Josiah Thompson

And a Happy St. Patrick's Day to you, Ray. Do I count as Irish if my people came from a bit east Belfast on the coast? The tune was just wonderful to listen to.

Tink Thompson

This is a great week because it heralds the beginning of SPRING.

It is especially great, because we celebrate THE GREATEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED, THE BOLD SAINT PATRICK, who abolished slavery a thousand years before Lincoln.

Hope y'all enjoy this song by Nanci Griffith, a great Texan.

I think the point you make here, Ray, is really important. Thomas's study indicates (if memory serves) a muzzle velocity for the behind-the-fence-weapon in the range that Ayoob specifies.

JT

Okay, now, that's eight witnesses, all of whom said the kill shot impacted on the side of the President's head, and none of whom noted an explosion or wound on the back of his head.

And that is what we see in the Zapruder film.

As Ayoob and other firearms experts have pointed out, this is consistent with an EXPLODING BULLET from the grassy knoll. An exploding BULLET will not neccesarily leave an exit wound, according to Ayoob.

Massad Ayoob, The JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993. "The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale ...An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain. If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll."

and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain.

THE X-RAYS (CONTROVERSIAL TO BE SURE) SHOW A FRAGMENTING BULLET HIT THE BRAIN.

If Professor offered just testimony I wouldn't have said anything. Characteristically, he couldn't just do that. He had to insult his interlocutor, Pat, and do so in his usual condescending manner. I merely wanted to point out that I and others are tired of his game.

I agree with you that the observation of cerebellum tissue extending from the wound would place at least one wound low in the right back of the head. I'm looking forward to reading what Pat says about that. I thought Pat's citing of actual testimony and his commentary on the photos presented was quite helpful. However, the observations by Kemp Clark, McClelland and others about cerebellum tissue clearly has to be taken into account.

I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say about this.

I don't know whether a fragment from the head shot caused the throat wound. I would point out that Don Thomas relates JFK's elbows coming up as reaction not to a throat wound but from being hit in the back of the head by a ricocheting fragment from a miss that hit the street. So nothing is simple.

I would hope that we could discuss things without all the insult and condescension that the Professor's posts are almost always full of. Perhaps if he gets called on this every time he does it, he might quit doing it.

JT

"I am sorry to say, Pat, that you are either the most dishonest student of JFK or else the most incompetent to ever address the medical evidence, bar none."

You are so predictable, Professor. Pat has made some excellent points concerning what the witnesses actually said. He made these points by citing real evidence. You just can't leave it at debate can you? You have offer your own opinion as to Pat's honesty and competence. Apparently, you don't yet get it. We've all seen you pull this again and again and no one really gives a damn what sort of pompous judgments you choose to make about others.

JT

It is one of the oldest mistakes in JFK research to ascribe the the sketch in Six Seconds to Dr. McClelland. I've been telling people for years that McClelland had nothing to do with the preparation of this sketch. I took a Polaroid photo of the right back of my head and sent it to a medical illustrator in Philadelphia. I included the actual text of McClelland's description of the Kennedy back of the head wound and paid the medical illustrator to draw it. Hence, it is just false that Dr. McClelland made the sketch. I never even asked him for his opinion on the sketch. The sketch then is the interpretation of a medical illustrator of what Dr. McClelland described.

Pat Speer "comes up with this stuff" by doing what a good researcher ought to do: asking questions and getting direct answers from people who are in a position to know.

His analysis of the various descriptions of damage to the back of Kennedy's head is quite illuminating. He should be praised for not accepting the usual superficial interpretations of these witness reports. So fume as much as you like, but Pat Speer is 100% correct and you are 100% incorrect.

Josiah Thompson

Sometimes I have no idea where Pat Speer comes up with some of this stuff. There is a nice copy of the diagram

attributed to Robert McClellan in HEAD SHOT on page 94 with a note dated January 24, 1994, in which he writes,

"Brad, the drawing below is an exact copy, in regard to location and dimensions, of

the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966. Best wishes, Robert N. McClelland".

So much for Pat's dismissal of his own diagram! There seems to be a pattern here where any evidence, no matter

how expert -- such as the Parkland physicians consistent reports of this massive defect with both cerebellar and

cerebral tissue extruding -- is dismissed or ignored by this man in pursuit of his own idiosyncratic take about the

head wounds. This is called "special pleading" by citing only the evidence favorable to your side and discounting

the rest. I am sorry to say but his qualifications for research on the medical evidence are increasingly disputable.

This article is archived here with active links, photos and film clips:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-head-shot-paradox.html

The JFK “Head Shot” Paradox*

by Jim Fetzer

Recently by Jim Fetzer: The Place of Probability in Science

As a philosopher of science with a keen interest in the nature of scientific knowledge, I have been fascinated by the recent book by G. Paul Chalmers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (2010). I have found several aspects of his discussion of interest, including his conclusion—that the fatal shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a shot from the right-front (“the grassy knoll”)—which he affirms on the basis of his competence as a physicist. He does not seem to notice that JFK’s brains and blood are blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, which he takes to be authentic and unaltered. But that means there is a paradox in his analysis, since, if the film is authentic, the blow-out to the right-front contradicts his conclusion that the shot that caused this effect was fired from the right-front, which is founded on elementary laws of physics. This, in turn, implies that he has not taken into account all the relevant evidence and thereby violated a basic principle of scientific reasoning, which may be appropriate for politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen, but not for him.

. . .

It not only troubles me profoundly that Chalmers violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning and that evidence internal to the extant film refutes his presumption that the film is authentic but that Jefferson Morley endorses the book with the following claim: “He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi’s flabby Reclaiming History [2007] and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered.” While I agree that Bugliosi’s work is indefensible, to the best of my knowledge, Morley has never studied the film and is not in a position to know whether it is authentic or not. This is not the first time Morley has proven to be unequal to the demands of serious research about the assassination of one of the Kennedys. Science, as we have seen, can enable us to sort out authentic from inauthentic evidence, but we have to think things through and not let ourselves be misled by pseudo-science masquerading as genuine in the search for truth.

* Thanks to David W. Mantik, John Costella, and Morgan Reynolds for their feedback.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John Costella.

A couple of quick comments.

1) You inaccurately attribute your belief the x-rays have been altered to hide a blow-out in the back of the head to Dr. Mantik. In his most recent comments he acknowledged that the white patch on the x-rays does not overlay the area on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment was dislodged. He also claimed that it does not conceal missing bone, but missing brain. If researchers (not just yourself but Doug Horne, Jim Douglass, and others) are gonna cite Mantik as an expert supporting there was a blow-out to the back of the head, they should present his conclusions accurately, correct? If so, you should acknowledge that Mantik believes brain is missing from the back of the head, but thinks (strangely, in my opinion) that the x-rays fail to reveal missing bone.

2) Your assertion that the explosion of blood and brain in frame 313 suggests a shot from behind...is not as true as most (including until recently myself) believe. As shown in the following slide, blood spatter experts have confirmed that the explosion of blood and matter from a skull is not an indication of bullet direction. As a result, frame 313 could very well suggest the knoll shot so many suspect... (Keep in mind I write this even though I no longer suspect such a shot.)

Pat,

David Mantik is preparing a detailed response to your claims, which we await with

great interest. Since we can actually SEE the blow-out to the back of the head

in frame 374 and can actually SEE that it corresponds to what he calls "Area P"

in his study of the lateral cranial X-ray, which also obviously does NOT show

it, how can you persist with allegations that it was NOT patched over? Take a

look at http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf where I have presented them

nearly side-by-side. I have made this point repeatedly and you have never, to

my knowledge, acknowledged it. Yet it blows your claim right out of the water!

The point of my piece was to observe the paradox between the back-and-to-the

-left motion of his body and the brains bulging out to the right-front, which was

painted in, as Ryan observed, to created the impression of a shot from behind.

I have no idea why you contest it, since that was the reason for this fabrication.

Jim

I don't see a blow-out in frame 374. I see a dark area at the back of the head. Probably shadow. Now I can't say for sure that this shadow is on the up and up, in that, if a series of actual experts were to look at the film and conclude this area had been painted in, I might believe them.

But I just don't see a hole in that image in your article.

