, which supports the double-hit. We know now that the proximity of the hit to the back of his head reported by the Bethesda physicians and the shot that entered his right temple and blew his brains out the back of his head were separated in time by more than 1/18.3 of a second, where he fell forward after he was hit, Jackie eased him back up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right temple. But none of this is discernible if you assume, as Josiah Thompson continues to insist to this day, that the film is genuine and unaltered. The time has come for this charade to end!

The sketch on page 107 of "Six Seconds" simply illustrates what Dr. McClelland said. Although the Harper fragment was described as "occipit" bone by Billy Harper's uncle and this description appears in a contemporaneous FBI 302, it was a mistake. Dr. Angell straightened out all this for the House Committee. Is Professor Fetzer ignorant of this?

In 1967, I made a mistake in measuring the movement of JFK's head under impact. Between 312 and 313, I measured a forward movement of just over two inches. As David Wimp's studies have pointed out, this was a mistake. What I measured was the blur introduced by Zapruder moving his camera and not the movement of JFK's head. JFK was not hit in the head by two shots between 312 and 313 but by one shot from the right front. Knowledge about historical events is based on accretion... on the addition of new facts and the abandonment of old mistakes. By clearly and distinctly pointing out an important mistake, I am furthering that project. What is Professor Fetzer doing? I'm sure that's pretty obvious too.

We have been hearing about the socalled "Hollywood Seven" for over a year now. Fetzer confirmed that the 4th or 5th generation copy studied by the Wilkinsons is miserable. What a surprise! As was pointed out over a year ago a much better copy (the MPI transparencies) can be viewed at the Sixth Floor Museum. I take it that the deafening silence emerging from the the Wilkinsons and the socalled "Hollywood Seven" springs from the fact that better copies of the film don't confirm the claims Fetzer and his cohort have been making. If they come up with something, then it can be looked at. Now it's just partisan bloviation and its been going on for over a year. It shouldn't distract attention from the fact that Duncan has shown that Fetzer simply can't tell the difference between the back of the head and the side of the head. At least we're done with that piece of bloviation. And will Fetzer admit a mistake when he makes it? Not likely. He's made some huge errors... Anyone for Moorman-in-the-Street again?... and stubbornly refuses to ever admit he's wrong. That, of course, is his right and the privilege of pedestrian and insecure thinkers since the beginning of time. But not to see what Duncan has pointed out? That's a new stretch in denial.

JT

Considering that Josiah Thompson was the first to publish the Robert McClelland diagram (on page 107) in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), where he also acknowledges that the Harper fragment was a piece of occipital bone from the back of the head (on page 101), since he has already repudiated the "double-hit" study (of pages 90-95), which many of us have regarded as its most important contribution, by the time he is done disavowing his own work, there will be nothing left! I anticipate that this is all laying the foundation for his 50th-observance conversion to the conclusion that there "really was no conspiracy, after all"! If he doesn't understand the deceit and deception perpetrated by Duncan MacRae's shoddy attempt at obfuscation, then he really should be spending his time tracking down wayward spouses to establish adultery as a cause of action in divorce cases, which appears to be more suited to the current state of his research abilities. A man I once admire is leaving a sad legacy of distortion and betrayal.

Thanks Duncan. Perhaps if you're looking at a really bad copy of the Z film you might think it was the back of the head. Professor Fetzer has been claiming this for a long time. Thank you for publishing a copy of the Z film where it takes only a second or two to see clearly that it is the side of the head not the back of the head that shows red. Then there is the repeated but specious claim that we've heard over and over again for the last year... that is, the claim that the socalled "Hollywood Seven" have determined that frame 317 has some sort of patch overlaid on the back of Kennedy's head. First off, we have no idea of who the much vaunted "Hollywood Seven" are. Second, they have come up with nothing. I've heard that the copy studied by them is so bad that no conclusions could be reached and that would explain why all we have heard from the "Hollywood Seven" is a deafening silence. So instead of hearing from the "Hollywood Seven" all we hear are claims of what they supposedly found from Professor Fetzer. The rest of his post is reheated garbage. We are all in your debt, Duncan, for getting to the bottom of this.

JT

I don't think I have expressed any view on this. All I said was that (a) Fetzer's longstanding claim that these late frames show a wound in the back of the head is mistaken (as Robin pointed out, the visible wound in these frames is on the side of the head) and ( an examination of the photos of the Harper fragment in the 1970s by Dr. Angell indicated it was from the parietal region not the occiput.

