Josiah Thompson

Sure. Let me tell you what I know. First off, Keith is not a member of this Forum and will not join. He's quite busy. His hypothesis is not "new." We corresponded and then met in person at the ARRC conference about five years ago. Right now, I am not sure this hypothesis is correct. I expect to spend some time determining the question for myself. However, right now I can give you this capule presentation of the view. First, there is abundant evidence from earwitnesses that the last two shots were bunched. This is one of the few really significant facts that emerges from a study of earwitness testimony. The last two shots found on the DPD dictabelt come 0.7 seconds apart at Z 313 and Z 328. Second, the medical evidence as to the condition of JFK's head is a real mess. It permits but does not necessitate the conclusion that he was hit twice in the head. Third, the blast of brain and blood debris over Officers Martin and Hargis, the location where the Harper fragment and other bone fragments were found, the backward and leftward snap of JFK's head recorded on the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films... all of this evidence points to the impact of a shot from the right front at Z 313. Fourth, there is abundant evidence of impact debris thrown forward. Occupants in the car were struck by blood and brain debris. Kellerman and Greer had same on their backs and shoulders at Bethesda that night. Robert Frazier's forensic team found brain and blood debris as far forward at the hood ornament. A bullet fragment hit was observed on the interior surface of the windshield as well as blood and brain debris. Damage to the chrome strip was apparently also caused by a bullet or fragment impact. All of this evidence points to a hit on JFK's head from the rear. This hit could not have occurred prior to Z 313. Fifth, Keith Fitzgerald pointed out to me that the greatest forward movement of JFK's head occurs between Z 327 and Z 328. In addition, the character of JFK's head wound in the Zapruder film changes markedly at this point. Other indicia of a hit at this point have also been observed by Keith Fitzgerald. At this point, I would describe this hypothesis as "likely but not proven." I look forward to having the time over the next year or so to definitively answer the question. Obviously, Professor Fetzer hasn't a clue with respect to all this. However, that should not be news to any of us. Josiah Thompson

Professor Fetzer has great difficulty getting anything right... as we’ve seen again and again on this thread. Once again, he bloviates far from the truth. He says that he has “in the past even supported Josiah Thompson’s work until he convinced me that he is no longer seeking the truth by going to the extent of even disavowing his own best work in the form of the “double hit” om SIX SECONDS which he no longer supports..” How many misstatements can a single sentence contain? First, Fetzer has never ever supported any part of my work and certainly not the hypothesis offered in Six Seconds of a double hit on Kennedy’s head between Z frames 312 and 314. That is just for starters. Nor have I abandoned the hypothesis that Kennedy was hit twice in the head.... first from the front, next from the rear. David Winp’s work has persuaded me that all the occupants of the limousine begin sliding forward in their seats at approximately Z 308. Only Kennedy, reacting to a bullet hit at Z 313, is thrown forcefully backward and to the left. The forward motion of his head that I believed occurred between Z 312 and Z313, Wimp explains was not real motion but apparent motion introduced by the smearing of Z 313 as Zapruder moved his camera in startle response. Insofar as I can determine at present, there is no forward motion between Z 312 and Z 313 that can be ascribed to a bullet hit. However, the inside of the windshield was struck by a bullet fragment and lead removed from its interior surface. Frazier’s forensic team found blood and brain debris scattered as far forward as the hood ornament. Obviously, then Kennedy was hit in the head by a bullet fired from the rear. That bullet could not have been fired prior to Z313. It appears that bullet impacted Kennedy’s head at approximately Z 328, 0.7 tenths of a second after the Z 313 hit. It accelerated Kennedy’s head to he fastest forward speed it ever achieved and changed radically the appearance of the wound to his head. I am indebted to Keith Fitzgerald of Concord, New Hampshire for his excellent development of this evidence. Kennedy was hit in the head from the front at Z 313 and hit in the head from the rear at Z 328. At least that’s the way it looks to me now. Fetzer’s understanding of all this is non-existent. Josiah Thompson