FWIW, while looking back through your article I noticed a few mistakes. On page 357, for example, you compare the wrong part of the skull in the black and white back of the head photo to the cowlick area in the Dox drawing. On page 359, for further example, you credit Dr. McClelland for the so-called McClelland drawing, when, as pointed out by Doug Horne in his book, he had nothing to do with it, and actually disputed its representation of the wounds.

As an old Frog, let me see if I can straighten this out.

Underwater Demolition Teams were formed in World War II to perform a number of tasks: beach reconnaissance prior to landings; demolition of beach obstacles on the morning of the landing; commando and demolition raids. After the Cousteau-Gagnan aqualung was perfected in the late 1940s, UDT's took over a number of underwater tasks including: mini-submarines; general underwater work on the submarine detection system; limpet mine attacks on ships in harbor. In this capacity, UDTs were the orphans of the Navy. Appropriations were minimal and it was a graveyard for any officer wanting to make a career in the Navy.

In 1961, the SEALS were established by the Kennedy administration at the same time it established the army Special Forces. Great quantities of money and energy were poured into what came to be called "Naval Special Warfare." Cadres were taken from UDTs to establish the initial SEAL Teams. For example, my old unit, UDT-21 in Little Creek, Virginia supplied the cadres that made up Seal Team 4, also based in Little Creek. In the old days, UDTs and SEALs from the East Coast were based at Little Creek and their West Coast equivalents were based at Coronado, California. BUD (Basic UDT training) became BUDS (Basis UDT Seal Training)and became centralized at Coronado. The drop-out rate in training remained about the same... 90%. UDTs and SEAL teams were never merged. In 1983, all remaining UDTs were decommissioned leaving the Navy only with SEAL Teams. There is no rivalry between the two. I belong to a joint association and we hold yearly reunions of both. UDTs are considered just an earlier generation of SEALs. At the last reunion I attended a couple of years ago, I was told by Joe Heinlein, ex-CO of UDT-21 and a pal of mine, that the Bureau of Personnel had issued an order stating that qualified UDT personnel could wear the SEAL Trident insignia on their uniform. Since none of us can get into our uniforms of 50 years ago it's all academic.

My understanding is that Jesse Ventura was a member of UDT-12 and in that capacity served in Vietnam. Since both SEAL teams and UDTs were getting shot up in Vietnam, the difference between the two doesn't matter very much.

I hope this explains the difference and the similarity between the two kinds of units.

JT

• We already have non-credible confessions
  
• Ventura is a proven xxxx he claimed to have been a Navy Seal when in fact he was a member of the the Underwater Demolition Team.
  

BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL) Training

BUD/S is a 6-month SEAL training course held at the Naval Special Warfare Training Center in Coronado, CA. You’ll start with five weeks Indoctrination and Pre-Training as part of a Navy SEAL Class, then go through the Three Phases of BUD/S. First Phase is the toughest. It consists of 8 weeks of Basic Conditioning that peaks with a grueling segment called “Hell Week” at the midway point, where you’ll be tested to your limits.

Thought the UDT and SEALs went through the same basic training they were not the same thing until they were merged in 1983. Tink who was a member of the UDT can confirm this. Note that in Tink’s bios he is always referred to an ex-member of the UDT. Ventura’s defenders claim the difference is not important. But the person who brought this up was a former SEAL officer who served in Vietnam and Ventura’s own spokesman said “he is very forthcoming and accurate in terms of his relationship with the United States Navy. He talks about the fact that he was in the Underwater Demolition Team. In fact, he has corrected me in the past.”

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/1999/dec/02/jesse-great-pretender-ventura/

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199912/14_kastem_seals/

Despite his spokesman’s denial Ventura said he had been a SEAL on numerous occasions:

Navy SEAL, union member, volunteer high school football coach, outdoorsman, husband of 23 years, father of two.

Ventura Campaign Ad

I'm a warrior at heart. I'm an ex-Navy SEAL.

The New York Times, October 31, 1998

And Mr. [Hulk] Hogan, I mean he wants to be me, anyway. He always--you know, he pretends to be a Navy SEAL; I was one.

Meet the Press, November 8, 1998

You know, I come from a little bit of a military background earlier in my life and we were always taught in the Navy SEAL team never to assume.

CNN Inside Politics, November 12, 1998

High Times: Was your wrestling career fun?

Ventura: It was exciting. And for me, an ex-Navy Seal, it was fun.

High Times, November, 1998

Ventura: I've been a Navy SEAL.

Maria Shriver: But, a Navy SEAL makes you ready to be Governor?

Ventura: Uh-huh. Yeah. Sure it does.

Maria Shriver: Where did you come up with that?

Ventura: It's easy--because I defy--because I worked with things in being a Navy SEAL that could kill me.

NBC Dateline, December 22, 1998

I'm also excited--you know, a lot of my old Navy SEAL buddies are here to see me get sworn in today.

CBS This Morning, January 4, 1999

I'm the top law enforcement officer in the state of Minnesota. I'm also the commander-in-chief of the National Guard. I'm an ex-Navy SEAL team member.

Meet The Press, February 21, 1999

"How did they know that about me -- how dangerous we truly can be?" We have a saying in the SEALs: we don't get mad, we get even.

National Press Club Speech, February 22, 1999

I'm the head of the state troopers, and the commander-in-chief of the National Guard. I'm also a former Navy SEAL.

CNN Late Edition, February 23, 1999

Tim Russert: Both your brother--your older brother and yourself, [were] Navy SEALs?

Ventura: Mm-hmm, yeah.

Tim Russert: You almost died twice, once as a Navy SEAL and once as a wrestler, with blood clots in your lungs.

Ventura: Well, I almost died more than that a couple times as a SEAL. That's only what I told about in the book.

Tim Russert Show, May 22, 1999

Last spring I rappelled down from the top of the Target Center before a Timberwolves game. But, you know, I am an ex-Navy SEAL and I was trained for you know, a full year and was very comfortable in that type of rappelling-type thing.

Larry King Live, May 24, 1999

I couldn't care less what a person's sexual orientation is, and I'm an ex-Navy SEAL.

The Advocate, May 1999

First of all, they should understand why a Navy SEAL doesn't wear underwear.

CBS This Morning , June 3, 1999

Larry King: You were a Navy SEAL?

Ventura: Yes.

Larry King: What was that like?

Ventura: Exciting. I did it at 18 years old to 22, 22-1/2. It was challenging. I would belong to no other unit The camaraderie is unbelievable.

Larry King Live, June 3, 1999

When I was a wrestler, I could pick up buildings. When I was a SEAL, I could scale them.

NPR's Fresh Air, June 3, 1999

Chris Matthews: When you were a--you were a SEAL, you must have been through amazingly scary moments with life and death.

Ventura: Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Hardball with Chris Matthews at Harvard University, October 6, 1999

You're talking to an ex-Navy Seal here.

Playboy, November, 1999.

I was in the SEALs during the Vietnam War, so I experienced firsthand how we, as Americans, were affected by that conflict.

Rolling Stone, December 30, 1999

We're a proud organization. If anyone tries to pretend they're a SEAL, God help them.

Jesse Ventura Autobiography: I Ain't Got Time to Bleed

http://www.geekweek.com/2009/12/lets-clear-up-this-conspiracy-theory-first.html

His comment that “I was in the SEALs during the Vietnam War, so I experienced firsthand how we, as Americans, were affected by that conflict” was also misleading because as he later admitted he was never based in Vietnam or saw combat (and apparently never “went on clandestine or special operations where the risk of enemy fire was great or expected”). He was based in the Philippines and though he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal he “refused to say whether he served in-country, offshore or both...[and] refused to say what he did to earn his Vietnam Service Medal. He also refused to reveal which platoon and which detachments he was in within UDT 12 - information that would allow reporters to find out about his missions in public documents”

http://web.archive.org/web/20020203035901/http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/1130195.html

And I was right his claim of having a confession was scam or highly misleading at the least the Hunt tape is nothing new.

Nice piece of information,Barb. But I can't really get much interest up for the whole Judythy imbroglio. Were it not for Fetzer the new version of her book would have sunk like a lead fishing weight given the history of the last ten years. So Fetzer will "fetzer" for awhile about it inspiring a few new people to be offended by his tone and tactics. What else is new?

