Josiah Thompson
-
Posts
655 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Josiah Thompson
-
-
JIM RESPONDS TO PAT SPEER FOR A GROUNDLESS (AND BIASED) POST
This is a baseless post from Pat Speer. I continue to support Doug Weldon's research on
the Lincoln limousine. I continue to support Jack White's past research (apart from some
doubts that are bothering me about HARVEY & LEE). I continue to support David Lifton's
past research on the medical evidence, body alteration, and the Zapruder film. Indeed, I
have 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 proof of the "double hit" in SIX SECONDS, which he no longer supports.
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
-
Jim, with over 2300 posts on this thread it has simply become too unwieldly to go back and find all of your
exact comments about the scholarship and quality of Haslam's research. I do recall you using the words
for the general public in one instance, but the larger point is that you have always defended the scholarship
and research in Dr Mary's Monkey. Your comment about "getting my points straight" is gratuitous.
If you knew that there was a general agreement not to comment until JVB's new book comes out, why did you offer
to take those questions of mine to Ed? I had explained that I would rather you answer them; you are the one that
suggested it would be better if they (EH & JVG) did.
As far as answering my questions, you have not. You left it that you had contacted Ed Haslam about them and were
waiting for his reply. That is where things were left. If you dispute this, I will take the time and go back and find the post.
When did Haslam say he first contacted Judyth Baker? Your answer that Haslam only became aware
of the significance of two different JVB's after 60M contacted him goes without saying and was not responsive
at all to my question.
According to DMM it was after 60M decided not to air her story that he decided to contact Judyth Baker.
Do you agree with that? Please indulge me and refer to the bottom of page 287 of DMM.
I have watched virtually all of Haslam's videos. The more I watch Haslam, the less faith I have in him in terms
of his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers. In his book, he also claims as fact that Oswald met Marcello
at parties and that Ferrie introduced JVB to Sparky Rubebnstein. He can believe that if he wants to, but he
states it as if it were a proven fact in his footnotes, of all places. If he has no evidence or research of his own to
offer regarding his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers, then his book is of questionable value to this thread,
as far as I am concerned.
Are you acknowledging now that Dr Mary's Monkey offers no proof (or research by Haslam, for that matter) that
Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers? If you had told me that six weeks ago, I would not have spent all this
time asking the questions that I have.
The mention of the interview with Anna Davis does appear in Haslam's book. I would suggest that you get your
points straight, but that comment might be taken to be gratuitous.
Jim, you wrote:
"As for not telling her that he was writing a book, you seem to be confounding Judyth's initial encounters with him(when he did not mention that) with her later knowledge about it (when he asked her to review what he had written)"No Jim. I have explained this carefully to you several times. Let me know if you
want me to go back and find it. In this thread, Judyth explained that she did not tell
Haslam that her book, Lee Harvey Oswald, was unauthorized by her and
contained errors. She offered an explanation as to her reasons that included Platzman.
She said that if she had known Haslam was working on a book, she would have told him.
Judyth Baker said that Haslam's book was a complete surprise to her.
Do you want me to go back and find that?
I am not concerned with Oswald's genitals, David Lifton's tape, marmosets, missing teeth,
Haslam's encounter with Ed Butler, how Mary Sherman died, John Armstrong, and other esoterica.
I have never discussed any of that on this thread. I am interested in whether or not her story is true about
she and Oswald being lovers and what reasons you have for referring members to Dr Mary's Monkey
to answer this question. I have simply claimed that Haslam presents no real evidence or proof that this was so.
You could have conceded that long ago and saved me some time and effort.
Jim, I have watched Judyth Baker's YouTube videos. I find them unconvincing, to be charitable.
I have met Ed Haslam, watched his interviews, including the one with Jim Marrs, and I have read
every post on this thread. I have listened to what you and others have posted. I have read Judyth Baker's
book Lee Harvey Oswald, which Haslam urged all his readers to do. I am waiting for her new book,
but based upon what you and Judyth have presented here, I do not expect any new revelations that will prove
(or even persuade) that she had a love affair with Lee Oswald.
In the prologue of DMM, Haslam writes about the History Channel's decision to withdraw from
circulation the episode that dealt with Judyth Vary Baker. His failure to mention that the entire three
episodes were withdrawn (due to pressure from LBJ's supporters) and leave the reader with the belief
that Baker's story was the only episode that was withdrawn is misleading, to say the least.
And Jim, do you believe that Sixty Minutes contacted Haslam on their own volition, sent him a packet
of materials detailing their prospective story, and sent one of their unnamed investigators to interview him....
all without reading his book? Does that even make sense to you?
I know that you and Ed Haslam have had extended contact with her, but people should not have to rely
on your faith. Her story demands evidence and proof. If after seven years of researching, Haslam was unable to
offer any proof (and none has been forthcoming after the publication of DMM), it is difficult to be
optimistic that her new book will convince anyone. I guess we will wait and see.
Not only that, I have claimed that there are inconsistencies and vagaries in Haslam's account.
