How reliable is Josiah Thompson?

[Paul Rigby]

Time to bring together, on a single thread, the full, sorry tale.

Part 1: The Muchmore film

Thompson claims:

JFK Lancer: 2064, Why all the assassination films are authentic!

Posted by Josiah Thompson, Wed Dec-31-69 06:00 PM

Wed Apr-30-03 08:37 AM

Richard Trask wrote about this in both his book, “Pictures of the Pain,” drawing on an earlier article by UPI’s Maurice Schonfeld in the “Columbia Journalism Review.” According to Trask, Marie Muchmore walked into the Dallas office of United Press International (UPI) and sold her film to them UNDEVELOPED for $1000 on Monday, November 25th. UPI immediately took it to Kodak for processing. UPI then shipped either the original 8mm film or a 16mm print to UPI's home office in New York City. Further research by Gary Mack, has shown that Muchmore's film first was shown in New York around midday Tuesday, November 26th on WNEW-TV.

The Truth:

Of course, further research has revealed nothing of the sort: Mack can’t substantiate his claim; and has singularly failed, after a mere two years-worth of opportunity, to find the newspaper report that is the alleged source for his certainty. For more on this topic, see the thread on this forum: Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? A cinematic shell game sketched

As for the timing of the film’s showing, here is the earliest newspaper clipping yet located on the subject:

Richard K. Doan, “Now the Task of Righting Upset Schedules,” New York Herald Tribune, 27 November 1963, section 1, p.21:

“WNEW-TV (Channel 5) claimed it was the first TV station in the country to televise an amateur photographer’s film footage of President Kennedy’s assassination. The film was distributed by United Press International and aired by Channel 5 at 12:46 a.m. yesterday.”

Thompson claims:

Josiah Thompson, “Proof that the Zapruder Film is Authentic:

“The FBI first learned of the Muchmore film, for example, when it was shown on the New York City station WNEW-TV just after midday on Tuesday, November 26th.”

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...pson-proof.html

The Truth:

5WCH140

Mr. Specter:

How did you obtain a copy of that film?

Mr. Shaneyfelt:

Our first knowledge of this came as a result of a review of the book "Four Days" which covers the assassination period, in which representatives of the FBI noted a colored picture taken from a motion picture film that did not match either the Nix film or the Zapruder film.

Once we established that, then we investigated and learned that it was made by Mrs. Mary Muchmore, and was at that time in the possession of United Press International in New York, and made arrangements for them to furnish us with a copy of the Muchmore film. That is the copy that I used for examination.

In part 2 of this thrilling series, I examine the mislocation of witnesses in Thompson’s 1967 Six Seconds in Dallas.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

In part 2 of this thrilling series, I examine the mislocation of witnesses in Thompson’s 1967 Six Seconds in Dallas.

“We haven’t moved from illusion to truth. We haven’t seen Spade ‘crack the case.’ Rather, we’ve watched Spade participate in a series of events that break up the initial illusion only to replace it with another. There’s no truth anywhere in the story, only ambiguous half-truths, only a face seen darkly in the mirror, a figure disappearing round a corner,”

Josiah Thompson. Gumshoe: Reflections in a Private Eye (London: Pan Books, 1988), p.113.

For advocates of a right frontal gunman, no less than the compilers of the Warren Report, unwelcome testimony is too often an enemy to be fought by any means necessary. In his 1967 book, Six Seconds in Dallas, Josiah Thompson ran the gamut. The omissions, distortions, and outright inversions he deployed were unusually easy to spot, however, thanks in no small measure to the very feature, Appendix A, which made his book so superficially impressive and persuasive. All page citations to follow are taken from the original hardback edition, published by Bernard Geis in late 1967.

Appendix A had two components. The first comprised a two-page “Dealey Plaza Chart: Location of Witnesses” (pp.252-253), which represented the first detailed attempt to plot who stood where, precisely the kind of basic detail the Warren Report should have, but did not, provide in readily accessible form. The second part was entitled “Master List of Assassination Witnesses.” Spread over eighteen pages (pp.254-271), it listed the eyewitnesses in alphabetical order by surname, assigning numbers to each of the witnesses in accord with that order. The table offered ten column headings, in addition to the number and witness name, as follows: “Location,” “No. of Shots,” “Bunching of Shots,” “Direction of Sound/Shots,” “Total time of Shots,” “Date of [Witness] Report,” “References,” and most salient “Remarks.” The format of the summary of each of the mis-located witnesses and their testimonies which follows was furnished by Michael Hogan, in the course of an exchange on the subject of Thompson’s veracity. I take this opportunity to state that Michael in no way shares my criticisms of Thompson.