Well, there is that lurking little matter of Fetzer buying David Lifton's participation in his little Duluth "conference", then giving Lifton money and a chunk out of royalties from HOAX. Then it turns out that Fetzer welched on his commitment to Lifton and never sent him any royalty information. Fetzer said he never got such information which would have made it supremely difficult to do his income tax for the last few years. But no matter. Fetzer said he would get the information and provide it to Lifton. Did he? Or did he just hope everyone would forget about it?

JT

Ask yourself why Jim claims "60 Minutes," based on their own research, believed Judyth was the "real deal" and yet refused to run her story.

Hi Mike,

What an overall excellent post ... you make good and reasonable points, and ask pointed questions no one should overlook. And, I thank you for the kind words. :-)

On the 60 Minutes question ... it is a good one.

60 Minutes spent about 14 months investigating Judyth's claims, and, in the end, chose not to do the story. Don Hewitt, a 60 Minutes producer, was one who was quite hot to do it. In Don Hewitt's oral history, done at the Sixth Floor Museum in 2002, and broadcast on C-Span, there was this exchange:

"Interviewer: Why has the media not gone after this story…?

Hewitt: Because ... I did. I brought this woman to New York. We had Gloria Borger of ...

Interviewer: CBS?

Hewitt: No, she also worked for U.S. News. Gloria and I were convinced that we

were about to break the biggest story of our times and a guy who is a

lawyer for that senator I quoted, who was a member of the Warren Report,

was a counsel there in the Report, was all for us. He kept saying 'Let’s

go ahead. You’re onto something. Let’s do this' All of a sudden we came

to the conclusion. The door was slammed in our face. Actually, Brian Duffy, who was

the Washington bureau chief of the U.S. News and was doing this with us,

and Brian called one day and said, 'We don’t have any evidence. We only have

her story.' "

At some point in time, 60 Minutes had flown Judyth to New York. CBS had brought in a psychiatrist to evaluate her. In an e-mail to her supporters

on 11-8-00 she herself said of the experience with the psychiatrist:

"He obviously thought I was just a story teller and that hurt my feelings."

That he had labeled her a "story teller" has been a topic of much discussion in assorted newsgroups, on and off, for years, being restated by Judyth herself as well as her main supporters.

CBS also brought in a medical student to assess Judyth's knowledge and abilities with medical terminology. He was less than impressed, even according to then Judyth insiders, who eventually made comments on the net. Though her supporters were asked several times for copies of the actual reports the psychiatrist and medical student made, none were ever forthcoming.

CBC/60 Minutes eventually pulled the plug on doing any Judyth story.

Posted by diehard Judyth insider and supporter Martin Shackelford in 2008:

Quote ON

Tue, On 15 Jan 2008 20:40:26 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"

<msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

This was the communication from the segment producer at

"60 Minutes," explaining their decision not to do the segment.

It is dated October 19, 2000:

We have been looking into Judyth's story off and on, mostly on, for

fourteen months. This morning Don and I reviewed this effort. Our

primary question was whether or not all the information we had gathered

could be transformed into a 60 Minutes segment. The conclusion we

reached was that it could not. As a consequence we have called off our

research.

We are sorry that you have invested so much time and effort into this

enterprise, and we will honor any financial commitments we have made.

We, too, have invested a great deal of time, and money, in this effort,

more time I believe than we have put in on any story in the 30 years I

have been here. Which makes our decision as difficult for me as I know

it is for you.

We wish you well.

END QUOTE

This post/thread can be found at:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/62f7af51f125b98d/3b0fbfe157e876e1?hl=en&q=Judyth+60+Minutes+note+hewitt

Though contacted by a couple of researchers over the years, 60 Minutes always declined to discuss/make any statement about Judyth's story. Judyth and her main insiders and supporters ... like Martin Shackelford ... always claimed that 60 Minutes had been given every piece of Judyth's "evidence" and "documentation."

Bests,

Barb :-)

Thank you, Martin. I'm glad you have Sylvia Meagher's book. It's wonderful. She was a marvelous person and friend, someone of absolute intergrity. I often wish she were around to deal with some of the nonsense that qualifies as research these days. She would have eaten a lot of this silliness for breakfast.

You deserve as good an asnwer as I can give to your many questions. I think the best way to handles things is to interlineate my answers with the questions in your post. My answers are in boldface.

quote name='Martin Hinrichs' date='03 September 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1283546494' post='204603']

Some years ago, Gary and I put together a deal for getting "Six Seconds" reissued... it had been out of print for thirty years.

Tink,

Do you still have plans to publish an updated version of Six Seconds? I think it would be great to have an edition using actual Zapruder stills as well as seeing how newer evidence has affected your analysis and opinions.

Martin

Martin,

Thanks for your interest. No there are no plans to reprint Six Seconds with an update section. That, in itself, would take a lot of work. If I'm going to do a book on this case it will be something new, something I'm playing with in the back of my mind, but also something that hasn't become quite clear yet. Thanks again.

JT

First of all sorry Otto for getting off topic. I hope you don't mind.

To stay on Topic for a moment, i think you've asked reasonable questions and they were well deserved.

Your attitude is excellent. Congrats.

Dear Josiah,

thank you for this insight about your thoughts to update Six Seconds.

To be honest, in my journey the last 2 years on the JFK assassination research i've read a lot

of books and neglected until the last 2 months almost every book of the first generation researchers.

I thought that they were simply outdated but i was wrong.

John Kelin's "Praise from a Future Generation" had changed my view and has drawn my attention

to the work of Silvia Meagher, Vince Salandria, Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten and you.

So i've bought the books "Oswald: The Truth", "Accessories After the Fact" and "Rush to Judgement".

I was surprised how many new happenings i've discovered and how well and precise the research of this

first generation researchers was even at that time. Sure, some aspects are simply outdated but we have to consider

how little time after the assassination has passed by when these books were published.

I have great respect what these persons worked out under pressure. And i believe it was not just time pressure.

I was always suspicous about your Six Seconds in Dallas cause you've mentioned on the forum a couple of times

that there were here and there mistakes in the book. Don't get me wrong, i admire your forward step and see it as a strenght

and not as a weakness. It's more than reasonable to get the facts not always correct in 1967.

I think the biggest mistake I made was measuring what appeared to be the forward movement of JFK's head between Z312 and z313. It was pretty dumb of me not to recognize that the smearing in z313 could account for most or all of the apparent movement. The result of that mistake was that it opened the door for all sorts of mistaken speculations as to how a shot from the rear could cause the obvious left-backward movement of JFK's head and body. Obviously, JFK was hit in the back of the head but not then.

It was a coincidence that a good friend has send me your book as a gift a few weeks ago.

I've started a few days ago and just half way down (i'am currently at the stretcher chapter in Parkland)

and your work captivating me. It's extremely interesting cause it covered my point of interest.

The killing zone "Dealey Plaza" among the photographic evidence, you're take care of important witness reports, the ballistic

evidence and trajectories. Many pictures, many diagrams and well researched it provided excellent footnotes to crosscheck

where it all come from.

If i would write a book, the design would be similar. (It's the reviewed version from 1976).

You raised for the first time doubts in my mind that the current thinking of the shooting sequence of 8.3 seconds is

accurate. You've provided relevant witness reports (and not less) to support your theory, that the first show occured not at

around Z#160 but much more later- at Z#210-224. The current thinking that the first shot occured at around Z#160 is just supported

by the fast head turns of Connally and Kennedy at this time. And of course Rosemary Willis interview in 1978 (your book was written ealier and you was not aware of it) which was at the Willis home where she said she stopped running after hearing the first sound.

I was, to be frank, not aware of all the other witness reports supporting a later first shot happening.

The number of this witnesses in your book trumps the Rosemary Willis report and the head turns of JFK and JBC.

Is this part of your book still your current thinking or has it been updated?

If not, if would have change the title from Six Seconds to Eight seconds in an updated version.

Yeah, others have suggested that change in title to me. It seems clear now that shots were fired priot to Z210.

You have put also eyewitness S.M Holland on a high level credible podest. I think the same.

You have met him. You have known him.

I found til today no mistake or flaw in his words. Everything fits the photographic evidence.

An argument that a puff of smoke is not visible in the photos is obsolete. No camera at that time would be able to

capture it.

My question is: How much of your book would you update right now?

30, 50 or even 80 percent? Or propably just 15?

