Josiah Thompson

David,

Jan has found a royalty statement for 2008,

which is very suggestive. 112 copies were

sold and I earned $235.68, of which 25% to

you would be $58.92. So I think it might

turn out that, by giving you advances, I

actually overpaid you even in relation to

the royalties alone.

Jim[/b]

The book in question was published in 2003. With each passing year since then it has become less plausible as shown by its decline in Amazon ratings. So you have your wife dig out a royalty statement for 2008 and it shows $235.68. So what? You have a contract with Lifton that likely indicates he should be paid 25% of the royalties you received for the book. So what total royalties did you receive for the book? That is all he is asking and what the rest of us would like to know? Why don't you just tell him so that he doesn't have to have his lawyer deal with your publisher. Claiming that your wife found something is just a cheap diversion. Since you weren't shy about posting your checks how about posting your royalty statments?

JT

But there's no committee that revokes Ph.D 's in philosophy, for someone who abuses their academic license and, as Fetzer does, promotes false and ludicrous ideas.

Ever since Fetzer started posting checks on the Internet in a vain attempt to show he was morally superior to David Lifton... that Lifton had some moral screw loose and was a deadbeat... I've been wondering about how the distinguished professor handles his own history. I don't know. Was Fetzer suspended without pay for several months by the President of the University of Minnesota(Duluth) for "abusing his academic license?" It was for some sort of sexual misconduct but apparently the file is sealed and the distinguished professor has never told anyone what it was about. It's clear it wasn't "for promoting false and ludicrous ideas." Who knows... maybe the President of the University was just another deadbeat trying to get out of repaying Fetzer a loan? But then if you're morally superior to everyone else you don't have to explain your conduct or double bookkeeping to anyone. Anyone, that is, but the IRS!

JT

As my reviews show, I've read your books. With the exception of an article here and there, they are junk. Your Zapruder hoax book published an article by Lifton, "Pig on a Leash," that clearly attacked me. I thought it was the only thing in that book that had any merit in that it was well-written and informative. And how about all the other folks who published reviews saying your books are junk? Are you going to say that they too never read your books? You poison everything you touch!

Josiah Thompson

As a man who specializes in character assassination and who posts trash reviews of books he has never read, Josiah Thompson has a lot of nerve taking the side of someone whose duplicity had been documented in this very thread.

I find this post to be execrable. It is a naked and very ugly attempt at character assassination. Because Fetzer writes "Loan" on a check does not mean that that was what the payment was for. I know a little about this and I'm confident that David Lifton will show that Fetzer's account is both self-serving and inaccurate.

I have known David Lifton since 1966. I have followed his research and read his books. We have differing opinions about many issues in the interpretation of evidence. However,I know him to be scrupulous in his accounts of witness testimony and related facts. In all my dealings with him, I have found him to be an honorable man and ethical to the core. It is Fetzer's modus operandi to attack anyone who disagrees with him with first innuendo and then false charges. For David Lifton to be subject to such an execrable attack from the likes of Fetzer, shows just how far debate on the Kennedy assassination has sunk. Fetzer poisons the field of discussion. It seems to me that sanctions are in order.

Josiah Thompson

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW A MAN'S CHARACTER, JUST LEND HIM MONEY.

--Jim Fetzer

All,

During my recent visit to LA, I stayed with a close friend and

confided in him my problems with David Lifton relative to two

loans I extended to him, one for $300 in 2005, the other for

$1,000 in 2007. I have had extensive correspondence with him

about this, including sending him copies of both sides of the

relevant checks, which, of course, bear his signature and, in

the memorandum space, clearly state "loan". I have received a

formal acceptance of receipt, but he has not responded to me.

My reason for writing is that I learned that Lifton also tried

to borrow money from my friend, suggesting that this may be a

standard practice for him. Because of my high regard for him

as a student of JFK, I was very accommodating in the past, but

I have reached the point where I no longer have confidence in

his integrity, especially after I have provided him with copies

of the relevant checks. He needed the money then; I need it now.

At the very least, I expected him to acknowledge his indebtedness.

I have been in consultation with a California attorney, who has

advised me that, while this would ordinarily be a case for small

claims court, there may be a pattern here for the more serious

charge of false inducement, where a person seeks money with the

promise of repayment but actually has no intention to do so. If

any of you have been solicited by David for "loans", please let

me know. He has also apprised me that sharing my experience with

you as I am doing now is perfectly lawful and appropriate because

it is true. I am not going to allow Lifton to stiff me for $1,300.

Jim

P.S. The proper term is "fraudulent inducement". And not to put

too fine a point on it, but if I actually were anti-Semitic, then

what in the world would I be doing lending money to David Lifton?

Let me also recommend a 9/11 web site that

has the courage to confront evidence of Israeli complicity in

9/11, which is http://rediscover911.com. I recommend it to

everyone who has a serious interest in the truth about 9/11.

This is all getting weirder and weirder... wow! You say here that there is "evidence of Israeli complicity in 9/11." Did you mean this or did you misspeak? Do you really think Israel was involved in the 9/11 attacks? If so, what evidence leads you to this conclusion. I know something about 9/11 having been paid as a professional for a couple of years to investigate the collapse of WTC7 on 9/11. Various anti-Semites have been claiming this for years but no serious person ever took it seriously. Do you?

Josiah Thompson

I believe Todd Vaughan started this thread to show the falsity of Fetzer's claim that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor. I know that was the reason I went to the trouble of consulting the book and pages cited by Fetzer, scanning the pages and then posting them here. Fetzer's response, as we've seen, was non-existent.

Here, once again and without comment, is what Fetzer posted:

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ May 20 2010, 09:17 PM)

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, where the photos are substantiated by a exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round were found), on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and 2 spent rounds were found), and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing and the changed "evidence sheet" in which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3." Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969).

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. That another spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence" about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward. That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research.

Jim

The pages he cites and the interpretations he makes of these pages have been shown decisively to be wrong. Since Fetzer has chosen not to reply or tangle with any of the arguments or evidence presented, it would seem fair to conclude that he has nothing to say. His silence is deafening.

