The breakdown of Fetzer's "breakthrough"

[Josiah Thompson]

Mr. Rigby, I find it amusing that you believe people who do historical research on this case are members of one tribe or another. You ask, “Is there a prose style and mode of disputation common to all the prominent anti-alterationists?” How puerile of you even to ask the question.

Kemp Clark, senior neurosurgeon, probably had the most educated eye of anyone who looked at the Kennedy head wound. You don’t refer to his testimony but it's right there, cited on the page before McClelland’s, where Kem Clark says, “I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound but I felt it was a tangential wound” (6H21) When I looked at the other medical descriptions including that coming from McClelland, it seemed to me that Dr. Clark had gotten it about right. The movement of JFK’s head under impact and the spray of impact debris over Officer Hargis... these facts also seemed to point in the same direction. So that is why I argued what I argued 40 years ago. Nothing in that argument is either “silly” or “witless fib.” Those are your biases put forward out of some twisted necessity to continue tribal warfare.

If memory serves, by 1967 Dr. McClelland had already said that note involved a mistake... like substituting left for right or perhaps that he never observed any entry hole in JFk's temple but heard about it. And I think.. if you look into it... that is what Dr. McClelland has been saying for forty years.

And now with respect to Chaney?

Is there a prose style and mode of disputation common to all the prominent anti-alterationists? I'm beginning to think there is.

Your reply is simply silly. You claimed McClelland - admirably positioned, according to Six Seconds, when it suited your purposes - was describing an impact wound when he was unmistakably describing an exit wound. The witless fib exposed, you now avoid that unflattering fact, and proceed to insist McClelland couldn't tell his left from his right. Oh dear. Curiously common problem, this:

1) Elm St eyewitness:

Norman Similas: “I could see a hole in the President's left temple...,” Jack Bell, “10 Feet from the President,” NYT, 23 November 1963, p.5, citing Toronto Star.

2) Parkland medical staff:

a) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.]

Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

c) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head," Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4.

d) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. (Cited by Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.)

3) Parkland non-medical staff:

Father Oscar Huber: “terrible wound” over Kennedy's left eye [AP despatch, Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, 24 November 1963]*

4) Bethesda: Drs. Humes & Boswell:

“The autopsy documents also provide some cryptic indications of damage to the left side of the head. The notorious face-sheet on which Dr. J. Thornton Boswell committed his unfortunate 'diagram error' consists of front and back outlines of a male figure. On the front figure, the autopsy surgeons entered the tracheotomy incision (6.5 cm), the four cut-downs made in the Parkland emergency room for administration of infusions (2 cms. Each), and a small circle at the right eye, with the marginal notation '0.8 cm,' apparently representing damage produced by the two bullet fragments that lodged there. Dr. Humes testified that the fragments measured 7 by 2 mm and 3 by 1 mm respectively (2H354). Although he said nothing about the damage at the left eye, the diagram shows a small dot at that site, labeled '0.4 cm' (CE 397, Vol XVII, p.45). Neither Arlen Specter, who conducted the questioning of the autopsy surgeons, nor the Commission members and lawyers present asked any questions about this indication on the diagram of damage at the left eye.

Turning back to the male outline of the figure – the one Dr. Boswell did not realize would become a public document even though it had to be assumed at the time of the autopsy that findings would become evidence at the trial of the accused assassin – we find a small circle at the back of the head about equidistant from the ears and level with the top of the ears. Apparently this represents the small entrance wound which the autopsy surgeons and the Warren Commission say entered the back of the head and exploded out through the right side, carrying large large segments of the skull. but an arrow at the wound on the diagram points to the front and leftand not to the front and right.

A forensic pathologist who was asked to interpret this feature said that it signified that a missile had entered the back of the head traveling to the left and front. As if in confirmation, an autopsy diagram of the skull (CE 397, Vol XVII, p.46) shows a large rectangle marked '3 cm' at the site of the left eye, with a ragged lateral margin, seemingly to indicate fracture or missing bone.