I have always confined my comments only to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Baker. If Haslam
expects anyone to believe his account of meeting another Judyth Baker in 1972 with absolutely
no evidence other than his recollections, the rest of his unsupported statements need to be rock-solid
in order to afford him the benefit of the doubt.
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
-
What this is: Email I have just sent to JFK researcher Allan Eaglesham responding to his article, just published on the Internet, “Deep Throat Dave”.
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
-
Jack,
I don't want to make too much of this, but some of those you have been dealing with have extremely high IQs. I would estimate that David S. Lifton has an IQ around 150, for example, and David W. Mantik and John P. Costella have to have similarly high IQs. My GCT (General Classification Test) was 152. That doesn't mean I know everything, but only that I'm pretty good at taking things apart and putting them together--not physical things, as my wife would tell you, but matters intellectual. From your post of 4 May 2010, I take it you discovered that philosophers average around 160 and scientists around 159. Well, I am a philosopher and Judyth is a scientist, so I take that as indirect confirmation of what I am saying. That much should have been obvious even from her early accomplishments as a high-school student. She was a prodigy. Judyth not only has an extremely high IQ but knows more and in more detail about events in New Orleans than anyone else, in my estimation. She cannot have learned these things from reading, because she has often corrected them with new data not previously known. And in the case of controversies over interpretations of events, she has proven herself to be more able than anyone else on his thread, as I have lived through it. My familiarity with IQ is also theoretical, by the way, since I published THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005) on the nature of mind and the emergence of human mentality from those of earlier species, including animal mind and primate mind. There is a lot there on intelligence as the ability to learn. I think this is not a subject to which you have given as much attention as have I. Going by your data, I am not equal to the average for philosophers! It is easy to make too much of IQ as those who tout their membership in MENSA often do. Measures of ability are not also measures of accomplishment, which requires effort, discipline, and perseverance. Very few philosophers, for example, publish as many articles and books as I have. That's just something I happen to be good at. I am not equally good at everything, including mathematics.
Jim
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
-
Pamela, this is really unfair and short-sighted. David is a well-respected researcher. Although many researchers disagree with David's conclusions, no one of whom I am aware has ever caught him in a flat-out lie. If he says he has a tape, he has a tape, and doesn't need to send a copy to Jim or anyone else.
FWIW, I, too, think he should make it available. But his credibility as a researcher and person far outweighs Judyth's at this point.
Is Judyth willing to bet HER credibility no such tape exists?
Is she?
If not, WHY NOT?
It seems likely that Judyth is holding back because she knows she said what David says she said, and that David is holding the tape for strategic reasons. Because he is waiting for her to call him a xxxx... So that he then can whip it out and prove her wrong...
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
-
Jack,
Your research about the marmoset monkeys seems to be right on the money.
But. . what does it matter if the small "marmoset" monkeys didn't exist back then? If you're writing fiction, you just draw on reality, as needed, and ignore such facts--which, to that kind of mentality, are not real, but just "facts". Some Hollywood producers, I am told, have an intense dislike for facts--because they get in the way of "making the movie." One has a sign on his desk (I was told) that said "reality sucks." And what are Tom Hanks and Bugliosi going to do with some of this nonsense? (I can only imagine).
Anyway, the more I hear about this--between the physics experiments and the thousands of monkeys, Ferrie's apartment seems not particulary habitable but more and more seems to resemble some combination of the Stanford Linear Accelerator, and the Bronx Zoo.
I have to wonder: when is Saturday Night Live going to start drawing on this thread, for some of their material?
But truly, I have taken a glance at the statistics of this thread, with some bemusement. But also alarm. Its like watching the stock market, when prices go up and up and the stocks get more and more "overvalued" (as they say). One wonders: Will the number of posts really "break" 1600? (Yes, it did). What about the number of views--will it break 72,000? Maybe these statistics ought to be quoted, if only for a minute, on SQUAWK BOX or NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT. ("And tonight, the number of views, on the Judyth thread, has hit 72,000! This is one of the most interesting phenomenon since the Tulip Craze!")
Although I appreciate the many serious posts, there also seems to be here a bull market for silliness.
Well, I have had my teaspoon full of Judyth for the evening.
Good night, all.
DSL
4/24/10; 9:50 PM PDT
Los Angeles, CA
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
-
Can I remind people there is no need to repeat verbatim the previous posts made by someone unless there is a specific reason to do so. Having to scroll through repeats of posts is annoying (to me).
A request: Please, don't quote unless it is pertinent to your own post.
Thank you, Evan. Because of your reminder I went back and edited down my last post. Sorry.
Josiah Thompson
-
APPARENTLY THINGS HAVE GOTTEN SO FAR OUT OF HAND THAT TINK THOMPSON HAS TO INTERVENE
This is unbelievably childish, but then, that's 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
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
-
POSTSCRIPT: SOME REPLIES TO THOSE WHO HAVE CONTINUED TO POST
NOTE: It has come as no surprise to me that Josiah Thompson would seize this opportunity to take a cheap shot when I am attempting to end this thread in the expectation I would not respond. This is derived from the thread, "A shot fired through the front of the windshield", which was initiated by Doug Weldon. True to form, Josiah distorts the evidence obtained by Jim Lewis, who has traveled through the South firing through windshields and has found that the bullets not only create a spiral nebula-like image in the glass (corresponding to that seen in the Altens photo) but also the sound of a firecracker. I published a photo Jim sent me in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) on page 436, which is reproduced (but not well) in posts #472 and #473, which, in my opinion, resembles the spiral nebula-like image seen in the Altgens photograph. Contrary to this post, the evidence supports my position, not his...