Sorry, I never estimated what percentage of pages in the book would have to be changed. The basic idea was to put asterisks and a number in when I found something that was no longer true and these would key to an update chapter. But how much of the book would have to be changed? I really don't know.

I'am asking just for a rough estimate.

I have no evil intention. I will only know how you see it currently.

Thanks a lot forward

Martin

Some years ago, Gary and I put together a deal for getting "Six Seconds" reissued... it had been out of print for thirty years.

Tink,

Do you still have plans to publish an updated version of Six Seconds? I think it would be great to have an edition using actual Zapruder stills as well as seeing how newer evidence has affected your analysis and opinions.

Martin

Martin,

Thanks for your interest. No there are no plans to reprint Six Seconds with an update section. That, in itself, would take a lot of work. If I'm going to do a book on this case it will be something new, something I'm playing with in the back of my mind, but also something that hasn't become quite clear yet. Thanks again.

JT

You said you read through the various postings -- did you read the complaints against Inside the Target Car and

The Ruby Connection made by Jim and Pat? Do they have a right to criticize Gary for his role in those shows?

You ask me a fair question. There are things in both TV shows I agree with and things I disagree with. However, to answer your question I would end up discussing things I have no interest in discussing. I intended only to say that the vitriol spewed on Gary Mack and Dave Perry is unjustified. I fail to understand why in historical research it is important to have someone to dump on. The shrillness of the attacks seems to me to reveal some depth of anger I don't understand. As a museum, the 6th Floor Museum does not exist in a vacuum. It is a city institution and has to live in the opinion atmosphere of that city. Given that fact, to expect the Museum to do otherwise is simply a mistake.

JT

Regardless of what I conclude regarding Gary's stance it will not be personal with me, as it is for some. I have not invested my time and passion in a manner that makes these things take on a very serious tone. Maybe it should and maybe it will for me one day. But I will say this, after reading Dr. Thompson's comments above

Josiah said: The war against Gary Mack and the 6th Floor Museum is just silly.

On one hand it does seem silly to get upset and angry to a degree that we lash out and those we don't agree with. But on the other hand we are dealing with an event that changed the course of history and affected lives around the globe, for the worse. And the facts of this event, the truth, as some believe, have been covered up, by people who are still in power. In that light it seems we can never be passionate enough in our search for the truth.

Otto.

The war against the 6th Floor Museum is silly. The Museum is a Dallas institution and as such is run by a board of Dallas citizens. As a museum, it sees its task as making available to visitors to the Museum a good factual presentation of the confirmed facts surrounding the assassination while placing the event in mid-20th Century history. As far as I know, it tries to stay away from taking a position with respect to any of the many controversies and opinions that swirl around the event. You can declare war on the Museum but your declaration has no impact. That's why it's silly. As a Dallas civic museum it will continue to do what it's doing independently of what you say about it. To expect a city museum to take controversial stands with respect to an event that happened in the city is illogical. It is what it is and Gary Mack is not responsible for that fact.

Once again, I fail to see why some need to vent their spleen at Gary Mack. He has helped innumerable people with their research independent of what tribe they come from. That's his job and he does it really well.

JT

Once again: who said Dave Perry is a good guy?

KK

I said Dave Perry is a good guy and here's why.

James Fetzer, Ph.D. published a book about the Zapruder film and included a heavily technical paper by John Costella, Ph.D. It was filled with very ponderous, Ph.D. like arguments that turned out to be just wrong.. as Craig Lamson has pointed out on this forum. The highpoint of hilarity was reached when Jack White and John Costella, Ph.D. visit Dealey Plaza and learn of a new plot originating with a shadowy intelligence agency. You see the conversations of Jack White, John Costella, Ph.D. are of such national importance that this intelligence agency has scattered listening devices all over Dealey Plaza to pick up their conversations as they strolled this sacred spot. (Never mind that the purported listening devices would most likely pick up tourist conversations like the following: "Mildred, is that the pedestal where the President was standing when he was shot?" "No, Wayne, that couldn't be because four assassins were in cars back there behind the pedestal.") So John Costella, Ph.D. screws on his scientific cap and comes up deadpan with the argument that the positions of the various listening devices is dictated by some arcane principle of acoustics. In addition, he and Fetzer published photos of the purported listening devices in Dealey Plaza. Costella also claimed that some mysterious intelligence agency had also messed with his shirts, screwed up some film in his camera and planted a substituted teacher for him back in Australia.

This seemed to me to be a red hot exhibit of how science can be turned into wingnut nonsense of the first order. I got in touch with Dave Perry and asked him to see what he could find out. Dave attacked the problem as the insurance adjuster/investigator in him dictated. Dealey Plaza is run by the Dallas Department of Parks and Recreations. He went there and was given a full run-down on the supposed listenting devices. They were rain sensors as could be seen from the labels on the devices published by Fetzer and Costella (both Ph.Ds). Why have rain sensors in Dealey Plaza? Well, it seems Texas was under drought conditions and the good citizens of Dallas would not have been happy to find the sprinklers pouring water on the grass of Dealey Plaza during a rain storm. The placement of the rain sensors was not dictated by acoustic principles but by the zones in which the sprinklers were placed.

So that's one reason that I think Dave Perry is a good guy. Another is that he doesn't take himself or anyone else that seriously. Why the necessity to make everything a war between tribes? Why must one always be angry before one sits down to type anything? Why must everyone else be wrong if one is right? Why is it always necessary to find someone to hate? The war against Gary Mack and the 6th Floor Museum is just silly.

JT

I read through the various postings on this thread and then ask myself, "What asylum have I just wandered through?'

First, Dave Perry. Dave's a good guy. He spent most of his life working as an insurance adjuster. Given the number and frequency of lies told to insurance adjusters, Dave Perry could feel right at home in investigating claims about the Kennedy assassination. Let's just say that research on the Kennedy assassination is a target rich environment.

Next, there is Gary Mack. Not only is Gary a good guy, he has been my friend for over a decade. Like Perry, Mack has little patience with the nonsense that often is advertized as research on the Kennedy assassination. Some years ago, Gary and I put together a deal for getting "Six Seconds" reissued... it had been out of print for thirty years. The Director of the 6th Floor Museum approved the deal: I would turn over the copyright to the 6th Floor Museum. All income from sales would go to the 6th Floor Museum for the acquisitin and care of assassination materials. Gary and I would together write a chapter bringing up to date various parts of the book. Now "Six Seconds" is hardly what you would call a "lone nutter book." Yet, Gary was cooperating with me in giving the book a second life. The Director was fired just as we were about to start working on the project and the new Directer did not want it to continue. If you ever went to Gary with a question, you will recall the even-handed precision with which he helped you. I would hope some of the people Gary has helped over the last decade or so would speak up. I know that whenever I want to get to the bottom of a particular question I just call up Gary.

Josiah Thompson

[

quote name=Otto B Cornejo' date='30 August 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1283199974' post='204198]

This question may seem like it is coming from someone who isn't well versed in the dramatis personæ of the JFK Assassination debate community and it's history, but that's because I'm not.

I recently watched The Men Who Killed Kennedy. I think it was made over fifteen years ago, perhaps longer. In it, Gary Mack and Jack White, among others, make a case for conspiracy. This surprised me. I thought Gary Mack is the curator of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza in Dallas and a LN advocate.

Am I confused? When did Gary change sides and why? A few concise words would be fine.

Also, if you are willing, I would ask, in your opinion what percentage of hard core researchers have switched sides over the years? What are the most famous examples? Or have most researchers remained steadfast in their original opinion?

thanks - Otto.

Fascinating Bill.

"We entered the Quonset….Campbell closed the door behind us and turned to face me. 'We're very pleased with the way you've handled the training setup for the station so far, and we've made that known to your people at the Pentagon. We know it hasn't been easy for you and your family….You'll be happy to know that the Special Group has finally given us permission to use two-man submarines to strike Castro's ships in the harbors. Some of your UDT people will be involved in that. And next week Rip's boys are going to Elgin for parachute training, so an airborne commando raid may not be far off. But right now we've got the go-ahead to hit one of the major oil refineries from on the island. All we've got to do is get a commando force in shape to do the job."