The autopsy surgeons were not questioned about any of the three diagram indications of bullet damage at the left eye or left temple. Nevertheless, when Dr. Jenkins testified that he thought there was a wound in the left temporal area, Arlen Specter replied, 'The autopsy report disclosed no such developments,'” Sylvia Meagher. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities & The Report (NY, Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), pp.161-2.

As for your attempt to counter the Chaney problem, charity compels silence. For the moment.

Paul

[Josiah Thompson]

I already found the case fascinating. And then meeting Vince Salandria really hooked me on it. I was just interested in it and, like many people (perhaps even like you) I just started reading and taking notes and then writing up what I had. This wasn’t something that advanced my academic career or made Nancy (my wife and a new mother) very happy. But it was all so interesting. Vince didn’t like to write and I did. Pretty quickly I had a 90 page draft and an intro to Willie Morris. Then, by pure accident, I ended up talking to Don Preston and Berney Geis. It wasn’t that LIFE was looking to hire anyone to tell them where to look. They were doing it on their own.... reading the volumes and the critical articles in obscure left-wing periodicals. But after we met, it was clear that I could speed up what they were doing. Basically, I only wanted chump change and a chance to work with LIFE’s film and use LIFE’s bureaus to set up interviews. It was a natural win-win and lasted for about four to six months.

I worked closely with Dick Billings and Ed Kern. I liked them enormously. I met Patsy Swank in Dallas (LIFE’s stringer there) and liked her enormously. They were very good people. Like you, much earlier I had met one of LIFE’s photographers on a beach near Beirut after we’d just finished a reconnaissance and were back on the beach lolling around. That was the summer of 1958. Yeah, I’d enjoy hearing your stories about the early sixties in Vietnam. Some of my buddies from UDT-21 were in there training South Vietnamese in commando raids in the early sixties. Maybe you met some of them

You got anything interesting on Chaney, etc.?

thank you for the above, your time and candor... frankly though, still doesn't answer a lingering question, why you? A full-time university professor/turned writer with a contract....

"LIFE at that point was starting an investigation of the whole case. They could train up an editor in a few months to tell them what doors to open but that would take time."

Interesting, a leading US publication of the time, needs an outside source [not only] to suggest how to conduct an investigation, but what doors to open? I'd like to relate to you sometime my experiences (Vietnam-1963 [in and OUT of Tudo Street bars]) with LIFE photographers. In general damn competent photog's and great reporting.

[Bill Miller]

Who did you use before telling this forum that you have seen no proof of alteration, David???

son, when one reviews the current wealth of evidence pointing in that direction, what is a thinking man gonna do? Run around Dealey Plaza looking for autographs? And, who did I use for what?

David, you talk like the Riddler from Batman ... you say stupid stuff that doesn't address what's been asked. This kind of exchange is what got you to admit that you have seen no proof of alteration. Your remark came years after this so-called wealth of evidence had been in print. The sad part is that you have 'Baghdad Bob'd' yourself into a place you didn't want to be and its your own words that have come back to bite you.

Now once again: At the time you said, 'I have seen no proof of alteration' - TGZFH had been out for three years. So nothing is new here ... just the same old trolling game and someone trying to pick a witnesses memory apart so to promote some outlandish idiotic claim .... like all the other ones in the book that didn't convince you of alteration.

[David G. Healy]

Who did you use before telling this forum that you have seen no proof of alteration, David???

son, when one reviews the current wealth of evidence pointing in that direction, what is a thinking man gonna do? Run around Dealey Plaza looking for autographs? And, who did I use for what?

David, you talk like the Riddler from Batman ... you say stupid stuff that doesn't address what's been asked. This kind of exchange is what got you to admit that you have seen no proof of alteration. Your remark came years after this so-called wealth of evidence had been in print. The sad part is that you have 'Baghdad Bob'd' yourself into a place you didn't want to be and its your own words that have come back to bite you.