It seems to me that this thread has shown the real usefulness of discussion and debate on this Forum. The wonders of the internet permit actual evidence to be not just talked about but shown. In a case like this where Fetzer was party to discussions years ago that showed exactly what this thread has shown, it permits the burying of a claim that was buried years ago. This Forum's thread can be cited in the future if Fetzer ever decides to try again what he tried here. And what was that? By citing the actual pages of a book few people had read, he hoped to bluff his way through. When the actual pages he cites are shown, this becomes impossible. I am grateful to Todd Vaughan for starting this thread and to Dean Hagerman, Mike Williams, David Healy, John Dolva, Greg Burnham, Doug Weldon and Mark Knight for joining the discussion. I am particularly grateful to Bernice Moore, Karl Kinaski, Robin Ungar and Pat Speer for their contributions to the resolution of the claim.

It helps none of us to continually contaminate the field of evidence with claims that have been refuted over and over again. Perhaps this thread could be taken as an example of what we can achieve in this regard.

Josiah Thompson

Hey Tink,

Now that you've settled that issue, can we go back to the Zapruder film for a moment?

I will bring up another thread to post where you can answer, if you will, but have you read the transcripts or heard the tapes of interviews that are part of the Sixth Floor Muse Oral History Project?

There is one interview with Zapruder's partner, his daughter, a guy from Jameson lab, one or two from Kodak and others that may contain some interesting insights and help answer some of the outstanding questions, especially following the chain of custody from Zapruder to Secret Service to NPIC.

Thanks,

BK

It's interesting that you mention these oral histories, Bill. I've been corresponding with some folks about putting together a definitive time-line for the Z film and these would be a part of that. Is there anyway transcripts can be seen on the internet? My understanding is that the Z film was screened for the the Zapruder family over that weekend.

Josiah Thompson

I believe Todd Vaughan started this thread to show the falsity of Fetzer’s claim that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor. I know that was the reason I went to the trouble of consulting the book and pages cited by Fetzer, scanning the pages and then posting them here. Fetzer’s response, as we’ve seen, was non-existent.

Here, once again and without comment, is what Fetzer posted:

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ May 20 2010, 09:17 PM)

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, where the photos are substantiated by a exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round were found), on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and 2 spent rounds were found), and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing and the changed "evidence sheet" in which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3." Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969).

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. That another spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence" about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward. That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research.

Jim

The pages he cites and the interpretations he makes of these pages have been shown decisively to be wrong. Since Fetzer has chosen not to reply or tangle with any of the arguments or evidence presented, it would seem fair to conclude that he has nothing to say. His silence is deafening.

It seems to me that this thread has shown the real usefulness of discussion and debate on this Forum. The wonders of the internet permit actual evidence to be not just talked about but shown. In a case like this where Fetzer was party to discussions years ago that showed exactly what this thread has shown, it permits the burying of a claim that was buried years ago. This Forum’s thread can be cited in the future if Fetzer ever decides to try again what he tried here. And what was that? By citing the actual pages of a book few people had read, he hoped to bluff his way through. When the actual pages he cites are shown, this becomes impossible. I am grateful to Todd Vaughan for starting this thread and to Dean Hagerman, Mike Williams, David Healy, John Dolva, Greg Burnham, Doug Weldon and Mark Knight for joining the discussion. I am particularly grateful to Bernice Moore, Karl Kinaski, Robin Ungar and Pat Speer for their contributions to the resolution of the claim.

It helps none of us to continually contaminate the field of evidence with claims that have been refuted over and over again. Perhaps this thread could be taken as an example of what we can achieve in this regard.

Josiah Thompson

Extra Large version.

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/met.../m1/1/sizes/xl/

Thanks Robin. That's a real beauty.

Josiah Thompson

[

As far as the third shell, it was never submitted to the identification bureau on 11-22. So where did it go? Even, the WC saw this as a problem... As I recall, it was eventually offered that Fritz held onto a shell for himself, so that he would know what kind of weapon to look for. Why he failed to give it to Day after the recovery of the rifle, or even the next day, after the FBI told him the rifle matched the other two shells, remains to be seen. But perhaps Fritz realized that the dented lip raised questions on whether the shell could even have held a bullet, and was holding it back until it became someone else's problem.

In Six Seconds I stated that CE 543 (the case with the dented lip) was kept by the Dallas Police and not turned over to the FBI until the next week. This, I take it Pat, is what you too are saying. I think that was a mistake on my part and that CE 543 was turned over to Vince Drain on Friday evening, November 22nd. We could pusue this further if you wish, but I wanted you to know that I think now my earlier claim was mistaken.

Josiah Thompson

Captain Fritz and the spent cartridges: another look at the Alyea allegation.

Hi folks,

The subject of the spent rifle cartridges ia quite topical at the moment so I thought that some of you might like to read an article I have done that looks at one aspect of this subject.

I've printed out your very interesting article and I look forward to reading it tonight. I don't know whether this aspect is treated in your article but I wanted you to know about it. In Six Seconds I state that CE 543 was the cartridge case kept by the Dallas Police until the following week, that CE 544 and CE 545 were picked up by Agent Vince Drain on Friday night and sent to Washington. I believe that to be a mistake. Additional evidence has persuaded me that CE 543 was one of the two cartridge cases picked up by Vincent Drain on Friday night and sent to Washington. I won't belabor you now with the reasons for this but I wanted you to know at least that the former claim was a mistake.

Josiah Thompson

I agree that a number of Sheriff's Dept. employees, Dallas Police employees, and newsman Tom Alyea, all claimed, from the very first, that three shells were recovered, and that this leads me to suspect there were indeed three shells.

But the early paperwork doesn't really support this. There should have been an 11-22 memo saying three shells were recovered, and that Fritz held onto one. As I recall, no such memo exists. Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy.

Posner now claims Lane could have got Oswald acquitted. I can only assume this is one of the reasons why.

But the question here, Pat, is really different. If you could prove that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor this would really be momemtous. However, when you look at the actual evidence produced by Twyman and relied upon by Fetzer, it all looks very vacuous. Would you want to base a claim concerning basic facts of the assassination on evidence so dubious? My point is that this is is changing the evidentiary package of the case without foundation. And I think this is really pernicious? I'd like to know what you think.

