Paul Baker

Very few researchers seem interested in doing photoanalysis.

I have just been considering comparing Z 204 and Willis 5 (same moment).

There are some interesting observations to be made.

But I am about to go to bed and will be gone much of tomorrow. Someone

may want to see whether they have any observations.

Jack

There's no point looking that the pictures Jack, they're all faked! You're wasting your time. Those conspirators have obliterated all the useful evidence. Damn those conspirators. Oooh they make me so angry.

Baker wants to become a MAJOR player. But he is only a bit player so far.

Jack

No I don't Jack. I'm not an active researcher - what is there to research? After all, the murder of JFK has been solved beyond all reasonable doubt. I simply find people like you fascinating.

Dale Myers made a convincing, scientific argument for the single bullet theory. To use his own words, I believe he turned it into a single bullet fact. On the reverse side of the coin, we have people like Fetzer and White et al, who simply spray BS about the place. For what purpose I don't know. Perhaps, like Jean Hill and Gordon Arnold and Ed Hofmann et al, they don't care about the truth and just seek attention. After all, flies like to congregate around s**t. Perhaps they just want to sell books. I just can't believe anyone can really be that ignorant of the facts.

Paul.

Read Rush to Judgement by Mark Lane

Stop it, you're killing me!

So there's no evidence that supports the single bullet theory?

* JFK and Connally reacting simultaneously to being shot.

* JFK and Connally aligned perfectly to receive the wounds they did from a single bullet.

* The line of the bullet goes straight back to Oswald on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

* No evidence of any other person shooting in Dealey Plaza (most people said they heard three shots. Not eight, or nine, or ten).

There are a few pointers. It's all rather obvious, really.

- Believe the single bullet theory is possible - No, I think it is probable.

There's no evidence to substantiate this claim, so why keep making it?

Read the Warren Report.

- Believe Oswald fired any shots - Yes, all of them.

- Believe Oswald killed Tippit - Yes.

- Believe the single bullet theory is possible - No, I think it is probable.

- Believe shots were fired from the front, back or both directions. - From behind only.

- Can assess the performance of the Secret Service in Dallas. - I think they were slow to react.

- Think LBJ and/or other high public officials were involved - No.

eight, nine, or ten shots appear to have been fired from six different locations.

There's no evidence to substantiate this claim, so why keep making it?

Paul.

Intellectual honesty demands White admit his errors and remove his "studies". Anyone really think that will ever happen?

Of course not.

1. Jack posts "study".

2. "Study" is proven to be flawed.

3. Jack ignores proof and either goes quiet or launches a personal attack aimed at the debunker(s).

4. Over time the "study" thread sinks off the front page.

5. Return to step 1.

Please be specific about which study is erroneous.

Thanks.

Jack

Pick a card, any card ...

... what some [iMO] intelligence-related goon did to him with an icepick.

You really believe that? Zany.

If there was a conspiracy, for the perpetrators Jack White is a Godsend. The last thing they'd want to do is silence someone who is so way off the mark that he is in effect assisting in the cover up.

... he RARELY admits when he is wrong; there are isolated examples.

The word 'rarely' was used, Dean. The fact that Kathy managed to remember and dig out a five-and-a-year old example demonstrates how rare, I think.

Plus - once again - Jack describes someone who disagrees with him as mentally handicapped. What a nice man.

I now see why Mr. Peters is so bad at photoanalysis!

He is visually challenged and has no comprehension

of what photos clearly show. I did not realize he was

a handicapped person.

No Paul, what does it show?

I edited my post after I found more examples of Jack's dodgy studies in the endnotes. But that specific instance covers one of Jack's "studies", in which he states that the crowd on the north curb of Elm Street don't move in the Zapruder film, i.e. they're not real! Watching a stabilized version of the film clearly shows them moving and clapping. I wonder if Jack has admitted that he was wrong in that instance ...

I seek the truth...and often discover it.

Jack

I'd be interested to see some examples of this, Jack.

I was reading the endnotes of Bugliosi's book last night, your name crops up quite a few times.

Paul.

I immediately

redo any of my studies PROVEN wrong by anyone. It does me no good to have ERRORS in

any of my studies.

Jack

This is not true. It is an untruth.

I can't think of one person on this Forum more predictable than you, Len. That you showed-up on this thread[along with the others who just LOVE to attack Jack] is nothing short of sick;.....your sickness, IMO, is not so much of the mind and ability to analyze facts/evidence [although that too], but of the heart - and soul and kindness of spirit toward a better world - let alone toward others trying to make it so. The world you envision, to me, is a nightmare....the one we live in. Jack may not always be 100% correct, but at least he tries [HARD!] to do Justice to the Truth as he sees it; to strike out with what he has against those who would enslave and would attempt to deceive us. I believe we are now at a point in history to say that most of his JFK studies have been born out by others and he was often the first or close to that - leading the vanguard when others feared to tread. Of course, the professional ostriches and naysayers [as well as those working for the official ongoing cover-up] will continue to deny this, and try to bash him.