This is superb post. Quiet, well-argued and utterly devastating. You should be commeded for your amazing patience and willingness to hold Fetzer's feet to the fire even when he tries every ploy in the book to distract. Really admirable! Josiah Thompson

Fascinating David. Thanks a bunch for the heads-up. It looks like the 50th Anniversary is going to be a festival for outrageous additions that can only serve to mess up the field of evidence with "evidence." Sort of like what is happening with the JudythFetzer phenomenon. Josiah Thompson

I’ve been laughing my tail off ever since I got the following “release” from a subscriber to the “DSL News Service.” It’s difficult to type... I’m still laughing so hard!!” Here it is: DSL News Service (5/6/10; 12:02)- - - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Headline: Fetzer Divulges His Estimate of Lifton's IQ Subhead: Claims His Is Two Points Higher Tonight, on the London Education Forum, Dr. Jim Fetzer, Ph.D., has publicly announced his estimate of the IQ of David S. Lifton, author of Best Evidence. Fetzer says Lifton has an IQ of 150. In that same dispatch, Fetzer divulged that his own IQ has been measured at 152, which he apparently believes makes him superior to Lifton, but (as Lifton points out) this conclusion may not be warranted as this small difference may be within the " margin of error." It is rumored that in future posts, Fetzer may release measurements of the size of his cerebellum, and exact measurements regarding his corpus callosum, and the length and size (around the circumference) of his brain stem. Dr. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., – a Rancho Park radiologist – has been called on the case, and asked to give estimates of brain weight. In a remark that was apparently not meant to be overheard, Mantik was overheard muttering that, based on certain X-ray evidence, Fetzer may have an empty cranium. * * * Josiah Thompson

Good post, Pat. Were David Lifton dumb enough to send a copy of his tape to Fetzer, he would have bought himself entrance into a lawsuit he would have to defend for years. Lacking any real evidence, Fetzer is simply flapping his mouth about irrelevant issues. What you said about David Lifton is correct. His reputation for integrity stretches over many decades. If David Lifton says a witness said "X," you can take it to the bank. If James Fetzer says a witness said "X," you can take it to the waste basket. Josiah Thompson

I read your post, David, and then laughed out loud. The whole thing really is ridiculous. Judyth comes out of the woodwork decades after the assassination. Great quantities of time and effort are deployed to check her claims. They fail. She is revealed as a fantasist. And then what happens years later? Not having familiarized himself with the sorry prior history, Professor Fetzer wades in like a Broadway ingenue and keeps getting his ass handed to him. His response is “to fetzer.” Whenever anyone differs with him, he/she is reminded that either (1) they are a “disinformation agent,” or (2) they are congenitally stupid and hence unable to recognize the brilliance of the Professor’s words, or (3) lacking additional initials after their names they are unqualified to have an opinion on the matter, or (4) they are part of a conspiracy set up by the Professor’s challengers to make it appear that people disagree with him, or (5) all of the above. So now we have a truly unpleasant field of discussion. I keep remembering how things were back when you and I started out in this field. How you and I and others shared information back and forth and helped advance a common agenda.. How we hoped each other’s work would succeed and how we criticized arguments that we believed weren’t up to snuff. Back then, assassination research was sort of fun. This last thread isn’t fun. I check into it from time to time almost like a motorist passing an accident scene. It’s filled with insults and distractions. Over everything is the unpleasant smell of a little ego defending itself. If Sylvia were alive, I think I know what she’d say. I wonder what Mark Lane thinks of it. You’re right. Let’s just hope that Tom Hanks’ researchers don’t find it. Josiah Thompson

Thank you, Evan. Because of your reminder I went back and edited down my last post. Sorry. Josiah Thompson