You're an independent guy. What do you think?

Josiah Thompson

A few days ago on the Judyth/Fetzer thread I posted this detailed critique of Fetzer’s claim (taken from Twyman) that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th Floor near the sniper’s nest. I quote in extenso Fetzer’s claims and follow this with my critique in italics, bold.

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ May 20 2010, 09:17 PM) My comments are in italics, bold:

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, [if you are referring to the photo of the live round and two casings on a desk (page 111), what I've said before applies: these are rounds sent to the FBI on Friday night. If you are referring to the crime scene photos that Twyman incorrectly claims show a live round and two cartridge cases at the crime scene, then you are just wrong. As demonstrated by the article from the MacAdams site, close-up photos show dramatically that what Twyman and you have claimed to be a live round is really a cartridge case. The crime scene photos then show three cartridge cases.] where the photos are substantiated by a exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round were found), [Once again, Professor, thou speakest with a forked tongue. The document you reference is an evidence envelope with the notation: "2 negatives & 4 prints of each of two 8.5 bullet hulls & 1 'live' round of 6.5 ammunition -- from the rifle found on 6th floor of Texas School Book Depository, Dallas on 11-22-63." It does not say that 2 cases and 1 live round were found on the 6th Floor. Once again, the photos are there to memorialize the transfer of these materials to the FBI and prove nothing about what was found on the 6th floor.] on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and 2 spent rounds were found) [You carefully omit, Professor, what Twyman published on the very next page, page 113. On this next page, Twyman prints a later draft of the same page which has numerous changes in language including a change in the number of "6.5 spent rounds" from (2) to (3). It is obvious that these are earlier and later drafts since corrections are made and information added in the later draft. The correct draft is the later one where three "6.5 spend rounds" are mentioned.] , and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). [Now you are really over-the-top of dishonesty, Professor. This is the receipt by virtue of which FBI Agent Vincent Drain and FBI Agent Charles T Brown, Jr. picked up the live round and two cartridge cases from the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police on the evening of November 22nd. What do you think it meant when Studebaker and Day of DPD put their names in the blank marked, "Signature of Person Submitting Specimen?" What do you think it meant when the name of Special Agent Charles T. Brown, Jr. is found in the blank marked, "Signature of Person Receiving Specimen?" What did think it meant when this form contained a note signed by Lieutentant Day of DPD stating, "Vince Drain also present -- actually took possession of all evidence"?] Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing [This is so silly it requires no answer. The photos themselves show no attempt at "forgery." All they show is what they have always shown: three cartridge cases lying on the floor of the 6th floor sniper's nest.] and the changed "evidence sheet" in which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3." [see comments above. These are earlier and later drafts of the same report] Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969). [What do you want us to say about this?]

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. [see above.] That another spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence" about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward. [Whoa! Do you know nothing about fingerprints? Are you really suggesting that you make fingerprints on a rifle by putting ink on Oswald's dead hands and pressing a hand against the rifle. You know what you would get if you did this? Just a lot of ink on the rifle. By inking Oswald's hands they could press the fingers against a fingerprint card and obtain good prints. Your point is hilariously wrong.] That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research. [Photos are photos and arguments are arguments wherever found. Numerous folks worked on debunking this point years ago and it finally ended up on MacAdams' site. So what.]

Jim[/b]

When you take the trouble to drill down into what you are actually claiming, the portrait of you that emerges gets darker. We know that Vince Drain of the FBI picked up a live round and two cases from DPD on the evening of November 22nd. What on earth could make you see the receipt for the pickup as somehow showing that two (not three) cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor? Even the managing editor of the the National Enquirer wouldn't try to make that one fly. Again and again you prove exactly what Lifton and I were talking about.

Josiah Thompson

Fetzer’s response to this detailed critique was to ignore it and ask that questions from me and Mike Williams be moved to another thread. I was delighted to see that Todd Vaughan had opened this new thread with the apt title, “THE TWYMAN/FETZER SHELL GAME.” What I intend to do in this post (and in subsequent posts on this thread ) is to carry out an extremely specific refutation of Fetzer’s claims. First, I will quote what Fetzer said. Second, I will scan and post the document or photo that he cites. Third, I will explain why and how Fetzer has misrepresented what is there.

I will start here with Fetzer’s claim that a specific DPD document found on p.116 of Twyman’s book states that “two cartridge cases and one live round were found on the sixth floor.” Here’s the document from page 116 of Twyman’s book:

Note that this document is a standard release for the Crime Scene Search Unit of the Identification Bureau of the Dallas Police Department. The blank beside the legend “SIGNATURE OF PERSON SUBMITTING SPECIMEN” is filled with the names of Day and Studebaker. The blank beside the legend “SIGNATURE OF PERSON RECEIVING SPECIMEN” is filled in with the name “Charles T. Brown, Jr. Spec. Agent, FBI, Dallas.” The blank with the legend “SPECIMEN RELEASED TO” is filled with note in Lieutenant Day’s hand: “Vince Drain also present – actually took possession of all evidence.” The description of what was received by Drain and Brown of the FBI is given as: “from the 6th floor of the Texas Book Depository 1 6.5 lever action rifle #C2766 2 spent hulls from 6th floor window.”

We know independently that FBI Agent Vincent Drain picked up the items mentioned and additional items from the Dallas Police on Friday evening. We know independently that Lt. Day held back one cartridge case and released only two (as indicated) to the FBI on Friday evening. We know that these materials were received at the FBI Lab the next morning. Fetzer and Twyman claim that this receipt proves a live round and two cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor. As a receipt for pickup of materials, all it proves is what we already knew. The rifle and two cartridge cases were picked up for transfer to the FBI Lab by Agent Vincent Drain of the FBI on the evening of November 22nd.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah, the document is not as clear as it should be, and leaves a smidgen of room for Twyman's impression. Look at the time: 1:30 and 2:15. 1:30 was the approximate time Day recovered the shells and bullet. 2:15 is the time he brought these items, along with the rifle, to the identification bureau. These items were not given to Drain until 10 hours later. So why did Day add that Drain was present and actually took possession of all evidence? Was he trying to hide that the DPD had these items in their possession for 10 hours before they were given to Drain?