Now once again: At the time you said, 'I have seen no proof of alteration' - TGZFH had been out for three years. So nothing is new here ... just the same old trolling game and someone trying to pick a witnesses memory apart so to promote some outlandish idiotic claim .... like all the other ones in the book that didn't convince you of alteration.

when I want something from you Miller, I'll ask, till then I'm discussing the case with one of your mentors, so stay out of the way.... for the moment your waterboy chores on this thread are finished.... you look lovely goffering, btw.....

[Bill Miller]

when I want something from you Miller, I'll ask, till then I'm discussing the case with one of your mentors, so stay out of the way.... for the moment your waterboy chores on this thread are finished.... you look lovely goffering, btw.....

David, but when I look at what Josiah has written and what you have responded with ... it appears to be a one sided discussion. It appears that you suffer from a lack of information and poor research skills on your part ... thats my opinion and its OK to say it because Antti has said so. See quote below ...

" ......... is claiming you have a lack of information & poor research skills, he adds material to support this claim (his opinion). In my opinion this is a valid debate tactic."

[David G. Healy]

when I want something from you Miller, I'll ask, till then I'm discussing the case with one of your mentors, so stay out of the way.... for the moment your waterboy chores on this thread are finished.... you look lovely goffering, btw.....

David, but when I look at what Josiah has written and what you have responded with ... it appears to be a one sided discussion. It appears that you suffer from a lack of information and poor research skills on your part ... thats my opinion and its OK to say it because Antti has said so. See quote below ...

" ......... is claiming you have a lack of information & poor research skills, he adds material to support this claim (his opinion). In my opinion this is a valid debate tactic."

son, it's clear why you've spent most of your life in back alley's.... when you grow to understand the media, we'll talk... till then, sigh, I'm willing to put that good word in for you at ADOBE, they certainly pay better (even at entry level clerk positions) than the 6th Floor Museum, or shilling for Robert Groden...

Let's fill the viewers in Bill, seeing you have this insatiable need to inject yourself into conversations when not invited. I certainly didn't invite you into this conversation. Did Dr. Thompson ask you to hold his jacket?

btw, while you're here, Did Dr. Thompson answer the question: why him and LIFE magazine (lets see if you're really following the conversation, eh?), I know the particulars of the what and how it happened, just not the, WHY, nor his take on the why? An act of provenance (which I can buy), perhaps? (know what that means?)

Edited February 20, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

son, it's clear why you've spent most of your life in back alley's.... when you grow to understand the media, we'll talk... till then, sigh, I'm willing to put that good word in for you at ADOBE, they certainly pay better (even at entry level clerk positions) than the 6th Floor Museum, or shilling for Robert Groden...

Let's fill the viewers in Bill, seeing you have this insatiable need to inject yourself into conversations when not invited. I certainly didn't invite you into this conversation. Did Dr. Thompson ask you to hold his jacket?

btw, while you're here, Did Dr. Thompson answer the question: why him and LIFE magazine (lets see if you're really following the conversation, eh?), I know the particulars of the what and how it happened, just not the, WHY, nor his take on the why? An act of provenance (which I can buy), perhaps? (know what that means?)

Yes David ... back alley's - after all, thats where I heard you saying to this forum, 'I have seen no proof of alteration'. I also think that if you are not a candidate for being the alteration poster-boy because of past things you have said, then you probably shouldn't be telling someone how they shouldn't jump into threads uninvited. After all, if anyone would just read your last 20 responses over several of these threads ... jumping into discussions uninvited is all you ever do. But I, like about everyone else but you, are smart enough to know that this is an open Education Forum and all members are invited to participate. You see, thats one of the first things we learn in the back alley's. LOL !!!

You may need to go back and read Josiah's post as a whole ... then maybe have someone read them to you ... then try sock-puppets if needed and I am sure you'll learn your answers. One helpful hunt ... If Josiah post something in response to your question, then simply ask a more direct question instead of trolling for responses.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

Mr. Rigby, I find it amusing that you believe people who do historical research on this case are members of one tribe or another. You ask, “Is there a prose style and mode of disputation common to all the prominent anti-alterationists?” How puerile of you even to ask the question.