Professor Fetzer, you are just bluffing. Just as this month you can’t produce any evidence for the claim that “Judyth was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner,” so last month you could not produce evidence for your claim that someone, somewhere had produced evidence that a bullet hole though a windshield looked like what we see in Altgens #6. So now it turns out that you have no proof of this at all, that someone named “Lewis” who traveled through the south shooting up old cars tells you that in his destruction of old cars he was able to produce a bullet hole like what you see in Altgens #6. Did he really tell you this? We don’t know. If he did, has he ever seen Altgens #6? And where’s the proof? Did he not send you a photo proving his amazing feat? You say no. That means you have no evidence whatsoever for what you’ve been claiming for weeks. What a surprise! Lacking evidence, you spew bile in every direction hoping against hope that it may distract folks from seeing what you’re up to. It doesn’t. Given what I’ve seen in the last couple of weeks this forum has gotten your number. You’re like a poker player who bluffed once too often and now the other players see right through him. You make up things about the different damages produced to windshields by different velocity bullets. You make up things about me and about other people. You even make up things about your great contributions to historical research. None of it works, however, once folks get onto the fact that you’re doing it. Give it up. Josiah Thompson

As various posters have pointed out, Professor Fetzer does not argue. He does not present evidence for his positions. He bloviates and fumes. Kevin Greenlee asked him politely to present some evidence... any evidence... for Fetzer’s claims about Judyth. Fetzer had claimed that “Judyth... was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner.” He said that this was among “the most important and best supported of his claims.” So how does Fetzer respond to a perfectly reasonable request? He rants and rages, insults Greenlee but never comes up with a simple shred of evidence. This is standard operating procedure for Fetzer. Earlier, he claimed that some guy in Texas had shot windshields and produced a hole that looked just like Fetzer’s “spiral nebula.” He’s still claiming this without any evidence. Take a look. Here’s the Altgens photo with the undamaged windshield. Can you find what Fetzer is calling a bullet hole... his socalled “spiral nebula?” Next. Here is the photo that the guy in Texas sent him. Do you see anything in it that looks like Fetzer’s “spiral nebula?” I don’t. Rather, I see some damage to the windshield that may or may not be a through-and-through hole but looks like all the other bullet holes I’ve ever seen in windshields... a collar of shattered glass around the impact point. For comparison, here’s a photo of a Honda that I pulled off the internet at random. Neither the photographer nor me nor anyone else knows whether these are high velocity, medium velocity or low velocity shots. It doesn’t matter. The photos illustrate what I’ve seen numerous times in car shootings... the collar of shattered glass. You can see it present in Fetzer’s Texas photo but not present in the Altgens photo. As usual, the actual evidence shows the opposite of what Fetzer says it shows. Fetzer simply declares things to be true whether or not he has any evidence for them. Kevin Greenlee and others have his number. Josiah Thompson

Right on target, Kevin. But Fetzer's refusal to come up with any evidence for the claim you asked him about is only the April version of what we saw back in March. I don't know if you caught it. Back in March, Fetzer was crowing for about a week that some guy in Texas had shot a bunch of windshields with a rifle and the resulting windshield damage looked just like Fetzer's "spiral nebula." Jerry Logan kept asking him to come up with evidence for this since windshields hit with bullets look nothing at all like the socalled "spiral nebula." Fetzer finally came up with a photo that proved the opposite of what he said. It showed what we all knew. A bullet fired through a windshield produces obvious shattering of the glass... nothing at all like Fetzer's "nebula." Same old... same old. Josiah Thompson

"I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past.." Look, Jack, don't be hurt or lose any sleep over this. Fetzer said the same thing about me before acusing me of being a disinformation agent... xxxx... thief... child molester... torturer of young animals, etc. And look how it all ended up with us being such good pals. I'm sure you and Fetzer will soon get together and make up. When he starts a diatribe with that clause "I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past..", reconciliation cannot be long postponed! Josiah Thompson