I started a chapter on this over a year ago, but got sidetracked by the birth of my son. But what I came to realize in my study is that the DPD's crime lab, headed by Day, was either grossly incompetent, or a den of liars. His note about Drain is but one minor example.

As far as the third shell, it was never submitted to the identification bureau on 11-22. So where did it go? Even, the WC saw this as a problem... As I recall, it was eventually offered that Fritz held onto a shell for himself, so that he would know what kind of weapon to look for. Why he failed to give it to Day after the recovery of the rifle, or even the next day, after the FBI told him the rifle matched the other two shells, remains to be seen. But perhaps Fritz realized that the dented lip raised questions on whether the shell could even have held a bullet, and was holding it back until it became someone else's problem.

I agree, Pat. Fritz, Dhority, Day.... It's all a tangled web. But what isn't tangled is that three cases were found on the 6th floor and that's all I'm dealing with here. Would you agree?

Josiah Thompson

Fetzer claims that Twyman's page 110 supports the notion that two not three cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor. He says “tho photos [i take it he means CE 510; see earlier post] are substantiated by exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round were found)..

Okay, let’s look at page 110 of Twyman’s book. Here it is:

Here is the page following... page 111:

Page 110 is simply either the outside of an FBI envelope or FBI form in which SA Doyle Williams has indicated that an envelope contains “2 negatives & 4 prints of two 6.5 bullet hulls & 1 ‘live” round of 6.5 ammunition from rifle found on 6th Floor of Texas Book Depository, Dallas on 11-22-63.” Page 111 of Twyman’s book is a photo of an M-C live round and two cartridge cases sitting on a metal desk with a card propped up which says: “F.B.I. 11-22-63.” This may or may not be one of the photos referenced on page 110. Were these photos taken in the Dallas FBI office before one live round and two cartridge cases were shipped off to Washington? We don’t know. All we do know is that the photos don’t in any way back up the extravagant claims about them made in Twyman’s captions. Nor do they show in any way what Fetzer claimed they show.

Josiah Thompson

Fetzer refers to “page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and 2 spent rounds were found..”

Twyman publishes on page 112 and 113 of his book two pages of drafts that contain largely the same information. First, here is page 112:

Next, here is page 113:

Both pages are headed by the word “Evidence” and both contain similar lists of what one might well consider physical evidence. Page 112 makes reference to a “Live round 6.5" and to “6.5 spent rounds (2)” while page 113 makes reference to “Live round 6.5" and “6.5 spent rounds (3).” But these are not the only differences between the two documents.

Page 113 has additions to the prose found on page 112.. At the top of the page, “Carcano carbine” has been added to the description of the rifle. Added to the description of the .38 cal pistol taken from Oswald are “S&W, Rev. sandblast finish, brown wooden handles ser.#510210. Rel. to FBI Agent 11-22-63 and again 11-26-63." In addition, the sentence at the bottom of page 112 that reads “Paraffin test made on Oswald, was positive on both hands and negative on face.” does not appear on page 113 but this may be due to a page break. In addition, with respect to the two items marked “live round” and “cartridge cases” on both pages, additional language has been added on page 113. Not only have the number of cartridge cases been changed from (2) to (3) but this additional information has been added: “Found by Dep. Sheriff Mooney. Picked up by Det. R.H Sims. See pages B-130 and P-262.”

The actual page number of page 112 is given as 443 and page 113 as 130. Both appear to be pages of much larger documents. However, it is unclear what these documents are. Twyman references page 113 as “Warren Commission Report, Volume XXIX, p. 260.” This reference is incorrect. He references the same document as “Warren Commission Report, Commission Exhibit 2003.” Again, this is incorrect. CE 2003 contains a version of this page with three cartridge cases indicated but it is not identical to the version of the page printed in Twyman’s book.

Simply on their face, these two documents appear to be earlier and later drafts of very much the same thing. Page 113 simply corrects mistakes on page 112 and adds additional information to the information on that page. There is no reason to believe that the change from (2) to (3) is anything more than a correction in the record prompted by a reading of the earlier text. In no way, is it "evidence" that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor.

Josiah Thompson

Fetzer declares: “The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show two spent casings and one unspent cartridge..”

Turning to Bloody Treason, we find that Twyman has published a muddy version of Commission Exhibit 510 along with a caption that reads: “Two Empty Cartridges: Warren Commission Exhibit showing two empty cartridges and what appears to be one live round of ammunition, circled ‘A,’ on sixth floor of the Texas School Good Depository Building.” Here it is:

The muddy character of the photo printed by Twyman is interesting. Back in 1966, I obtained a print of Commission Exhibit 510 from the Archives. Here it is:

Here now is a closeup of the what is circled and marked with an “A”:

Commission Exhibit 510 was taken by R. L. Studebaker of the Dallas Police. Apparently, the highest resolution copies were held by the Dallas Municipal Archives. Dale Myers, among others obtained close-up copies, of the cartridge case circled and marked “A.” John McAdams posted a copy on his site as part of an article and Todd Vaughan posted recently posted the article on this Forum. Here it is:

What are we seeing circled and marked with an “A” in Commission Exhibit 510? It is precisely what we’ve known all along. It is an empty cartridge case with a separate piece of debis. This is clear not only in the excellent copies of this photo held by the Dallas Municipal Archives but in the standard print I obtained from the Archives in 1967. Had Twyman used a standard print available from the Archives his argument would have died forthwith. He didn’t. We can only speculate as to why this happened. However, as Todd Vaughan points out, this “shell game” was exposed years ago only to be resurrected by Professor Fetzer this past week.

Josiah Thompson

Tink,

Noel Twyman is also my friend. For the record, I confronted him with this dispute years ago and advanced (as devil's advocate) the theories that you and others expressed. Noel stood by his original conclusions and was unwavering in his conviction. His position is unequivocal and firmly based not just on the photographic interpretation, but on witness interviews that he conducted. I haven't communicated with him in a while, but I would be very surprised if he changed his position. Noel is known for his attention to detail--and has voluntarily corrected errors and omissions without being requested to do so. It is the nature of his personality. He has nothing to prove and no image of himself to which he must cling.