I was in UDT-21 based in Little Creek up until the summer of 1960. We had developed and tested two-man subs for attacks against ships in harbors. They didn't steer that well and there were other problems but I guess you could use them. The East Coast Teams at that time were UDT-21 and UDT-22. UDT-21 became Seal Team 4 and finally was decommissioned in 1983. From my friends in UDT-21 I never heard later of any involvement in the Bay of Pigs or anti-Castro missions. Do you know if there were any?

This sure was fascinating.

JT

<div align='center'>

Gordon Campbell

Captain, United States Navy

From a contemporary press report:

Captain Gordon Campbell, United States Navy (Ret.) died December 5, 2000. His ashes will be inurned at Arlington National Cemetery.

Born on October 1, 1905 in Washington, D.C. he grew up in Honolulu, Hawaii, Fort Stevens, Georgia., and other Army Posts.

After prepping at Merion Institute in Alabama, he entered the U.S. Naval Academy, graduating in 1926. He served on surface ships and submarines, his last command being the heavy cruiser USS Columbus.

After retirement from the Navy in 1956 he was employed at Wright Machinery Co. until 1963.

He is survived by his wife Addo S. Campbell, daughter, Jayne C. Byal of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., four grandchildren, and three great grandchildren.

Posted: 14 October 2001 Updated: 20 November 2005

</div>

GORDON CAMPBELL – (Bradley Ayers, The Zenith Secret)

p.38:

On Monday I went to the station early, hoping to get a good start on my after-action report. I was beginning to organize my thoughts about the mission….Ted Shackley wanted as few people as possible to know about my trip to Cuba. I asked his secretary Maggy, who else might see my after-action report. I was most concerned about David Morales' reaction to my critical observations…. 'Dave is away in Mexico. Possibly Gordon will see it.'"

"I knew she was referring to Gordon Campbell, the deputy chief of station, who I had not met yet."

p. 45:

"Before leaving for the Keys, I stopped by the station to pick up a few supplies. There was a note on my desk. I was to see Gordon Campbell, the deputy chief of station before leaving. I'd never met him. What the hell? I thought. Campbell's office was in the building next to Ted Shackley's. But when I got there, Maggy told me to go to the second floor of the old barracks, a floor above my own office in the training branch. I'd never been in that area of the building."

"I walked back to my building and went upstairs. Campbell's office was well-decorated, with all sorts of Zenith Technical Enterprises corporate plaques, alleged product displays, photos and mementoes. His secretary buzzed him on my arrival and I was escorted into his plush office."

"Campbell came around his desk, introduced himself, and shook my hand. I judged his age to be around 40 and he appeared in robust physical condition. Dressed as if he had just come off the golf course, tanned, clean shaven, with a trim build, balding blond hair, and penetrating blue eyes, he greeted me cordially. I liked him immediately."

" 'I've been wanting to meet you and welcome you to the station. I'm sorry it's taken so long. I want to tell you we appreciate what you're working on. I also read your after action report and I think you know what needs to be done.'"

"I told him I'd do my best and we exchanged a few thoughts about the exile training program. As I left his office, he told me to be careful and that he would be seeing me again."

p. 56:

"I attended both briefings. All the branch chiefs were there aw well as Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Harvey from Washington accompanied by Ted Shackley and Campbell. David Morales introduced Mr. David Phillips who was identified as a coordinator for the new initiatives with the exile organizations."

p. 80 :

"On the way down US 1, I stopped at the Green Turtle Inn in Islamorada for a bowl of soup. It was early afternoon and most of the lunch crowd had left. But near the back of the restaurant, seated at a large circular table, were Dave Morales, Mr. Harvey, Gordon Campbell, Mr. Phillips, and another man, possibly Rosselli, whose back was turned on me. They apparently had stopped for lunch and drinks. I don't know if they recognized me or not. As was the practice in such situations, within the agency, there was no acknowledgement, either way. Discretely, I got my soup to go and quickly left. It was the first time I had ever seen the station hierarchy in the Keys and out of their air-conditioned offices. It was encouraging., maybe something big was in the offing. I thought."

p. 86:

"…We were going to a meeting place in the Everglades….We pulled into a truck stop at the junction of Tamiami Trail and Hightway 27, and another man – a Cuban who I had never seen before – checked the license of the car and climbed in. No one spoke as we drove down the long, slightly traveled highway and eventually turned onto a dirt road bordered by canal. After about a mile, the driver pulled over. An airboat was waiting in the canal, and in moments we were noisily skimming across the saw grass as dusk settled over the glades…..After nearly 30 minutes of travel across open swampland and deep canals, we turned under some overhanging trees and pulled up to a small dock behind another airboat. A sign on the rotting timbers read 'Waloos Glades Hunting Camp – No Tresspassing.' It was nearly dark, but I could see two small Quonsets with lights burning in the windows. Some men were standing around a campfire in the middle of the clearing, and in its flickering light I could see two helicopter parked in the shadows. One was a military Bell H-13 with the identification numbers taped over, and the other was a civilian chopper with the name West Palm Beach air service on the tail rotor boom."

"We walked to the fire and a young man handed us cups of coffee. I had never seen the men before. Soon the door to one of the Quonsets swung open and four men emerged. As they moved into the circle of firelight I recognized Gordon Campbell. I had seen him only a few times since my brief meeting with him, but had been impressed with his polished, slightly flamboyant executive manner. I caught my breath at the appearance of the second man. It was the attorney general, Robert Kennedy."

"The four men talked in low voices for a few minutes, and then the attorney general came over and shook hands with each of us, wishing us good luck and God's speed on our mission."

"Hell, I didn't even know what my mission was. His white teeth flashed and sparkled, and I felt a strange sense of strength and resolve when he grasped my hand. Then he and one of the Cubans went to the civilian helicopter, an din minutes it took off. Now I understood the need for extra secrecy. If the president felt strongly enough to send his brother, something very big was being planned."

"When the helicopter was gone, the deputy chief of station came over….he said, 'The reason we've got you here and the reason for all the secrecy is that we just got the green light from upstairs to go ahead on some missions we've been planning for some time.'"

"We entered the Quonset….Campbell closed the door behind us and turned to face me. 'We're very pleased with the way you've handled the training setup for the station so far, and we've made that known to your people at the Pentagon. We know it hasn't been easy for you and your family….You'll be happy to know that the Special Group has finally given us permission to use two-man submarines to strike Castro's ships in the harbors. Some of your UDT people will be involved in that. And next week Rip's boys are going to Elgin for parachute training, so an airborne commando raid may not be far off. But right now we've got the go-ahead to hit one of the major oil refineries from on the island. All we've got to do is get a commando force in shape to do the job."

" 'We want you to take a commando force of 12 men and give them six weeks of the toughest, most realistic training you can. We want you to teach them survival and get them physically toughened up. Then we want you to run some exercises for them, and finally, wet up a rehearsal for the actual raid, and do it over and over until they have it down blindfolded. During this six weeks we want you to eat, sleep, and live this mission with the Cubans, 24 hours a day. We want them ready to go by mid-December."

"….We've got a house on the south end of Elliot Key that's never been used…you can run the training from there…..You'll have to keep up with your regular duties in addition to working with this commando group. Again, no one is to know that. David is sometimes a little bit difficult, so you'll deal directly with me on anything you need. Use the telephone, and we'll meet away from the station. After you get set, I'll give you a complete scenario for the mission and as much data as we have on the target itself."

"…. 'My outside man, Karl, will help you with logistics. Take the deliveries and carry the items to the island yourself. Order as little as you have to from logistics, and buy all your own food….Here's the safehouse key and $1,000 to get things moving….'"

"Campbell introduced me to Tony Sforza, the commando team contact man, and Karl…."

p. 92:

"I felt an urgency to discuss the leadership aspect of the mission early on with Mr. Campbell....So I decided to talk to Karl about the problem…Campbell had placed no restrictions on what I might discuss with his right-hand man."

"My trip across the bay was faster than usual, and I arrived at the restaurant near the Coral Castle ahead of our scheduled meeting. I saw Karl, Dave Morales, Rosselli, and Mr. Phillips sitting at a table near the back of the room. When I saw all but Karl leave, three to the same car, I went back to meet him. Over a beer, I told him of my observations with Campbell. Karl was pretty savvy and agreed. On the way back to Black Point I pondered Karl's apparent familiarity with the principal staff at JM/WAVE as I had observed it. I was impressed. Karl was obviously something more than the typical logistics gofer."

p. 93 :

"I stole a few hours extra sleep the next morning, then went out to Coconut Grove, where I was to meet Gordon Campbell. He and his wife lived on a yacht moored at the Dinner Key marina. I walked down a long concrete pier, past sleek, expensive cruisers, and finally found Gordon's boat. Both he and his wife – an attractive bikini-clad silver-haired women – were well into their Sunday afternoon martinis."