Bravo Doug. I especially liked the part where you remarked on the lunacy of Fetzer’s claim that only people with multiple initials after their name should be believed. Or, as you put it, “Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers.” Fetzer has been vomiting his somewhat pedestrian academic CV on people for decades claiming that somehow it proves his opinions are worth more than others. What condescending nonsense! My own bet is that all this irrelevant drama stimulated by the Professor will end in something like a high school lunch where all the warring students get together in the cafeteria, have a Cherry Coke and fries together and tell each other how wonderful they all are. However, before that happens I want to ask you again a question. I appreciated the fact that you honored the contribution Barb, Jerry and I made to knowledge about the windshield. I should say that most of our discussion with you I found rewarding. What was not rewarding was your reluctance to offer an opinion on Fetzer’s claim concerning the socalled “spiral nebula.” I take it you would agree that this is an important evidentiary issue and I, for one, would really like to know your opinion on it. If there is no damage to the windshield evident in Altgens 6, that has important logical consequences. For most of a week Fetzer claimed he had proof from some guy in Texas shooting windshields that a shot fired through a windshield looked just like the “sprial nebula.” However, when finally a photo was produced, it showed nothing of the sort. As a kind of relief from the soap opera of Judythfetzer, how about telling us what you think of the old “spiral nebula?” You know it might be it be a relief to actually deal with evidence instead of Fetzer. Josiah Thompson

"Cheap shots" from Barb... you must be kidding. If having something to do with ROTC is such an estimable association (and it is), why did you try to slime Barb with the connection? You know you were on the way to claiming that ROTC was only the cover for her as a goverment intelligent operative. When you can't win an argument against someone you move to Plan B: trying to slime them with some arcane biographical fact. So let me ask, Professor: you cite Barb's "cheering squad." Do you think that all these folks who are jeering you are government agents or at least "ROTC fellow travelers?" Josiah Thompson

Over the last few weeks only Barb Junkkarinen has had the patience to virtually single-handedly take apart the evermore complex posturing of JudythFetzer. Unable to reply with sensible arguments, Fetzer (true to form) starts trolling the Internet. Intent on finding something with which to slime Barb, Fetzer starts looking into Barb's employment. He comes up with the totally wrong fact that Barb worked for ROTC in Arizona while she lived in Oregon. Only much later does our hero tumble to the fact that Barb's son.... not Barb... was in ROTC. And then the final idiocy.. HE BLAMES BARB FOR HIS GUTTERBALL MISTAKE! You just can't play fair... can you, Professor?! Josiah Thompson

Gosh Duncan I hope you are kidding us. The evidence against Lee Oswald is pretty flimsy to begin with, but this photo has got to be the weakest piece of "evidence" in the history of the world. Talk about wishful thinking! This thread leaves the impression that Josiah Thompson agrees with your theory. Say it ain't so, Josiah. It ain't so. What I agreed with was the claim that the shape of a figure could be seen in the next pair of windows to the west of the sniper's nest on the 6th Floor. Josiah Thompson

Josiah, Believe it or not, I have never read Six Seconds, only exerpts which other researchers have pointed me to, so I was unaware of your study when doing my study. It's extremely interesting that we both come to the same conclusion independantly, so many years apart, and with me having no knowledge of your study. I will now try to get the book. In the meantime, do you know of any source online where I can go to view pages 246 through 249 ? Duncan MacRae I took Six Seconds off the shelf and scanned pages 246, 247, 248 and 249. I'm not surprised at all that you hadn't read it. It's an old book and forty years have made parts of it obsolete. Like you, I always thought the Hughes frames indicated someone was standing at the next window over on the Sixth Floor. Then, when I found the Weaver photo in the Archives, it seemed to suggest the same thing. The scans I'm providing came from the book. Josiah Thompson

Thank you, Evan. I will be more careful in the future. Josiah Thompson

Duncan, this was discussed on pages 246 through 249 of Six Seconds. I compared the Weaver photo with some frames from Hughes and came to pretty much your conclusion. Will you take a look at it and let me know what you think? Thanks. Josiah Thompson