Peculiar, this, as you’re well-known as a very active and prominent participant in precisely the tribal warfare you now claim to be above. But if it helps your self-image – a subject Gumshoe reveals you to be obsessed with - then please, by all means, pretend you’ve never got down and dirty with Fetzer et al.

Kemp Clark, senior neurosurgeon, probably had the most educated eye of anyone who looked at the Kennedy head wound.

Decoded: I’m going to pretend Kemp Clark’s testimony does for my case what McClelland’s patently did not (see below).

You don’t refer to his testimony but it's right there, cited on the page before McClelland’s…

Nope, and hardly surprising is it, Prof, because I was talking about your gross abuse of McClelland’s testimony in Six Seconds? Can’t blame you for switching docs, though, however transparent the manoeuvre. As I’ve noted elsewhere, vigorous substitutionism is a defining – and very necessary - characteristic of film anti-alterationists. As is, alas, incompetence:

…where Kem Clark says, “I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound but I felt it was a tangential wound” (6H21). When I looked at the other medical descriptions including that coming from McClelland, it seemed to me that Dr. Clark had gotten it about right.

Let me see if I have this straight.

In Six Seconds in Dallas you twist McClelland’s WC testimony to transform the wound of exit at the right rear of the President’s head into an entrance wound on the right front. Now, when confronted with this blatant deceit, you hastily dump McClelland, and substitute instead Kemp Clark’s Warren Commission testimony to justify this absurdity? OK, I follow. So now to the next “minor” problem: You’ve just repeated the deception all over again. How so?

The truth is that Clark made no mention at either the Parkland press conference, or before the Warren Commission, of any wound in the location – right front – you manufactured for Six Seconds in order to render your account of Kennedy’s head wounds congruent with the cartoonic absurdity created for the Zapruder fake. In the section of Clark’s Warren Commission you cite, he was, quite contrary to your latest spin, still talking about the rear head wound when used the epithet “tangential.”

Dr. Clark:

I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed… 6H20

Mr. Specter:

What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference?

Dr. Clark:

I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound,” 6H21.

http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol6/page20.php

Three strikes and you’re out.

Paul

[Josiah Thompson]

Mr. Rigby,

It's all there on pages 106 through 108 of Six Seconds... all the witness citations, even a medical illustrator's sketch of what Dr. McClelland observed. It's been there for over forty years. Apparently, you have some problem with it. I don't. I'm delighted to let anyone who wants to look at the argument on those pages determine for themselves whether it is sound. Nothing you've said much touches it and your comments leave an aftertaste of unpleasantness. Hence, I'm not going to bother further with this. If you have something interesting to say about Officer Chaney, why not say it?

Mr. Rigby, I find it amusing that you believe people who do historical research on this case are members of one tribe or another. You ask, “Is there a prose style and mode of disputation common to all the prominent anti-alterationists?” How puerile of you even to ask the question.

Peculiar, this, as you’re well-known as a very active and prominent participant in precisely the tribal warfare you now claim to be above. But if it helps your self-image – a subject Gumshoe reveals you to be obsessed with - then please, by all means, pretend you’ve never got down and dirty with Fetzer et al.

Kemp Clark, senior neurosurgeon, probably had the most educated eye of anyone who looked at the Kennedy head wound.

Decoded: I’m going to pretend Kemp Clark’s testimony does for my case what McClelland’s patently did not (see below).

You don’t refer to his testimony but it's right there, cited on the page before McClelland’s…

Nope, and hardly surprising is it, Prof, because I was talking about your gross abuse of McClelland’s testimony in Six Seconds? Can’t blame you for switching docs, though, however transparent the manoeuvre. As I’ve noted elsewhere, vigorous substitutionism is a defining – and very necessary - characteristic of film anti-alterationists. As is, alas, incompetence:

…where Kem Clark says, “I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound but I felt it was a tangential wound” (6H21). When I looked at the other medical descriptions including that coming from McClelland, it seemed to me that Dr. Clark had gotten it about right.