"As he mixed me a drink, he asked, 'What do you think of the men? How do they look – morale, interest - you know, guts for the job?'"

"'They look very good so far,' I replied, 'but there's one big problem, the commandos have no real leader. The team is split into two distinct, separate groups of five and six men each…and they seem to want to stay that way. As long as I give orders, there's no problem, but when they're on their own, the so-called leader makes suggestions and the other two follow only if they feel like it. It's too loose to be effective under pressure.'"

" 'Goddamnit, if a leader is a problem, then you find one! The case officer for these boys will be down from Washington in a few weeks. He's been with the Cuban desk studying the situation and he's well-read. Porter is young but he knows his stuff. I've assured him you'd have the team ready to go.'"

"Had I heard right? Somebody who worked behind a desk at Langley was suddenly going to appear on the scene and take over where I left off? Just like that? I'd train them and someone else would step in and simply 'assume' control? I started to say something, but caught myself. This was something totally beyond my control, and no good would come from an argument with Campbell at this point. I took a big swallow of my drink. 'I'll continue to do my best on the leadership situation. Gordon, I can assure you that having a leader would make my own work easier. More importantly, these are good men, and they deserve a good leader."

"The anger passed from his face and he mixed us both another drink. 'All right, let's go below. I have the charts and photos and we'll go over the mission from beginning to end."

"For the better part of the next two hours we pored over refinery blueprints and incredibly detailed U-2 photos and recently smuggled-out snapshots of the target. The time schedule was set in the familiar D-day, H-hour military terminology, and Campbell would not tell me when the raid would be conducted. We had to be ready to go anytime after the first of December. He wanted at least two rehearsals competed by then, and there was little time left."

"Our discussion terminated when Mrs. Campbell came down to the gallery carrying drinks for all of us. She chided us for spending the 'glorious Sunday afternoon' talking business, and threw her heavily oiled, deeply tanned body into her husband's lap. Her obvious attention seeking embarrassed me, so I drank quickly, thanked Gordon, and said I'd contact him."

"It wasn't until I'd left the yacht that I realized Campbell hadn't given me the exact location of the refinery; he's said only that it was on the south central coast of Cuba. It probably had been intentional, I concluded, but I had enough data to get well into advanced training and preliminary rehearsals anyway."

"The mission was a big one, all right, and tough. In a very complex, precisely timed raid, the commandos would destroy the fuel storage tanks, dock, and ship-to-shore product-transfer pipelines of the refinery. As I drove home, I reviewed the details Gordon had given me. Two fishing trawlers would be used as mother ships for three V-20s. At a shallow water point about a mile from the target, one boat would land and the team would go ashore, under cover of darkness. The other two boats would wait offshore, among the mangroves, for completion of the first phase of the mission."

"The landed commando team would move down the shore to the pier that supported the pipeline. They would kill the guards on the pier, and then eliminate the watchman in the small tin shack at the end of the pier. This accomplished, they would signal the other two V-20s to come to the end of the pier, where the boats would be tied until the mission was completed."

"The landed commando team would move down the shore to the pier and around the refinery yard fence to a position behind a low hill that was about eleven hundred yards from the brightly illuminated crackling towers and processing facilities. Two 81mm mortars would be set up; from an observation position on high ground; their fire would be guided into the refinery proper. White phosphorous ordinance would be used, in the hope that the cracking towers would catch fire immediately and the surrounding fuel storage tanks would explode. Approximately twenty mortar round would be fired into the refinery."

"Meanwhile, time-activated demolition charges would be fastened to the pipeline pier, and 'clams' (round TNT charges with magnetic devices to hold them to metal objects) would be attached to the transfer pipeline. By the time the entire commando force withdrew, the refinery would be engulfed in flames."

"As the two V-20s pulled away, the timer would activate, and the pier and the pipeline would explode behind them. The commandos would return to the trawlers waiting several miles offshore. Another time-activated explosive would destroy the beached V-20."

p. 99:

"Communications between Elliott Key and the mainland had been a problem from the beginning….The only way I could maintain secure contact with Gordon Campbell, Karl, and Tony was to go ashore to the pay phone at Black Point…..Sometimes I'd go for days without contact…On other occasions I'd get word that Campbell and Karl were out of the area and was given no idea when they might return my call…."

p. 102:

"….I immediately recognized the plane as the single-engine Cessna based at the CIA headquarters in Miami. As it flew overhead, a white object was released directly over the old house. It was a roll of toilet tissue, streaming as it fell. It landed only a few feet away….The center tube of the tissue role had been closed with masking tape, and the word 'OPEN' had been scrawled on the side with black marking pencil. Hastily, I opened up the tube and pulled out the paper inside. It was Campbell's printing:

NOVEMBER 22 1963

PRESIDENT KENNEDY HAS BEEN SHOT BY AN ASSASSIN. SUSPEND ALL ACTIIVTY. KEEP MEN ON ISLAND. COME ASHORE WITHOUT DELAY.

GORDON

p. 104 :

"More than a month after the assassination that I spoke with Mr. Campbell about the Elliot Key commandos. He directed me to hold off any additional rehearsals but to go on training at a reduced pace."

p. 105:

"Gordon Campbell and Karl had all but disappeared during this period and the Elliot Key operation, for which I had been responsible, was placed under control of the training branch. Cal had departed for anew assignment in Washington at the CIA 'farm' in Virginia. Rudy temporarily assumed duties as chief of training….Eventually, and old CIA training officer, Ernie Sparks, arrived and took over as chief of branch….Ernie dressed in Western style, with cowboy boots, jeans and open collared riding shirt. Often he would have a big revolver holstered at his side. He was about 50, with gray hair, a droopy mustache, ruddy complexion, and piercing blue eyes. He was portly but muscular. He could have been a Wild West movie character. He had been nicknamed 'Sitting Bull' while serving as a training officer in Guatemala, preparing Cuban exile Brigade 2506 for the Bay of Pigs invasion. As the time went by I learned he had a penchant for booze, women and sports cars….."

p. 181 :

"…The cover office, staffed with full-time secretaries and decorated to appear as a typical business headquarters. Shackley would never be there, but either Clines or Campbell would when it was useful to present Zenith Technical Enterprise's face to the world. The Maritime Branch was located in the same building, and for that reason, it was most convenient for Campbell, who was running that branch, to man the cover office….and I found it interesting in Fonzi's book there was no mention of Campbell. Campbell was identified in Deadly Secrets, however. This would become a matter of significance in my future work."

I'd like to make a point about motorcycles. I've been riding them for fifty years and have two in garage. I've ridden twice coast-to-coast and back on motorcycles.

The Hughes film shows McClain making a 90 degree turn onto Houston Street. Whatever his speed is in the 90 degree turn it would be slower than his straight speed. You gotta slow down a lot on a curve in a motorcycle... especially one of those police Harleys McClain is driving. Very naturally he would come out of the curb and then speed up on Houston Street. How much would he speed up? That would depend on where he was in the motorcade and where he was supposed to be in the motorcade. Speeding up to 25 or 30 mph is certainly not that unlikely. The problem is we don't know what was in his mind at that point. What was in his mind would control what he was doing.

JT

Then ask Burton to reinstate the studies and we will see Burton refute them. Why is he afraid

to discuss the trackless rover photos?

They were never deleted. They are on this very thread.

So I guess we're only going to hear Fetzer throwing nasty names at you and not deal with any real issues. Is that how all this has worked out? If so, that's revealing in itself.

JT

Are these the posts?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16139&view=findpost&p=194650

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16139&view=findpost&p=194567

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16139&view=findpost&p=194526

Thanks Evan. I guess these are some of the posts and maybe all of them. I just don't remember. Is there anyway to reconstitute the thread as it was? If so, that might be the best way to go. If not, nothing great is lost. I'm confident Fetzer will reappear and let us have a look again at his CV and his razor sharp mind.