I received an email from David Lifton this morning telling me of some of the significant research he is doing rather than rolling around in the gutter with you and this unfortunate woman. Your continued posts make all the more important what I wrote back to him: "David, you must understand that you do real research; Glell Viklund does real reserch; Duncan Macrae does real research; Barb Junkkarinen does real research. But James Fetzer doesn't do real research and never has. I don't think it is a personal attack on him to point this out. I think it is just something that can be read off the sum total of his enthusiasms. Instead of actually looking into things and finding out what makes sense and what doesn't, Fetzer prefers another role. He likes being a flack or press agent or cheerleader. His congenial tools are press releases, news conferences, mysterious "intel" authorities, blogs, obscure radio talk shows, and now, "channeling" a woman whose story was holed at the water-line years ago. Since he never gets his hands dirty in real research, he loses perspective and ends up backing ideas that most folks are willing to let sink into obscurity. None of this is very important. It's just some of the noise that accompanies genuine discussion and inquiry. You are wise to stay away from it." Josiah Thompson

"An error of etiquette?" "Social skills?" You must be kidding. What is closer to the truth is what Mrs. Farnsworth, his kindergarten teacher, wrote to his parents many years ago: "Jimmy doesn't play well with other children." Josiah Thompson

Professor Fetzer apparently has some need to argue with people... anyone... all the time. This post as well as this thread is a complete waste of time. Individuals try to insinuate some sanity into it without success. All of this prompts a rather simple question: What would happen if we all just ignored Fetzer and never replied to anything he says? Would he continue to talk to all of us although he never got a reply? Or would he switch to some other board where folks had unlimited time to deal with inconsequential matters of Fetzer's choosing? I don't know the answer but it might be a useful test. Josiah Thompson

Same old.. same old, Fetzer. What a hilariously silly way to begin a reply to David Lifton's detailed and pungent demolition of the latest Judyth fantasy channeled by Fetzer. David, me boy, he never laid a glove on ye!! Josiah Thompson

I cannot believe that some still think they see a hole in the windshield in Altgens 6, but if all they have is the less than sharp image Jack posted, then I can understand the mistake. In the full Betzner photo there was a black woman holding what looks to be a rolled up newspaper in her hand as she is waving at the President passing by. JFK had not yet been hit when Betzner took his photo. As the car rolled passed and as the woman lowered her newspaper - Altgens took his photo at a time that at least two shots appear to have been fired. A good quality Altgens 6 photo shows no hole/nebula, but rather the black woman's hand holding onto the newspaper she had with her. When Altgens took his 7th photo, the windshield was obviously damaged by that point. If one does a hi-res scan of that damage and reverses the image so to be compared to the White House Garage photo of the windshield, then in my view they cannot be the same windshield. The damage in Altgens 7 shows a good size frosted area of glass that the sunlight is illuminating. That frosted appearance can be from nothing else than the many cracks in the glass from a projectile hitting it. The White House Garage photos show only a small chip in the glass and no multitude of cracks that would pick up sunlight as what happened in Altgens 7. Somewhere between this forum and Lancer's there should be images that were created showing what I have just said to be true. Bill Miller Hi Bill. I hope you'll pursue this and give us the visuals that confirm or disconfirm your opinion. Josiah Thompson

Actually, it changes very little. For some thirty or forty years, it was obvious that the windshield had not been penetrated by a bullet although it had been hit by a bullet fragment from the rear. At some point, David Lifton became interested in the issue because his body alteration theory was sympathetic to any claim of windshield alteration. But David never thought the "spiral nebula" thing had anything to it. Actually, it may have been Fetzer who first gave currency to the notion back in 2000 when he published Doug Weldon's article in one of his books. He published a copy of Altgens #6 and circled the "spiral nebula" region of the windshield as "Circle 1." Fetzer's caption for the photograph ran: "The Altgens photograph. Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield..." That's typical of Fetzer to illustrate arguments with unqualified captions that turn out to be fictitious. Apparently, Doug Weldon himself is staying far away from the claim since he won't say anything about it. So once again we've used up a fair amount of energy and time debunking something that apparently grew still-born from Fetzer's imagination. It won't be the first time... and probably not the last... that this kind of effort has proved necessary. Josiah Thompson Wasn't the 'spiral nebulae' concept from another researcher originally? Seems to me there was something about it in Fetzer's video program. I don't have a clue how it started. It would be interesting to see who first came up with this "spiral nebula" idea and how it was offered. Josiah Thompson