But alas, we post erroneously to a thread about Judyth Vary Baker.

A claim like this sinks or swims on the basis of the evidence put forward. It doesn't depend upon "witness interviews" we've never seen nor the author's alleged "attention to detail." The evidence put forward in his book to prove this point only makes one laugh. He misinterprets anything that comes close to him.

Josiah Thompson

A few days ago on the Judyth/Fetzer thread I posted this detailed critique of Fetzer’s claim (taken from Twyman) that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th Floor near the sniper’s nest. I quote in extenso Fetzer’s claims and follow this with my critique in italics, bold.

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ May 20 2010, 09:17 PM) My comments are in italics, bold:

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, [if you are referring to the photo of the live round and two casings on a desk (page 111), what I've said before applies: these are rounds sent to the FBI on Friday night. If you are referring to the crime scene photos that Twyman incorrectly claims show a live round and two cartridge cases at the crime scene, then you are just wrong. As demonstrated by the article from the MacAdams site, close-up photos show dramatically that what Twyman and you have claimed to be a live round is really a cartridge case. The crime scene photos then show three cartridge cases.] where the photos are substantiated by a exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round were found), [Once again, Professor, thou speakest with a forked tongue. The document you reference is an evidence envelope with the notation: "2 negatives & 4 prints of each of two 8.5 bullet hulls & 1 'live' round of 6.5 ammunition -- from the rifle found on 6th floor of Texas School Book Depository, Dallas on 11-22-63." It does not say that 2 cases and 1 live round were found on the 6th Floor. Once again, the photos are there to memorialize the transfer of these materials to the FBI and prove nothing about what was found on the 6th floor.] on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and 2 spent rounds were found) [You carefully omit, Professor, what Twyman published on the very next page, page 113. On this next page, Twyman prints a later draft of the same page which has numerous changes in language including a change in the number of "6.5 spent rounds" from (2) to (3). It is obvious that these are earlier and later drafts since corrections are made and information added in the later draft. The correct draft is the later one where three "6.5 spend rounds" are mentioned.] , and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). [Now you are really over-the-top of dishonesty, Professor. This is the receipt by virtue of which FBI Agent Vincent Drain and FBI Agent Charles T Brown, Jr. picked up the live round and two cartridge cases from the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police on the evening of November 22nd. What do you think it meant when Studebaker and Day of DPD put their names in the blank marked, "Signature of Person Submitting Specimen?" What do you think it meant when the name of Special Agent Charles T. Brown, Jr. is found in the blank marked, "Signature of Person Receiving Specimen?" What did think it meant when this form contained a note signed by Lieutentant Day of DPD stating, "Vince Drain also present -- actually took possession of all evidence"?] Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing [This is so silly it requires no answer. The photos themselves show no attempt at "forgery." All they show is what they have always shown: three cartridge cases lying on the floor of the 6th floor sniper's nest.] and the changed "evidence sheet" in which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3." [see comments above. These are earlier and later drafts of the same report] Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969). [What do you want us to say about this?]

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. [see above.] That another spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence" about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward. [Whoa! Do you know nothing about fingerprints? Are you really suggesting that you make fingerprints on a rifle by putting ink on Oswald's dead hands and pressing a hand against the rifle. You know what you would get if you did this? Just a lot of ink on the rifle. By inking Oswald's hands they could press the fingers against a fingerprint card and obtain good prints. Your point is hilariously wrong.] That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research. [Photos are photos and arguments are arguments wherever found. Numerous folks worked on debunking this point years ago and it finally ended up on MacAdams' site. So what.]

Jim[/b]

When you take the trouble to drill down into what you are actually claiming, the portrait of you that emerges gets darker. We know that Vince Drain of the FBI picked up a live round and two cases from DPD on the evening of November 22nd. What on earth could make you see the receipt for the pickup as somehow showing that two (not three) cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor? Even the managing editor of the the National Enquirer wouldn't try to make that one fly. Again and again you prove exactly what Lifton and I were talking about.

Josiah Thompson

Fetzer’s response to this detailed critique was to ignore it and ask that questions from me and Mike Williams be moved to another thread. I was delighted to see that Todd Vaughan had opened this new thread with the apt title, “THE TWYMAN/FETZER SHELL GAME.” What I intend to do in this post (and in subsequent posts on this thread ) is to carry out an extremely specific refutation of Fetzer’s claims. First, I will quote what Fetzer said. Second, I will scan and post the document or photo that he cites. Third, I will explain why and how Fetzer has misrepresented what is there.

I will start here with Fetzer’s claim that a specific DPD document found on p.116 of Twyman’s book states that “two cartridge cases and one live round were found on the sixth floor.” Here’s the document from page 116 of Twyman’s book:

Note that this document is a standard release for the Crime Scene Search Unit of the Identification Bureau of the Dallas Police Department. The blank beside the legend “SIGNATURE OF PERSON SUBMITTING SPECIMEN” is filled with the names of Day and Studebaker. The blank beside the legend “SIGNATURE OF PERSON RECEIVING SPECIMEN” is filled in with the name “Charles T. Brown, Jr. Spec. Agent, FBI, Dallas.” The blank with the legend “SPECIMEN RELEASED TO” is filled with note in Lieutenant Day’s hand: “Vince Drain also present – actually took possession of all evidence.” The description of what was received by Drain and Brown of the FBI is given as: “from the 6th floor of the Texas Book Depository 1 6.5 lever action rifle #C2766 2 spent hulls from 6th floor window.”

We know independently that FBI Agent Vincent Drain picked up the items mentioned and additional items from the Dallas Police on Friday evening. We know independently that Lt. Day held back one cartridge case and released only two (as indicated) to the FBI on Friday evening. We know that these materials were received at the FBI Lab the next morning. Fetzer and Twyman claim that this receipt proves a live round and two cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor. As a receipt for pickup of materials, all it proves is what we already knew. The rifle and two cartridge cases were picked up for transfer to the FBI Lab by Agent Vincent Drain of the FBI on the evening of November 22nd.