The ostensible purpose of the Appendix A was to provide the reader with the most detailed and honest study yet of the witnesses, their locations, and observations (1). So much for the ostensible. Its real purpose was very different – to serve as an icebreaker for the soon-to-be-relaunched Zapruder dreadnought, together with its little flotilla of supporting filmlets. Any observation or witness held an impediment to the uncritical reception of the Zapruder film (public version 2) was given short shrift by Thompson, as we shall see.

First up, then, two among the closest to the shooting, Mr and Mrs Jack Franzen:

Mrs. Franzen, witness 54, p.258:

Location: N. side of Elm

No. of shots: 3

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/25/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: 24H525

Remarks: After 1st shot, notice small fragments flying inside the car.

Mr. Franzen, witness 53, p.258:

Location: N. side of Elm

No. of shots: 3 or 4

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/24/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: Archives, CD 5, p.46; 22H840

Remarks: After 1st shot, notice small fragments flying inside the car.

So much for Thompson’s summaries. In fact, the Franzens were on the south curb of Elm (2); and their accounts more interesting than Thompson would have his readers discover by reading them for themselves.

Notes:

(1) Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), Appendix 1, pp.399- 402, produced a list of 266 names “present at the scene of the assassination who were known to the Commission,” plus “11 additional names…mentioned in newspaper dispatches on November 22 and 23, 1963.”

(2) Edward J. Epstein. Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth (NY: Viking Press, 1966), p.87: “Eight witnesses standing across the street from the knoll,” and proceeded to list them in the relevant note, 91, on p.213: Jean Hill, H. Betzner, J. Altgens, J. Tague, J. Franzen, M. Moorman, Mrs. Franzen, and C. Brehm.

[Denis Pointing]

Time to bring together, on a single thread, the full, sorry tale.

Part 1: The Muchmore film

Thompson claims:

JFK Lancer: 2064, Why all the assassination films are authentic!

Posted by Josiah Thompson, Wed Dec-31-69 06:00 PM

Wed Apr-30-03 08:37 AM

Richard Trask wrote about this in both his book, “Pictures of the Pain,” drawing on an earlier article by UPI’s Maurice Schonfeld in the “Columbia Journalism Review.” According to Trask, Marie Muchmore walked into the Dallas office of United Press International (UPI) and sold her film to them UNDEVELOPED for $1000 on Monday, November 25th. UPI immediately took it to Kodak for processing. UPI then shipped either the original 8mm film or a 16mm print to UPI's home office in New York City. Further research by Gary Mack, has shown that Muchmore's film first was shown in New York around midday Tuesday, November 26th on WNEW-TV.

The Truth:

Of course, further research has revealed nothing of the sort: Mack can’t substantiate his claim; and has singularly failed, after a mere two years-worth of opportunity, to find the newspaper report that is the alleged source for his certainty. For more on this topic, see the thread on this forum: Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? A cinematic shell game sketched

As for the timing of the film’s showing, here is the earliest newspaper clipping yet located on the subject:

Richard K. Doan, “Now the Task of Righting Upset Schedules,” New York Herald Tribune, 27 November 1963, section 1, p.21:

“WNEW-TV (Channel 5) claimed it was the first TV station in the country to televise an amateur photographer’s film footage of President Kennedy’s assassination. The film was distributed by United Press International and aired by Channel 5 at 12:46 a.m. yesterday.”

Thompson claims:

Josiah Thompson, “Proof that the Zapruder Film is Authentic:

“The FBI first learned of the Muchmore film, for example, when it was shown on the New York City station WNEW-TV just after midday on Tuesday, November 26th.”

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...pson-proof.html

The Truth:

5WCH140

Mr. Specter:

How did you obtain a copy of that film?

Mr. Shaneyfelt:

Our first knowledge of this came as a result of a review of the book "Four Days" which covers the assassination period, in which representatives of the FBI noted a colored picture taken from a motion picture film that did not match either the Nix film or the Zapruder film.

Once we established that, then we investigated and learned that it was made by Mrs. Mary Muchmore, and was at that time in the possession of United Press International in New York, and made arrangements for them to furnish us with a copy of the Muchmore film. That is the copy that I used for examination.

In part 2 of this thrilling series, I examine the mislocation of witnesses in Thompson’s 1967 Six Seconds in Dallas.

Paul

Paul with respect, are you sure your not letting your animosity with Josiah Thompson and Gary Mack cloud your better judgement here? There are literally hundreds of references and citations for the Muchmore film first being shown on WNEW TV on 26/Nov/63. To any reasonably minded person that amount of reference would stand as proof. If there are hundreds of ref/citations for the Muchmore film, there are literally THOUSANDS for the Zapruder film first being shown on TV March 1975. Your suggestion that ALL these references are wrong and that it was the Zapruder film shown on WNEW is totally unreasonably. As is your demand that Gary Mack drop everything and search for a 45 year old newspaper clipping. This is starting to resemble a debate with a member of the Flat Earth Society! Your better than that Paul, give it up. Denis.