JT

Josiah,

It's difficult to determine your views on anything that doesn't pertain to Jim Fetzer, so I'd like to know something.

From what I've read of your comments on this forum, you appear to be denying that there was a large opening in the back of JFK's head. I find that hard to accept, given all the medical testimony to the contrary. However, you also maintain that the head shot came from the right front. So, my question is- if the large exit wound that all the doctors at Parkland reported seeing wasn't really there, then where did the shot from the right front exit?

I apologize if I've misconstrued your views, but would be interested in you elaborating on the subject.

Yes, the Z-film helps us understand what is going on. Starting a little after frame 300, one can see the heads of all the occupants of the lmousine begin to move forward. I'm talking here of JFK, Mrs. JFK, Connally, Mrs. Connally, Kellerman and Greer... all of them. Either their heads pivot forward or they slide forward in their seats as the limousine slows. And why did the limousine slow? Greer turned around in his seat and looked in the back seat. In doing so, he either took his foot off the accelerator or tapped the brake. The limousine loses about one third of its speed but never comes to a stop. The importance of this (as Wimp as shown) is that the forward movement of JFK's head between 312 and 313 is consistent with its forward movement earlier... about an inch. This means that the forward movement of JFK's head at this time cannot be ascribed to the impact of a bullet.

I would point out that I didn't figure all this out. David Wimp is the bright guy who did.

JT

Not to obfuscate - but is the slowing, stopping, and speeding away of the limo - as we see it in the extant Z-film. or as we might posit them - factored into any study of JFK's head movement, Zapruder's camera jerks, etc? Can we learn anything about the motion of the limo from either JFK or Zapruder?

Dismissal or not I guess we'll just have to wait and see with what they come up with. It's been over a year now that Fetzer has been claiming that the Hollywood Seven concluding something yet the Hollywood Seven concludes nothing and we don't even know who they are supposed to be.

My bet is that Fetzer and friends persuaded the Wilkinsons that they should make a DVD about their theories of the Z film. Big $$$. The Wilkinsons looked into it and contacted Rollie Zavada and various real film experts in Hollywood. Their enthusiasm shriveled when they realized how bad their copy of the film was and that better copies were viewable at the 6th Floor Museum. Unless you're using the best copy of the film, you're incredibly vulnerable to challenge and impeachment.

I wish the Wilkinsons luck. I've been in touch with them. My only complaint is Fetzer claiming something has happened when it hasn't.

JT

I would not just dismiss the Hollywood Group so cavalierly.

The Hollywood Group consists of Sydney Wilkinson and her husband and others.

THey both work as film editors in Sherman Oaks where they have their own office. I met them at Lancer last year.

THey do not strike me as being off the wall kind of people who you can easily dismiss. And they do not agree with the more extreme theories of some of the alterationists e.g. that the whole film has been redone and we are looking at a cartoon.

What they do beleive is that the back of JFK's head has been patched over. And they make some serious arguments for that. I listened to them and they showed me one of their exhibits where they actually did the very dense digital transfer of frames. I don't want to go very more deeply into this exhibit, because I don't completely understand it technically. But it is interesting.

I probably will be visiting with them in April to see their whole presentation.

THey are not writing a book BTW. THey are preparing a DVD. But they are trying to track down some more exhibits about what exactly was the chain of evidence for the Z film, and what exactly happened to the stuff TIme Life had and where exactly it is today.

What people like Horne and Fetzer have done to Wilkinson and her husband is really unfair.

The sketch on page 107 of "Six Seconds" simply illustrates what Dr. McClelland said. Although the Harper fragment was described as "occipit" bone by Billy Harper's uncle and this description appears in a contemporaneous FBI 302, it was a mistake. Dr. Angell straightened out all this for the House Committee. Is Professor Fetzer ignorant of this?

In 1967, I made a mistake in measuring the movement of JFK's head under impact. Between 312 and 313, I measured a forward movement of just over two inches. As David Wimp's studies have pointed out, this was a mistake. What I measured was the blur introduced by Zapruder moving his camera and not the movement of JFK's head. JFK was not hit in the head by two shots between 312 and 313 but by one shot from the right front. Knowledge about historical events is based on accretion... on the addition of new facts and the abandonment of old mistakes. By clearly and distinctly pointing out an important mistake, I am furthering that project. What is Professor Fetzer doing? I'm sure that's pretty obvious too.