JT

One of the definitions of "inchohate" is "lacking structure, order, or organization."

As currently laid out, this thread is inchohate.

In early June (2010), Jim Fetzer posted a memo I had written, expressing my own surprise (and, yes, amazement) at his involvement in Websites that I believed were promulgating an anti-Semitic message--specifically, that Israel, and certain specific American Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks.

The thread grew and grew (and sometimes wandered all over the place, including such matters as whether or not I owed Fetzer money, etc etc) but at least the beginning was there. And there was some logical connection between one point and the next.

And, I might add, the thread had thousands and thousands of views, as people saw for themselves how Fetzer responded to criticism, and just what his beliefs really were.

I had written a critique, Fetzer replied, and matters proceeded from there.

But now, everything has changed, and there is no logical connection between the title of this thread, and its content. Apparently, the editors have come along and--attempting to remove what they deemed to be irrelevant material--have shifted many of the posts and sub-arguments to other threads.

But in doing so, they have lost the internal logic of the entire thread.

What this thread was really all about was whether or not a person who held the bizarre beliefs of Professor Fetzer (in the area of 9/11, and whether or not we went to the moon, etc.) could be a credible spokesman for the JFK research movement. That was the connection, the nexus, but now all that is gone.

What has happened, because of editing, is that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water.

Somehow, the original posting of mine --addressing Fetzer's credibility-- and Fetzer's original objections (defending his credibility, and opposing my arguments) have been completely lopped off.

So now what do we have? A real mess. The beginning of what was a serious matter has vanished, so there is no logical antecedent to what the fuss was all about, yet the title remains!

Just consider how this thread now starts--and with a post (from John Dolva) that is repeated at the top of every page, a post in which Dolva was responding to what I had written: "Jim [Fetzer] shows his true colours. I'm not surprised at all except for the fact that he has finally done so. I wont be surprised by what's to come."

Anyone reading this thread has to ask: what the heck is Mr. Dolva talking about? And the reason for the puzzlement is that my entire original critique (of Fetzer) is gone.

Let me repeat what I have just said: What remains is a title bearing my name ("Lifton Attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity") but completely gone is my original post (i.e., my so-called "attack"). The result is so muddled that its not even clear what the (original) fuss was all about.

I think the moderators and editors should reexamine this matter, rethink their edits, and--at least to some extent--press the "reset" button (as they say).

Either restore my original critique of Fetzer's antics, or (if that is not going to be done) then please remove my name from this thread.

If this thread is to bear the title "Lifton attacks fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity", then at least leave my original critique. If, for any reason, the original critique is not deemed relevant, then please remove my name entirely from the title of this thread.

And what about Josiah Thompson's posts, defending my position, and the impropriety of Fetzer posting records of cancelled checks. His posts--which surely took time to compose and write--are now left out there hanging in cyberspace, with no logical connection to what (once) preceded it.

Please editors:

As currently edited, the content of this thread bears little, if any, relationship to the the title. So the result is a mish-mash which is completely illogical--and, as I said in my opening sentence, this thread, as currently structured, is "inchohate."

I do request that, if my original critique is to be deleted, then the title be changed.

If those reading this thread want to debate matters concerning the Six Day War, the attack on the Liberty, the legitimacy of Israel, the Palestinians, etc etc--by all means do so, those are all issues worthy of discussion; but then take my name off the title. I think that is a reasonable request.

And by the way: as currently structured, this thread has little to do with the Kennedy assassination--and isn't that what this discussion group is all about? (or was supposed to be all about?)

Thank you.

DSL

This is all very bizarre, David. The posts could only have been removed by someone with the power to do that and I would guess there are only a few people who have that power. Hence, it is truly bizarre that the removal remains right now a mystery. I guess my posts in support of you bit the dust with the rest.

My bet is that this is no conspiracy but just a screw-up of some sort. I found the thread truly revealing about Fetzer... not only his affinity for anti-Semites and weirdos, but his hilarious attempt to say you owed him money when he studiously avoided living up to the terms of the business deal you and he had. I'm still wondering how he managed to fill out his tax returns for years without any idea what his royalties from Open Court were.

JT

Jim Fetzer is my friend. So, my support of him and his work could easily be characterized as "biased" and such a characterization is probably a legitimate "ghost argument" to be advanced by those who don't know me well. But, Jim himself, and others who know us both, would refute that conclusion (in legal terms) with prejudice!

Jim is of a dying breed...a pioneer of sorts. Like Captain Kirk he goes "where no man has gone before" and he goes there in defiance of the politically correct view, in defiance of the safe place, and in defiance of the status quo. For this and many other traits, I am proud to call him my friend.

I do NOT always agree with him. His "methods" of persuasion--many times--do NOT persuade. Many times his methods are rather coarse, bitter to the taste, even offensive.

But, he is true--true to himself--to the ONLY thing he knows--and he is willing to sacrifice all for the sake of "speaking the truth" even when to do so is possibly the most unpopular undertaking imaginable. However, he is not infallible.

He sometimes is in error. Many times...but not because he took the "easy way out" -- quite the contrary. He took the HARD ROAD--the path less followed. For this alone, I call him my friend.

There is no doubt that future Fetzer endeavors will result in conflict. There is no doubt that I will remain his friend and support him. There is no doubt that I will, from time to time, disagree vehemently with him...but, NEVER will there come a day when I doubt his sincerity.

Insincerity is simply beyond his ability.

Given the last few months it's quite clear that Fetzer needs a defense. The more he exhibits himself the more embarrasing it becomes.

I think Nietzsche once wrote: "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."

This seems to me to emphasize exactly why Fetzer has been such a disaster for research on the Kennedy assassination. His longstanding campaign to prove the Zapruder film was altered has come up short. Why? Because the arguments he has broadcast are faulty in the extreme. In addition, his cyclical rants with respect to the Bush Administration's downing Welstone's plane with a "directed energy weapon," his endorsement of the claim that the U.S never went to the moon, his endorsement of claims that planes never hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon and that some "directed energy weapon from space" carried out the destruction on 9/11.

If Fetzer wanted to claim that Santa Claus and his reindeer brought down the Twin Towers, I'd have no objection as long as he didn't relate it to the Kennedy assassination. There will always be kooky theories around and a surplus of wingnuts ready to embrace them. But when Fetzer speaks up about the Kennedy assassination, it embarrasses all of us who are trying to do sober, responsible historical research. His continued antics have the capacity to associate research on the Kennedy assassination with moon shot scepticism and the silliest 9/11 conspiracy theories. In addition to being really unpleasant and ugly as a Forum member, Fetzer does real harm to genuine research.

Fetzer is a hazard to navigation in this our space.

JT

The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments. I wish

it were not the case, but when I have had statements from them, I have paid Lifton his due. The loans, how-

ever, are his debts to me, which are separate from the royalties, which are my debts to him. I have explained

this several times now--most recently in post #300. Check it out. The situation is outlined rather clearly there.

I have extended you so many benefits, including loans that I had no obligation to provide, that it never crossed my mind that you would want to have copies of the royalty statements. Well, I have requested them and I have told you that I am going to send them when I have them. You, however, have not even affirmed that if, when the dust settles, it turns out I have overpaid you, you will reimburse me. The debts you owe me for these loans are not in the same category with the debts I owe you because of our contract. You are engaging in sleazy business practices. No accountant would endorse mixing them.

For years, Professor Fetzer, you kept track of the number ranking of your various books on Amazon. You really want us to believe that you never kept track of how many copies of Hoax had sold? Like everyone else, you get yearly royalty statements and you use those statements to fill out the "Rent and Royalty" section of your Form 1040. It's rather important to do this since the publisher sends the same royalty statements to the IRS for matching. Hence, you were legally required to know year by year what royalties you received for Hoax. You also knew that if you didn't comply,the IRS would have been on your tail in a New York minute. You want everyone to believe that this never happened, that you never received yearly royalty statements and never worried about getting nailed by the IRS?

Jim DiEugenio said he had read both your and Lifton's posts on all this and it was clear to him that someone was lying. Guess who that "someone" is?

JT

Thank you, Professor. You have said something that can be checked independently.