Jack, just know, some of us owe you one hell of a lot of gratitude! I also have had the privilege of knowing Jack in person and by phone, letter, and private email - and a more kindly, likable, unassuming, helpful person you'd be hard pressed to find. Who would say that about you Mr. Colby?! What exactly have YOU contributed to truth, freedom, democracy, justice, law, sanity, decency, and uncovering the machinations of the machinery of control/propaganda and lies lately? Nula!

Peter, Jack has never been 100% correct. Have you read any of his "studies"? I've yet to see one that isn't utter nonsense. BTW, why is someone as biased as you a moderator on this website? I'd be interested to know? It is, after all, called the Education Forum. There are very few people in this area that are willing to learn.

... I may be on the right track.

No Jack. You're off the rails.

We see that Zapruder and Sitzman are not on the pedestal.

Jack

If you stare at those indistinct blobs for long enough Jack, I'm sure you'll find something. You've done it before, so do it again.

I listened to Jim's 'interview' with Doug Horne today on the Interweb. (It hardly qualifies as an interview. I agree with Jack White on one thing - Jim can certainly talk).

Several things I would like to ask 'Professor' Jame H. Fetzer: Do you really believe that there were six shooters, and they were helped by a man pumping up and down an umbrella? Where is the evidence of your six shooters? If this was such a professional hit, why not do it somewhere out of eyeshot, rather than at the tail end of a motorcade? Is there really any point asking you any questions, seeing as you are a single-minded bully with no real concept of scientific proof. After listening to your 'interview' (give the man a chance to speak, Jim) I'm looking forward to seeing the irrefutable proof that every photon that hit the back of a camera in Dealey Plaza was persuaded to change frequency.

Do you really believe a single word regarding the JFK assassination that spews out of your mouth, or are you just trying to sell books? That's almost a rhetorical question.

Paul.

This site thrives on spurious neuron connections. If the zanies here could exercise a bit perhaps we could all pull down the wall of crap that has been created. I don't need to point them out to those of us that have at least a couple of brain cells to rub together.

10 minutes into that last segment Jim loses his composure.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Gordon Arnold, shooting a movie from the knoll, presented a problem. Even

though his film was destroyed on 11-22, it is my belief that ARNOLD was captured on film by several, notably Betzner and Willis...and that these images

were obscured by painting over him with the Blackdogman. It would have been very inconvenient to have an unknown soldier shooting an unknown movie from the knoll.

You don't think it's more likely that Arnold wasn't even there? His final comment on TMWKK says it all - 'There's no doubt in my mind I was there.' The man is quite clearly retarded. Oh, and if there was a policy of obliterating evidence of people filming in DP, why did "they" leave in The Babushka Lady?

Yawn. I don't know why anyone even bothers replying to this drivel.

Paul.

Paul, Since you own MURDER, I must ask, Have you read it? Because I have already explained the parts that you should read to get up-to-speed on the throat wound, the chapter by Doug Weldon, J.D., on the limousine and the Altgen's photo, David Mantik's synthesis of the medical evidence, plus the sections on Jim Lewis's travels through the south firing high-velocity bullets throug the windshields of junked cars to see if he could hit dummies in the back seats from the distance to the above-ground sewer opening on the south side of the Triple Underpass. The last part is not in every printing of MURDER, however, but only the last few. Guess what? When a high-velocity bullet passes through the glass on one of these cars, it makes the sound of a firecracker! Do you know why that is important? On the existence of the throat wound per se, you should also read sections of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), including Tom Wicker's report of the wounds appears on page 15; Bob Livingston's report on pages 165-166; the article by Richard Dudman on page 167; Crenshaw's diagrams are Appendix A and The Parkland Press Conference is Appendix C. I don't mean to be impatient with you, but you haven't done your homework. I have given hundreds of presentation in which I explain these things in considerable detail. You might want to visit my new blog at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com for my most recent lecture using Powerpoint, which I converted into a chapter for a new book on JFK. Have you spent any time at assassinationscience.com or assassinationresearch.com? The first is my public issues site, which has a lot on JFK; the second the on-line journal for advanced study I co-edit with John Costella. Let me know when you have had the chance to review the material I am citing and I would be glad to discuss it further with you. In extending my hand, I am overlooking the absurd remark, "That book which you 'edited', Jim, is part of the reason I no longer believe in a conspiracy. In particular, the section dedicated to Jack White is laughable." There is no section that is "dedicated" to Jack White, but there is a section by Jack White. My inference is that photographic studies are beyond you. But the 16 "smoking guns" of the Prologue and the chapter on Oswald should not be. I would ask you to justify your rejection of conspiracy in relation to those chapters, which I authored. Get back to me when you are able to defend yourself. Two shots, by the way, were widely reported on radio and television the evening of the assassination: one to the throat, the other to the right temple. See if you can track down the NBC footage, for example, featuring Chet Huntley and Frank McGee, among others. If you follow my advice, you just might learn something about the death of JFK. Good luck!