Josiah Thompson

SPECIAL REQUEST TO JOHN SIMKIN AND EVAN BURTON ABOUT HIJACKING THREADS

John and Evan,

Anyone who has followed this thread is aware that Josiah Thompson and Mike Williams have no

knowledge or interest in the subject of this thread but are here for the plain and simple reason

of wanting to attack, ridicule, and belittle me, regardless of the merits of their case. They have

hijacked this thread devoted to Judyth Vary Baker, which is both unprofessional but also easily

predicable for those with any familiarity with their character. This conduct on their part--which

I inadvertently encouraged by responding to one of Mike Williams' posts--not only undermines

the efforts of those who are seriously concerned with Judyth's credibility but sets a very poor

example for other threads where, if this kind of conduct is tolerated here, it may be expected

to occur on other threads at other times for other reasons. I therefore formally request that a

neutral party--Evan Burton would be fine!--review the past 100 posts or so and remove them

from this thread and add them to some other. I know that Williams and Thompson created a

thread, "Fetzer and Ballistics 101", for the obvious reasons. That might be a suitable location

for these posts, since they are assailing me, often in relation to questions of ballistics. I have

no problem with being attacked: it goes with the territory! But it is extremely unfair to me and

to Judyth and to everyone else, such as Jack White, Michael Hogan, Pamela Brown, David Lifton

Douglas Weldon, Stephen Roy, Pat Speer, Gregory Burnham, Dean Hagerman, Barb Junkkarinen,

and many others--to have the thread taken over by parties with no serious interest in its subject.

I therefore request in the interest of fair-play that irrelevant posts, including mine, be moved to

another location, where the parties are welcome to continue to assail me to their heart's content.

With appreciation,

Jim

One of the most maddening features of trying to discuss anything with Professor Fetzer is his unvarying posture of never admitting he is wrong about anything. Over the course of the last few years he has been proved wrong again and again but refuses to admit it. Years ago, he began saying that two not three cartridge cases were found on the 6th Floor near the sniper’s nest. This claim was contradicted by numerous statements from law enforcement and non-law enforcement personnel. It was also contradicted by crime scene photos and the sworn testimony of numerous DPD personnel. Fetzer based his claim on several pages of a book published by a friend of his named Noel Twyman. The book was called Bloody Treason and, if memory serves, was self-published. Years ago, when the book first came out, Twyman’s argument was examined and found to be vacuous; he simply misinterpreted the documents and photos he presented as backing his claim. Fetzer knew of all this because he was part of the discussion.

Now he brings back the same argument referring the reader to specific pages in Twyman’s book. Earlier on this thread, I took the time and trouble to deal with each reference Fetzer made and showed why it did not prove what Fetzer said it proved. Fetzer’s response? He simply ignored what was pointed out and asked that further questions from me or Mike Williams be banned from this thread. This is a familiar Fetzer gambit. If you show he is irretrievably mistaken, he simply ignores what you say and starts another line of argument as a distraction.

I am not going to let that happen here. Todd Vaughan started a new thread entitled, “THE TWYMAN/FETZER SHELL GAME” where the focus is precisely on this shell game Fetzer has been playing. I am going to post on that thread an extremely specific refutation of Fetzer’s claims. First, I will quote what Fetzer said. Second, I will scan and post the document or photo that he cites. Third, I will explain why and how Fetzer has misrepresented what is there.

This will take some time and effort to produce. However, it will be worth it if it throws a spotlight onto a gambit that hurts all of us. Contaminating the evidence field with non-sensical claims hinders research and is embarrassing to all of us. We all have a vested interest in bringing this sort of thing to a swift end.

Of course, when one starts a line of argument one may not know that the evidence relied upon is either phony or wrongly interpreted. But once this has been shown (and shown definitively) it is simply dishonorable to keep making the same old bankrupt arguments to save face. As we’ll see, this is precisely what Fetzer has been doing. If you are interested in this, please shift gears and take a look at “THE TWYMAN/FETZER SHELL GAME.”

Josiah Thompson

SPECIAL REQUEST TO JOHN SIMKIN AND EVAN BURTON ABOUT HIJACKING THREADS

John and Evan,

Anyone who has followed this thread is aware that Josiah Thompson and Mike Williams have no

knowledge or interest in the subject of this thread but are here for the plain and simple reason

of wanting to attack, ridicule, and belittle me, regardless of the merits of their case. They have

hijacked this thread devoted to Judyth Vary Baker, which is both unprofessional but also easily

predicable for those with any familiarity with their character. This conduct on their part--which

I inadvertently encouraged by responding to one of Mike Williams' posts--not only undermines

the efforts of those who are seriously concerned with Judyth's credibility but sets a very poor

example for other threads where, if this kind of conduct is tolerated here, it may be expected

to occur on other threads at other times for other reasons. I therefore formally request that a

neutral party--Evan Burton would be fine!--review the past 100 posts or so and remove them

from this thread and add them to some other. I know that Williams and Thompson created a

thread, "Fetzer and Ballistics 101", for the obvious reasons. That might be a suitable location

for these posts, since they are assailing me, often in relation to questions of ballistics. I have

no problem with being attacked: it goes with the territory! But it is extremely unfair to me and

to Judyth and to everyone else, such as Jack White, Michael Hogan, Pamela Brown, David Lifton

Douglas Weldon, Stephen Roy, Pat Speer, Gregory Burnham, Dean Hagerman, Barb Junkkarinen,

and many others--to have the thread taken over by parties with no serious interest in its subject.

I therefore request in the interest of fair-play that irrelevant posts, including mine, be moved to

another location, where the parties are welcome to continue to assail me to their heart's content.

With appreciation,

Jim

Fetzer defends his production of non-facts re Judyth by arguing with Mike Williams about Humes' statement about high-velocity weapons. Williams hands him his hat with regard to this argument. Fetzer next introduces a faux expert about velocities who also offers mistaken claims about how many cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor. Once again, Fetzer is handed his hat with regard to this claim. Instead of trying to defend his claims, Fetzer dissembles. He raises a phony procedural issue that he hopes will consume debate. And he does this by whining that his thread is being hijacked.