Let me see if I have this straight.

In Six Seconds in Dallas you twist McClelland’s WC testimony to transform the wound of exit at the right rear of the President’s head into an entrance wound on the right front. Now, when confronted with this blatant deceit, you hastily dump McClelland, and substitute instead Kemp Clark’s Warren Commission testimony to justify this absurdity? OK, I follow. So now to the next “minor” problem: You’ve just repeated the deception all over again. How so?

The truth is that Clark made no mention at either the Parkland press conference, or before the Warren Commission, of any wound in the location – right front – you manufactured for Six Seconds in order to render your account of Kennedy’s head wounds congruent with the cartoonic absurdity created for the Zapruder fake. In the section of Clark’s Warren Commission you cite, he was, quite contrary to your latest spin, still talking about the rear head wound when used the epithet “tangential.”

Dr. Clark:

I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed… 6H20

Mr. Specter:

What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference?

Dr. Clark:

I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound,” 6H21.

http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol6/page20.php

Three strikes and you’re out.

Paul

[Antti Hynonen]

David, but when I look at what Josiah has written and what you have responded with ... it appears to be a one sided discussion. It appears that you suffer from a lack of information and poor research skills on your part ... thats my opinion and its OK to say it because Antti has said so. See quote below ...

" ......... is claiming you have a lack of information & poor research skills, he adds material to support this claim (his opinion). In my opinion this is a valid debate tactic."

Bill,

Do not take snippets out of my personal message to you out of context here. I made a general statement regarding debating and expressing personal views to you, and this comment of mine had nothing to do with David Healy in particular.

[Bill Miller]

David, but when I look at what Josiah has written and what you have responded with ... it appears to be a one sided discussion. It appears that you suffer from a lack of information and poor research skills on your part ... thats my opinion and its OK to say it because Antti has said so. See quote below ...

" ......... is claiming you have a lack of information & poor research skills, he adds material to support this claim (his opinion). In my opinion this is a valid debate tactic."

Bill,

Do not take snippets out of my personal message to you out of context here. I made a general statement regarding debating and expressing personal views to you, and this comment of mine had nothing to do with David Healy in particular.

Antti, my response using your interpretation of the rules and how its ok to say someone does poor research, thus meaning they are a poor researcher was entered into my response to Healy. Of course your PM was not directed at him ... I assume it was directed at how you view the forum rules as far as whats OK for everyone.

BTW, in the particular response that you had PM'd me about .... you said that the other person had made a case to support his argument. I would like to know how the only two references he made (if you even know what he was talking about) has anything to do with 1963 technology. If his example impressed you as supporting his remark, which has been said to be a forum violation when it came to other members, then by all means jump in and let me know how you thought what he said was supportive of 1963 technology and how it couldn't be recognized through modern science?

Miles wrote: Just to prove your incredible lack of information & poor research, let us mention two items:

MOL & U2

Edited February 21, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

son, it's clear why you've spent most of your life in back alley's.... when you grow to understand the media, we'll talk... till then, sigh, I'm willing to put that good word in for you at ADOBE, they certainly pay better (even at entry level clerk positions) than the 6th Floor Museum, or shilling for Robert Groden...

Let's fill the viewers in Bill, seeing you have this insatiable need to inject yourself into conversations when not invited. I certainly didn't invite you into this conversation. Did Dr. Thompson ask you to hold his jacket?

btw, while you're here, Did Dr. Thompson answer the question: why him and LIFE magazine (lets see if you're really following the conversation, eh?), I know the particulars of the what and how it happened, just not the, WHY, nor his take on the why? An act of provenance (which I can buy), perhaps? (know what that means?)