We have been hearing about the socalled "Hollywood Seven" for over a year now. Fetzer confirmed that the 4th or 5th generation copy studied by the Wilkinsons is miserable. What a surprise! As was pointed out over a year ago a much better copy (the MPI transparencies) can be viewed at the Sixth Floor Museum. I take it that the deafening silence emerging from the the Wilkinsons and the socalled "Hollywood Seven" springs from the fact that better copies of the film don't confirm the claims Fetzer and his cohort have been making. If they come up with something, then it can be looked at. Now it's just partisan bloviation and its been going on for over a year. It shouldn't distract attention from the fact that Duncan has shown that Fetzer simply can't tell the difference between the back of the head and the side of the head. At least we're done with that piece of bloviation. And will Fetzer admit a mistake when he makes it? Not likely. He's made some huge errors... Anyone for Moorman-in-the-Street again?... and stubbornly refuses to ever admit he's wrong. That, of course, is his right and the privilege of pedestrian and insecure thinkers since the beginning of time. But not to see what Duncan has pointed out? That's a new stretch in denial.

JT

JT

Considering that Josiah Thompson was the first to publish the Robert McClelland diagram (on page 107) in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), where he also acknowledges that the Harper fragment was a piece of occipital bone from the back of the head (on page 101), since he has already repudiated the "double-hit" study (of pages 90-95), which many of us have regarded as its most important contribution, by the time he is done disavowing his own work, there will be nothing left! I anticipate that this is all laying the foundation for his 50th-observance conversion to the conclusion that there "really was no conspiracy, after all"! If he doesn't understand the deceit and deception perpetrated by Duncan MacRae's shoddy attempt at obfuscation, then he really should be spending his time tracking down wayward spouses to establish adultery as a cause of action in divorce cases, which appears to be more suited to the current state of his research abilities. A man I once admire is leaving a sad legacy of distortion and betrayal.

Thanks Duncan. Perhaps if you're looking at a really bad copy of the Z film you might think it was the back of the head. Professor Fetzer has been claiming this for a long time. Thank you for publishing a copy of the Z film where it takes only a second or two to see clearly that it is the side of the head not the back of the head that shows red. Then there is the repeated but specious claim that we've heard over and over again for the last year... that is, the claim that the socalled "Hollywood Seven" have determined that frame 317 has some sort of patch overlaid on the back of Kennedy's head. First off, we have no idea of who the much vaunted "Hollywood Seven" are. Second, they have come up with nothing. I've heard that the copy studied by them is so bad that no conclusions could be reached and that would explain why all we have heard from the "Hollywood Seven" is a deafening silence. So instead of hearing from the "Hollywood Seven" all we hear are claims of what they supposedly found from Professor Fetzer. The rest of his post is reheated garbage. We are all in your debt, Duncan, for getting to the bottom of this.

JT

Now anyone who claims to be unable to see the defect at the back of the head will be hard pressed to justify any such denial.

The light greyish looking area being hit by sunlight on Kennedy's leftward tilted head, and seen in frames Z372 through to Z375, is the area from where the flap originated, and as is clearly seen in the frames provided by Robin, is on the side of his head, NOT the back.

Thanks Duncan. Perhaps if you're looking at a really bad copy of the Z film you might think it was the back of the head. Professor Fetzer has been claiming this for a long time. Thank you for publishing a copy of the Z film where it takes only a second or two to see clearly that it is the side of the head not the back of the head that shows red. Then there is the repeated but specious claim that we've heard over and over again for the last year... that is, the claim that the socalled "Hollywood Seven" have determined that frame 317 has some sort of patch overlaid on the back of Kennedy's head. First off, we have no idea of who the much vaunted "Hollywood Seven" are. Second, they have come up with nothing. I've heard that the copy studied by them is so bad that no conclusions could be reached and that would explain why all we have heard from the "Hollywood Seven" is a deafening silence. So instead of hearing from the "Hollywood Seven" all we hear are claims of what they supposedly found from Professor Fetzer. The rest of his post is reheated garbage. We are all in your debt, Duncan, for getting to the bottom of this.

JT

Now anyone who claims to be unable to see the defect at the back of the head will be hard pressed to justify any such denial.

The light greyish looking area being hit by sunlight on Kennedy's leftward tilted head, and seen in frames Z372 through to Z375, is the area from where the flap originated, and as is clearly seen in the frames provided by Robin, is on the side of his head, NOT the back.