I'm not sure which edition of MIDP I have, and I read it when I first got it several years ago when I first became unnaturally interested in the assassination. Forgive me Jim, I should have written 'the section dedicated to Jack White's work'. I still maintain that that part is absurd, and I don't have to be a photographic expert to appreciate that - that is how bad it is.

I'll take a closer look at my copy in any case. Isn't it fair to say, though, that regardless of any experiments have been undertaken regarding the bullet through the windshield scenario, it is a much simpler undertaking to shoot JFK from behind, where there are no obstructions and a few tall buildings to fire from?

I've listened over and over to radio and TV footage from the day. Some might say obsessively. I can almost play the NBC audio in my head. I thought three shots was the general consensus on the day. There are many inaccuracies in the live reports, which is understandable under the circumstances, so I wouldn't place undue reliance on them anyway.

Paul.

How can Paul Baker qualify as an "experienced member" and be so massively ignorant? Paul, if you have never read MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), then your education about the assassination has been severely lacking.

I don't believe, in asking those simple questions, that I've marked myself as an idiot. Can you answer them? Come on, you call yourself a scientist, why not demonstrate some of that cognitive power you're supposed to have. Are they stupid questions? Anyone? If they are, tell me why. No problem. Regardless of experiments undertaken, surely - given the choice - a sniper would position himself behind the limousine. Is that not a simpler, less risky place to fire from?

I own a copy of Murder In Dealey Plaza. It was one of the first books I bought about the assassination, and at the time I suppose I was in the CT camp. That book which you 'edited', Jim, is part of the reason I no longer believe in a consipiracy. In particular, the section dedicated to Jack White is laughable.

Finally Jim, if it says 'experienced member' beneath my name I suspect that's simply based on the number of posts I've made. I wouldn't necessarily describe myself as such, though in terms of JFK assassination research, I believe I have made more of a contribution towards discovering the truth than you have.

Paul.

I believe JFK was shot in the throat through the windshield.

Is it really reasonable to place a sniper in front of the limousine? Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't mind!), but this would mean a clean shot through the windshield, and is it feasible to rely on zero deflection? In addition this would mean getting a bullet past several people in the car to JFK at the back. Wouldn't this represent a very difficult target? Would windshield glare also present a problem? Oh, and where is this person?

It's beginning to sound a lot like nonsense ...

4. Not too many witnesses would see the umbrella opening and closing down near the Grassy Knoll.

Even with the inserted Stemmons Freeway sign in Zapruder, we see the umbrella man moving the umbrella up and down; while the Cuban next to him signals to SS Greer, the driver, where to stop. This stopping of the limo has been removed from the Zapruder film.

Kathy C

Have you considered the possibility that the Stemmons Freeway sign wasn't inserted into Zapruder, but was strapped to Umbrella Man's back?

This object appears in a series of Z frames. What is it? It is NOT part of the pyracantha bush.

Yawn. It IS a branch from an overhanging tree.

I have decided that all the twigs were introduced by the animators to lessen the

task of animating the limousine and what was happening with the occupants, who

are all obscured at a critical time.

Do you ever think about what you're suggesting, Jack? What do you suppose the animators were trying to obscure? Since the Z-film is a cartoon, why didn't they just make the occupants of the limousine do something different altogether? Or why didn't they simply end the film a little earlier?

I have decided that Fred Flintstone was driving the limousine. In one of the frames they forgot to paint out his feet sticking out beneath the car.

The Umbrella Man sent the flechette into Kennedy's throat. Maybe it didn't matter where it hit him; it would still have the same effect of paralysis.

Please tell me this is a joke. It's too incredible even to be part of a James Bond plot.

* How did Umbrella Man aim the device?

* What were the odds of him missing and hitting Jackie, or someone over the street?

* Was it really necessary to paralyse the President in order to assist the crack hit squad?

* Why didn't the Umbrella Man stand further up the street, so he could paralyse JFK before the first shot was fired?

* Who was that man later identified as the Umbrella Man who gave a reasonable explanation of his actions?

This list could be expanded. It's a ridiculous, laughable notion.

Paul.