The point being discussed here is a serious one. David Lifton and I spent a lot of time talking about it yesterday. What happens if the basic field of evidence is contaminated with great quantities of false evidence? What happens is that the infusion of false evidence overwhelms the field. It no longer becomes possible to really discuss anything.

So under all the angry words and dissembling there is a serious issue. If you keep throwing phony evidence into the plane of discussion, you are hurting all of us in our pursuit of this case. All this material about Fetzer and Twyman's claims was hashed out years ago. Fetzer cannot help but know the truth concerning these facts. Yet he persists. He says the very receipt used when the FBI picked up two cases and one live round from the Dallas police on Friday evening the 22nd is proof that only two cases were found on the 6th floor. He cannot dodge around the fact that he's known this for years. Yet he keeps pushing the receipt as evidence of what it cannot be evidence for. Then, when it is pointed out for all to see, does he admit it? Of course not. He tries to change the discussion to a procedural issue.

What we've seen from Fetzer on this thread is precisely the phenomenon Lifton and I talked about. While defending the whole suspect Judyth tale, Fetzer introduces a purported "expert" who spews out an additional quantity of non-evidence. When this is exposed, Fetzer cannot argue with it. Instead, he whines. "Those nasty people are taking over my thread!" The truth is that Fetzer is losing not just this thread but general respect through these tactics. He is illustrating a really pernicious trend where suspect evidence is defended by claims of even greater suspect evidence. The importance of holding Fetzer's feet to the fire is that this trend can be exposed and discouraged in the future. This whole thread never was about Judyth; it always has been about Fetzer. Sadly, we are seeing clearly and irreparably just who he is.

Josiah Thompson

My comments are in italics, bold:

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, [if you are referring to the photo of the live round and two casings on a desk (page 111), what I've said before applies: these are rounds sent to the FBI on Friday night. If you are referring to the crime scene photos that Twyman incorrectly claims show a live round and two cartridge cases at the crime scene, then you are just wrong. As demonstrated by the article from the MacAdams site, close-up photos show dramatically that what Twyman and you have claimed to be a live round is really a cartridge case. The crime scene photos then show three cartridge cases.]

where the photos are substantiated by a exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round were found), [Once again, Professor, thou speakest with a forked tongue. The document you reference is an evidence envelope with the notation: "2 negatives & 4 prints of each of two 8.5 bullet hulls & 1 'live' round of 6.5 ammunition -- from the rifle found on 6th floor of Texas School Book Depository, Dallas on 11-22-63." It does not say that 2 cases and 1 live round were found on the 6th Floor. Once again, the photos are there to memorialize the transfer of these materials to the FBI and prove nothing about what was found on the 6th floor.] on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and 2 spent rounds were found) [You carefully omit, Professor, what Twyman published on the very next page, page 113. On this next page, Twyman prints a later draft of the same page which has numerous changes in language including a change in the number of "6.5 spent rounds" from (2) to (3). It is obvious that these are earlier and later drafts since corrections are made and information added in the later draft. The correct draft is the later one where three "6.5 spend rounds" are mentioned.] , and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). [Now you are really over-the-top of dishonesty, Professor. This is the receipt by virtue of which FBI Agent Vincent Drain and FBI Agent Charles T Brown, Jr. picked up the live round and two cartridge cases from the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police on the evening of November 22nd. What do you think it meant when Studebaker and Day of DPD put their names in the blank marked, "Signature of Person Submitting Specimen?" What do you think it meant when the name of Special Agent Charles T. Brown, Jr. is found in the blank marked, "Signature of Person Receiving Specimen?" What did think it meant when this form contained a note signed by Lieutentant Day of DPD stating, "Vince Drain also present -- actually took possession of all evidence"?] Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing [This is so silly it requires no answer. The photos themselves show no attempt at "forgery." All they show is what they have always shown: three cartridge cases lying on the floor of the 6th floor sniper's nest.] and the changed "evidence sheet" in which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3." [see comments above. These are earlier and later drafts of the same report] Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969). [What do you want us to say about this?]

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. [see above.] That another spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence" about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward. [Whoa! Do you know nothing about fingerprints? Are you really suggesting that you make fingerprints on a rifle by putting ink on Oswald's dead hands and pressing a hand against the rifle. You know what you would get if you did this? Just a lot of ink on the rifle. By inking Oswald's hands they could press the fingers against a fingerprint card and obtain good prints. Your point is hilariously wrong.] That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research. [Photos are photos and arguments are arguments wherever found. Numerous folks worked on debunking this point years ago and it finally ended up on MacAdams' site. So what.]

Jim[/b]

When you take the trouble to drill down into what you are actually claiming, the portrait of you that emerges gets darker. We know that Vince Drain of the FBI picked up a live round and two cases from DPD on the evening of November 22nd. What on earth could make you see the receipt for the pickup as somehow showing that two (not three) cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor? Even the managing editor of the the National Enquirer wouldn't try to make that one fly. Again and again you prove exactly what Lifton and I were talking about.

Josiah Thompson

These are two more indications that Tink only pretends to be a student of JFK.

Notice, in particular, his methodology. He has spent decades looking for tiny

errors like this on which to impale me and disparage my character. Decades,

literally! Notice, too, how eager he must have been to meet with David Lifton,

knowing that there might be an opportunity here to exploit the recent tension

in my relationship with David over issues related to this thread and others, too!

You are observing a sick mind at work, a man obsessed with his nemesis, me,

who is going to expend the rest of his life in meaningless attempts to tarnish

my reputation without realizing that they can do nothing to salvage his own.[/b]

By this time, Todd and Pat have replied so I really don't need to say anything. I was not "eager" to meet with David Lifton. He got in touch with me. He was in Berkeley to attend a graduation. We had a delightful talk together and wasted almost none of it talking about you. This Judyth thread illustrates pungently how you wander from one set of non-facts to another spreading confusion concerning what is and what is not evidence. Of course, this is exactly what one must expect when one adopts... as you have.... a National Enquirer view of this case.

Josiah Thompson

Noel Twyman’s claim, parroted by Fetzer, that 2 spent cartridges and 1 live round were found on the floor of the snipers nest was disproved here a long time ago…

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/round.htm

Thanks a bunch, Todd, for posting this link. It saves me the trouble of having to post all the evidence that blew up this silliness years ago.