The copyright page of Hoax states: "This book and others from CATFEET PRESS and Open Court may be ordered by calling 1-800-815-2280." Farther down the page is states: "CATFEET PRESS and the above logo are trademarks of Carus Publishing Company." Even further down the page it states: "Catfeet Press, and imprint of Open Court, a division of Carus Publishing Company..."

If you Google "Open Court" you will be taken to the home page for Open Court Books. There you will learn that Open Court was "founded in 1887 by Paul Carus... Open Court continues to publish substantial contributions to the great public debates of our times. Carus's spirit of open debate and free inquiry remains our inspiration." [<www.opencourtbooks.com/about.htm>].

If you turn to <www.opencourtbooks.com/browse_title_new.htm> you will find a list of books published by Open Court. Hoaxcan be found on that list under "G." If you then go farther and click on <www.opencourtookscom/books_n/great_zapruder/about.htm> you will be able to buy a copy of Hoax from its publisher, Open Court Books.

As the copyright page states, "Catfeet Press" is and imprint of the publisher, Open Court. When Fetzer says, "The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments.." he is referring to Open Court. Just looking at Open Court's history and publishing list, this would seem unlikely. A reputable and well-established publishing house cannot "be years

behind in their royalty statements and payments" without being open to numerous lawsuits from their authors. Their corporate counsel wouldn't let management do this. Would anyone like to investigate this further?

JT

I have extended you so many benefits, including loans that I had no obligation to provide, that it never crossed my mind that you would want to have copies of the royalty statements. Well, I have requested them and I have told you that I am going to send them when I have them. You, however, have not even affirmed that if, when the dust settles, it turns out I have overpaid you, you will reimburse me. The debts you owe me for these loans are not in the same category with the debts I owe you because of our contract. You are engaging in sleazy business practices. No accountant would endorse mixing them.

For years, Professor Fetzer, you kept track of the number ranking of your various books on Amazon. You really want us to believe that you never kept track of how many copies of Hoax had sold? Like everyone else, you get yearly royalty statements and you use those statements to fill out the "Rent and Royalty" section of your Form 1040. It's rather important to do this since the publisher sends the same royalty statements to the IRS for matching. Hence, you were legally required to know year by year what royalties you received for Hoax. You also knew that if you didn't comply,the IRS would have been on your tail in a New York minute. You want everyone to believe that this never happened, that you never received yearly royalty statements and never worried about getting nailed by the IRS?

Jim DiEugenio said he had read both your and Lifton's posts on all this and it was clear to him that someone was lying. Guess who that "someone" is?

JT

No. Accountants do not approve of mixing debts owed with royalties due. That is an improper accounting

practice. I have been sending him royalties in the past and even advances against royalties. It has been a

while since I received a statement from the publisher, which might have initiated more. But his debt to me

is an entirely different matter. I would have thought a professional PI would be capable of drawing simple

distinctions like this. But apparently not in the case of Josiah Thompson, non-distinguisher of the distinct.

You are not mentally retarded, so that does not excuse this blunder. I GIVE HIM ROYALTIES. That is a debt I owe to him. I LENT HIM MONEY. That is a debt he owes to me. They are not the same. You have to know better. I can only infer that this is one more gambit in your ongoing efforts to obfuscate the situation. I have told him that, if I owe him more royalties, he will get them. I told him that long before he set off on this ridiculous tirade. He, however, is not only refusing to repay the loans I extended to him but is unwilling to grant that, if by chance, I have actually overpaid him, then he will repay me! How bad is that? You, of course, are on the wrong side of the ethical and factual equation. That, however, should come as no surprise to anyone here. None of this excuses him for his baseless attacks upon me.

"Maybe when the final tally is done--and I have asked the publisher for a full accounting, where, contrary to his insinuation, they have not come on a regular basis--if I owe him more than I have in royalties due I will pay it."

Thank you. Will you also apologize to David Lifton for your obvious below-the-belt attempt at character assassination?

JT

Try this out.

I owe Lifton royalties for seven years of Hoax. I once let it slip that the book sold about 14,000 copies. That means I probably owe him a fair amount of money. But I can argue about what his contribution to the book was. I'll just forget about the fact that I probably owe him more than he owes me. Instead, I'll accuse him of being a deadbeat for not repaying what he owes me. That's it. I'll accuse him of being a deadbeat and hope the whole issue of royalties I owe him never comes up.

Isn't this a pretty good facsimile of what went through your twisted little head?

JT

No, you hopeless twit! This is not about Lifton failing to observe accounting standards.

You went on the Internet and accused him of being "immoral," of being a deadbeat who didn't pay back personal loans. Only today did you admit that you may owe Lifton more in royalty payments than he owes you in loans. Like most members of this Forum and most other people in the world, Lifton was simply waiting for an accounting from you before paying back money to you. Simple, easy to understand, exactly what any of us would do. So what are you going to do now? Accuse Lifton of violating procedures endorsed by the American Academy of Accountancy?

Why did you bother the rest of us with something of no consequence to anyone?

JT

You are not mentally retarded, so that does not excuse this blunder. I GIVE HIM ROYALTIES. That is a debt I owe to him. I LENT HIM MONEY. That is a debt he owes to me. They are not the same. You have to know better. I can only infer that this is one more gambit in your ongoing efforts to obfuscate the situation. I have told him that, if I owe him more royalties, he will get them. I told him that long before he set off on this ridiculous tirade. He, however, is not only refusing to repay the loans I extended to him but is unwilling to grant that, if by chance, I have actually overpaid him, then he will repay me! How bad is that? You, of course, are on the wrong side of the ethical and factual equation. That, however, should come as no surprise to anyone here. None of this excuses him for his baseless attacks upon me.

"Maybe when the final tally is done--and I have asked the publisher for a full accounting, where, contrary to his insinuation, they have not come on a regular basis--if I owe him more than I have in royalties due I will pay it."

Thank you. Will you also apologize to David Lifton for your obvious below-the-belt attempt at character assassination?

JT

Try this out.

I owe Lifton royalties for seven years of Hoax. I once let it slip that the book sold about 14,000 copies. That means I probably owe him a fair amount of money. But I can argue about what his contribution to the book was. I'll just forget about the fact that I probably owe him more than he owes me. Instead, I'll accuse him of being a deadbeat for not repaying what he owes me. That's it. I'll accuse him of being a deadbeat and hope the whole issue of royalties I owe him never comes up.

Isn't this a pretty good facsimile of what went through your twisted little head?

JT

"Maybe when the final tally is done--and I have asked the publisher for a full accounting, where, contrary to his insinuation, they have not come on a regular basis--if I owe him more than I have in royalties due I will pay it."

Thank you. Will you also apologize to David Lifton for your obvious below-the-belt attempt at character assassination?

JT

....I was simply trying to point out that--based upon my extensive record industry experience--he would have strong reasons to suspect you had sold many more books than he was ever paid for--and that he would therefore feel well within his rights to hold onto every penny from you that had ever come his way. I note that you still have not told us even a rough estimate for the sales of Hoax, something you clearly know. If you were to provide such an estimate, and then divulge the total amount of money you've sent Lifton, an appraisal of who is in the wrong would be much easier to come by.

A bullseye Pat! Right on target.

(1) Fetzer posts checks to Lifton on this forum and claims Lifton owes him over $1,000. Fetzer neglects to mention that he signed a contract with Lifton in 2003 that gave Lifton a percentage of the royalties of Hoax that might amount to 25%. He also fails to mention that since 2003 he has never given Lifton an accounting of royalties.

(2) Lifton fires back, pointing out that Fetzer owes him royalty money and has never received an accounting of royalties.

(3) Fetzer says his wife rustled around and came up with a royalty statement for 2008 that shows $262.00 of royalties for that year.

This is incredibly lame and evasive. Fetzer has royalty statements for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. I can even tell him where to look for them... your tax returns, Ninny. You had to pay income tax on those royalties! Somewhere I saw that this book sold 12,000 or 14,000 copies. If so, Fetzer still owes Lifton a bundle.

If Fetzer comes up with a figure for royalties, should we believe him at this late date? I'd have a problem. If Fetzer can figure out how to post checks, he should be able to figure out how to post royalty statements. I'm sure Fetzer would rather talk about Judy Wood and 9/11 than deal directly with the brouhaha that he himself started.

But it's there, Pat... just as you pointed out. Fetzer can run and try to lead the debate elsewhere. But he can't hide. He started it.

JT