Josiah, who has no interest in this question but only takes every opportunity to cast aspersions upon me, chimes in with, "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." As we have already seen, however, Josiah isdistorting the evidence, essentially misquoting out of context. The most that could be said is that, as Jerry Logan observed in post #472, it would be better to have sharper images. I agree with that and, if I can track him down, I will ask Jim if he can provide some. But that is a far cry from claiming that a bullet fired through a windshield produces "obvious shattering of the glass... nothing at all like Fetzer's 'nebula', which is simply false but true to form. Since proof of Judyth's authenticity abounds, I conclude with more from Haslam.
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
-
So- it comes down to this. after a couple of months of bluster and several lost friendships and much bragging about your academic credentials you are unable to offer any evidence whatsoever to support a point you yourself indicated was one of the "best supported" elements of judyth's story. i am sorry, sir, but that is your failing and not mine.
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
-
NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME
I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past would stoop to such a sophomoric level by
lodging such a blatant ad hominem. Those who resort to arguments of this caliber have discredited
themselves massively. I denounce each and every one of them, including the author of the post Jack
has repeated her and the hack who posted it. I am completely disgusted and want nothing more to
do with them. Michael Hogan and Howard Platzman are honorable men. Those who resort to such
disgraceful tactics are not. Cease and desist, Jack White. You have forefeitted being taken seriously.
Please know that I want nothing more to do with you in any context at all. We are no longer friends.
"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
-
Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog.....
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. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's.
Warm regards,
Doug
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
-
JIM REPLIES TO BARBARA'S BLIZZARD OF RUBBISH POSTS ABOUT NOTHING
Complete and total rubbish. Why should Barb be making a federal offense over information that her own son had posted on Facebook? In case she hasn't noticed, Facebook is a public source. There is nothing unusual about her son posting information about his career, as many of other millions of people have done, where what they do for a living is available in their Facebook page. It is not private. In fact, it is very rare for somebody to post absolutely nothing on themselves, like Barb. What is the problem with her son saying on his Facebook page that he has an association with Air Force ROTC? Nothing at all! I participated in the Navy ROTC myself as an undergraduate at Princeton, where, junior year, I took the Marine Corps option. I bear him no malice. What is weird and revealing is trying to make such a brouhaha out of a simple mistake on my part in taking something sent to me from her son's site to have been sent to me from her site. Everyone reading this thread can compare the content of the posts from Judyth with the lack of content in the posts from Junkkarinen and her cheering squad. These cheap shots are childish beyond measure...
"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
-
BIZARRE DELETION OF MY POST #1013 WITH NO NOTIFICATION
So yesterday I had a nice post pointing out that Barb is practicing the
suppression of evidence. I included data linked to her Facebook page,
which turns out to be about her son, not about her. She not only does
not explain the simple mistake that had been made but suggests that I
have been trading in "bad data", when she could have simply explained
it. Now I discover that, not only has her son's data been removed from
his Facebook page but my post, instead of being edited as I have done
below using xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx was itself complete removed! This is
a rather outrageous and arbitrary action. Surely a participant ought to
be informed when they have something wrong. This is unconscionable....
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
-
Don,
Of course I think it was Oswald.
Duncan MacRae
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
-
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
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
-
A friendly reminder to all concerned:(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.
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
-
I am not taking sides in this debate, as I don't claim to know one way or the other. -- However...
Look, let's not all get our panties up in a bunch, boys. Granted, Jim has a tendency--by his own admission--to be overly combative. ...
If we assume that Jim has committed an error of etiquette--so be it. His social skills my have offended some here.
"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
-
JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON AGAIN (AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND. . . )
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
-
JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT JUDYTH ON LEE'S ARRIVAL
As a former professor of critical thinking, I am not used to your committing so many fallacies at once:
(1) You beg the question by taking for granted that Judyth is a fraud, which is the issue we confront;
(2) You commit the genetic fallacy by assuming that my arguments are affected by who offered them;
(3) You commit the appeal to pity by suggesting I should abandon Judyth lest my reputation should suffer....
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
-
First question: Is it the case that Altgens #5 (taken at Z 255) shows damage to the windshield? Or is it the case that no discernible damage to the windshield is present in Altgens #5?
Second question: Would you agree that Altgens #6 shows damage to the windshield in the approximate spot where Frazier's notes and photo show damage to the windshield? Can you discern any difference between the damage shown in Altgens #6 to the windshield and the later damage to the windshield memorialized in Frazier's notes and photo?
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
-
I'm just curious. How long has this nebula in that Altgens been an issue. How much stuff needs to go back to basics in the sense of a complex derivative possibly has as paes of its foundation a fundamental flaw. What does it change/mean?
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
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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