Josiah Thompson

Now, for the good news. Josiah, in his attempt to correct your mistakes, made one of his own. The photo of the two shells with the bullet was taken on 11-26, not 11-22.

Thanks, Pat, for the correction. The basic point stands. Fetzer (and before him, Twyman) missed the point of the photo showing two cases and a live round. The photo was taken to memorialize the fact that the two cases and the live round were turned over to the FBI on the evening of November 22nd and returned to the DPD later the next week. Botn Fetzer and Twyman claim wrongly that the photo shows what was found on the 6th floor of the Depository on the afternoon of November 22nd. They both simply missed the point of the photo and used it to prove something else. In doing so, they confuse evidence with what is not evidence and confuse things further. This was precisely what David Lifton and I were talking about.

Josiah Thompson

JOHN RITCHSON / The Rifle: Critique of the Simmons Testimony

[Editor’s note: John Ritchson enlisted in the US Army in 1969 and served

nearly two tours of duty as a Special Operations Scout before being medi-

cally discharged. He settled in Black Eagle, Montana and opened up the

Black Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him gun-

smithing and ballistics as a young man. Since 1995 Ritchson used his ex-

pertise to examine the ballistics evidence of the JFK assassination. Here

he dissected and critiqued the Warren Commission testimony of Owen

Simmons, which the Commission relied on crucially in trying to argue that

Lee Harvey Oswald could have fired the shots that killed the President.

John Ritchson died just prior to the publication of this issue of Assassina-

tion Research.]

Among the interesting observations by John Ritchson concerned the two

spent shell casings and the single live round that were "found" at the site

of the alleged "assassin's lair" on the 6th floor of the book depository, namely:

The only cartridges produced by Western in the 6.5 mm cali-ber that would

have possessed the factory logo “Western” with the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped

on the cartridge base would be pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer

factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.

So what we are dealing with here is two spent cartridges which cannot be

chambered in any Carcano rifle, and a live round that would not have been

made in America.

Simply put, this represents another rather large hole in the Warren Commission

Report, and not only tends to exonerate Lee Oswald as the lone assassin, but

provides prima facie evidence of evidence-tampering and obstruction of justice.

It would later be claimed that there was a third spent cartridge that was found

at the same location at the same time, but official "evidence photographs" by

the Dallas Police Department and the FBI show only two spent and one unspent.

I recommend anyone who wants to appreciate what a genuine ballistics expert

can contribute to this case should read these articles by John Ritchson and then

compare them with what you are hearing from this "lone nutter", Mike Williams.

This afternoon David Lifton and I got together in Berkeley and talked for several hours. It was very nice, very informative. One of the issues we talked about was the growing contamination of the evidence field. This is perhaps a too complex way of saying that what is taken for evidence in this case is being cheapened by the introduction of things that are demonstrably untrue.

This whole thread on the Judyth phenomenon is one example of this. It becomes pretty funny when Professor Fetzer pauses for a moment while browbeating us concerning Judyth and his own allegedly high IQ, to tangle with Mike Williams about a simple matter concerning terminology. Fetzer claims that when Dr. Humes speaks of a “high velocity” weapon he cannot be describing Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano. This language quibble has been part of Fetzer’s claims for years. Unfortunately, it fails. Hence, in defending the factoids of Judyth, Fetzer offers another factoid that can be easily refuted. But it doesn’t stop there. In order to buttress his claim about Dr. Humes’ statement, Fetzer invokes the theory of some guy he anoints with the title of “expert,” John Richson. In the above quote posted by Fetzer, Richson claims that the cartridge cases found on the 6th floor of the Depository were stamped “Western” and “6.5 mm” on the cartridge base. According to Richson, this means that the rounds were “pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.” This means, says Richson, that none of these rounds could have been fired in a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. He also claims that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor, that “official evidence photographs by the Dallas Police Department and the FBI show only two spent and one unspent.”

It was only driving back from Berkeley that I remembered this little excursion by Professor Fetzer as a glowing example of just what David Lifton and I had been talking about.... an amazing example of strewing around an ever expanding circle of non-facts. First, of course, is the ever expanding tale of Judyth and Lee’s love affair. But then Fetzer introduces the silly claim about Humes’s statement to belabor Mike Williams who challenged his Judyth infatuation. Then to buttress part of his belaboring of Williams he introduces these claims from his “expert,” Richson. Here the blizzard of misinformation becomes blinding. First, as Todd Vaughan (post #2794 this thread) has already posted, the term “Western” doesn’t appear on the base of the casings found on the 6th floor. What does appear is “WCC” — the correct marking for a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge. And the claim that two not three cartridge cases were found up there? Sorry, numerous witnesses both law enforcement and private stated that they saw three cartridge cases and DPD photos show three cartridge cases near the sniper’s nest. And what about those “official evidence photographs” that “show only two spent and one unspent” rounds? The photos referred to were taken at DPD on Friday night of the evidence items they released that night to the FBI. There were only two casings and the live round because DPD held back one casing and only released two cases and one live round to the FBI that night; the photos (as to be expected) show what was turned over to the FBI, not what was found). This whole claim was made by Noel Twyman years ago and taken apart as soon as his book appeared. So now, Fetzer brings it all back, and inserts it into a completely irrelevant thread. So we have a batch of non-facts (the obvious nonsense about the cartridge cases) used to buttress Fetzer’s nonsense about Humes’s statement that in turn is used to buttress the wholesale nonsense about Oswald’s supposed love affair with Judyth.

In a few short pages, Fetzer managed a trifecta of precisely the pernicious effect David Lifton and I were bemoaning. Congratulations Professor, you’re a champion!

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

May I move this and make it its' own thread?? I think it would be a great topic!

If so, please tell me what to title it.

Kathy

Thank you, Kathy. You are kind to suggest it. However, I think I would rather leave it as it stands. This change in my thinking is based upon the work of David Wimp and Keith Fitzgerald and I don't know what permission I have or don't have to discuss their work. So let's leave it just as it is.

In addition, I wouldn't want any real discussion to challenge Professor Fetzer's rather strenuous efforts to draw attention to himself.

Josiah Thompson