Yes David ... back alley's - after all, thats where I heard you saying to this forum, 'I have seen no proof of alteration'. I also think that if you are not a candidate for being the alteration poster-boy because of past things you have said, then you probably shouldn't be telling someone how they shouldn't jump into threads uninvited. After all, if anyone would just read your last 20 responses over several of these threads ... jumping into discussions uninvited is all you ever do. But I, like about everyone else but you, are smart enough to know that this is an open Education Forum and all members are invited to participate. You see, thats one of the first things we learn in the back alley's. LOL !!!

You may need to go back and read Josiah's post as a whole ... then maybe have someone read them to you ... then try sock-puppets if needed and I am sure you'll learn your answers. One helpful hunt ... If Josiah post something in response to your question, then simply ask a more direct question instead of trolling for responses.

Bill,

I understand you find me endlessly fascinating and entertaining, and can't do without chasing me all over the internet... making absurd remarks about most of serious Zapruder film researchers on this board, ME included....

When and if I find the time to put a microphone in your face (and a camera too) I'll give you adequate time to prepare.... rest assured you'll be asked for your resume and expertise in the film photo field, in particular the JFK assassination and surrounding DP events. All the mental gymnastics do not impress me, nor any other *professional* program producers (documentary or otherwise) haunting this board (and there are a few). No sense trying to impress us! You've been figured out!

Further, I don't need suggestions how to do interview or ask simple questions, wee Willie. 40 years of doing interviews has led me to a good techniques... your need for injecting yourself in matters you haven't a clue about has been duly noted... Now run along and find other ways to run past the and misconstrue a Mod's PM. How many times do you have to be slapped down here for a EGO out of control?

Edited: Offensive remark

Edited February 22, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[Paul Rigby]

Mr. Rigby,

It's all there on pages 106 through 108 of Six Seconds... all the witness citations, even a medical illustrator's sketch of what Dr. McClelland observed. It's been there for over forty years. Apparently, you have some problem with it. I don't.

"The pattern that emerges from this study of medical evidence is a dual one. From the Parkland doctors we get the picture of a bullet that struck the right front of the President's head...,"

Six Seconds in Dallas, Geis edition, p.111

Appalling. How you've got away with this for forty+ years is nothing less than a thing of wonder.

I'm delighted to let anyone who wants to look at the argument on those pages determine for themselves whether it is sound. Nothing you've said much touches it and your comments leave an aftertaste of unpleasantness. Hence, I'm not going to bother further with this. If you have something interesting to say about Officer Chaney, why not say it?

Pity you're not going to stick around because I've only touched the tip of a very deep iceberg.

Paul

[Bill Miller]

Pity you're not going to stick around because I've only touched the tip of a very deep iceberg.

Paul

LOL !!! I look forward to seeing all that you uncover, Paul. I am thinking that one of Fetzer's book will be the only attention it gets.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

I understand you find me endlessly fascinating and entertaining,

"Uninformed " would be more like it, David. To add to your usual misdirected criticism is the fact that I didn't say that a film could not be altered in 1963. What I have said continuously through many of these similar threads on the subject is that an altered film in 1963 could not hold up to an expert and certainly not by todays standards of testing. For you to make a case, then you must pretend that both positions are one in the same, but they are not. And this is why when you were pressed in the past to say what it is that you have seen that's altered about the Zfilm - you said that you had seen no proof of alteration.

Kodachrome II film is different from other films and unlike the professional film you have experience with. The Zfilm is a 'positive image' ... I think you will agree with that. In other words it was not a negative of the assassination, but rather the actual images. (I'll keep this simple and not get into all the frame work that would need to be done to create new images) Those images were created in actual sunlight. So to alter that film - one must make an enlarged copy - alter it - and then make another copy of the final product. Each time Kodachrome II is copied in other than sunlight, there are color changes/shifts that take place. An expert who knows Kodachrome II film would know what to look for and would spot it.

Further, I don't need suggestions how to do interview or ask simple questions, wee Willie. 40 years of doing interviews has led me to a good techniques.

I must say that you have hidden that alleged talent really well when posting on any JFK forum that I have seen you on.

Bill Miller

Edited February 22, 2008 by Bill Miller