[Bill Miller]

Of course, further research has revealed nothing of the sort: Mack can’t substantiate his claim; and has singularly failed, after a mere two years-worth of opportunity, to find the newspaper report that is the alleged source for his certainty. For more on this topic, see the thread on this forum: Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? A cinematic shell game sketched

Paul - please tell this forum what Mack has told you directly in your efforts to find this article and why he has not taken the time to find it for you. I said a day or so ago that when I get time and back to the States - I'll find the article. So what do you do - you post a new thread that is nothing more than someone blowing off as much as they can before any more can be done to show that you have been wrong all along. As Denis points out ... there are plenty of other articles that support what Gary has said.

You have not posted anything detailing an exhaustive search. I had asked Mack if you have been corresponding with him in an effort to find the article and he said that he hadn't heard from you in over a year. Mack has read the article and cited various things to me from it that I cannot imagine him merely making it up. If you think that such an attempt as this to try and discredit Mack is somehow working, I can tell you that its not. It discredits you as far as your intentions as a true researcher IMO.

I predict that in the end the article will be found and I hope that people will pay as much attention to your ridiculous modus-operandi than they do the article itself. Just the other day Mack said to me that he had been doing interviews the entire day for the Museum. I cannot recall the exact number that Gary did, 15 to 20 interviews and spent Friday afternoon and all day Saturday working with the Dallas Morning News on a recent story, while at the same time your arm-chair propaganda machine has been in full motion.

Isn't it funny that you cannot sell not one of your outlandish claims to a tabloid and yet Josiah and Gary remain some of the most respected researchers on the JFK assassination.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Josiah Thompson]

Mr. Rigby,

Thank you for your correction to the chart of witnesses at the end of Six Seconds. It is correct that Mr. and Mrs. Franzen were standing on the south side of Elm Street, not the north side.

However, when you write: "The ostensible purpose of the Appendix A was to provide the reader with the most detailed and honest study yet of the witnesses, their locations, and observations (1). So much for the ostensible. Its real purpose was very different – to serve as an icebreaker for the soon-to-be-relaunched Zapruder dreadnought, together with its little flotilla of supporting filmlets. Any observation or witness held an impediment to the uncritical reception of the Zapruder film (public version 2) was given short shrift by Thompson, as we shall see." you are just being silly. Sometimes a mistake is just a mistake and not part of a dark plot.

And did you have something to say about the Chaney matter? Or did I misunderstand you?

In part 2 of this thrilling series, I examine the mislocation of witnesses in Thompson’s 1967 Six Seconds in Dallas.

“We haven’t moved from illusion to truth. We haven’t seen Spade ‘crack the case.’ Rather, we’ve watched Spade participate in a series of events that break up the initial illusion only to replace it with another. There’s no truth anywhere in the story, only ambiguous half-truths, only a face seen darkly in the mirror, a figure disappearing round a corner,”

Josiah Thompson. Gumshoe: Reflections in a Private Eye (London: Pan Books, 1988), p.113.

For advocates of a right frontal gunman, no less than the compilers of the Warren Report, unwelcome testimony is too often an enemy to be fought by any means necessary. In his 1967 book, Six Seconds in Dallas, Josiah Thompson ran the gamut. The omissions, distortions, and outright inversions he deployed were unusually easy to spot, however, thanks in no small measure to the very feature, Appendix A, which made his book so superficially impressive and persuasive. All page citations to follow are taken from the original hardback edition, published by Bernard Geis in late 1967.

Appendix A had two components. The first comprised a two-page “Dealey Plaza Chart: Location of Witnesses” (pp.252-253), which represented the first detailed attempt to plot who stood where, precisely the kind of basic detail the Warren Report should have, but did not, provide in readily accessible form. The second part was entitled “Master List of Assassination Witnesses.” Spread over eighteen pages (pp.254-271), it listed the eyewitnesses in alphabetical order by surname, assigning numbers to each of the witnesses in accord with that order. The table offered ten column headings, in addition to the number and witness name, as follows: “Location,” “No. of Shots,” “Bunching of Shots,” “Direction of Sound/Shots,” “Total time of Shots,” “Date of [Witness] Report,” “References,” and most salient “Remarks.” The format of the summary of each of the mis-located witnesses and their testimonies which follows was furnished by Michael Hogan, in the course of an exchange on the subject of Thompson’s veracity. I take this opportunity to state that Michael in no way shares my criticisms of Thompson.

The ostensible purpose of the Appendix A was to provide the reader with the most detailed and honest study yet of the witnesses, their locations, and observations (1). So much for the ostensible. Its real purpose was very different – to serve as an icebreaker for the soon-to-be-relaunched Zapruder dreadnought, together with its little flotilla of supporting filmlets. Any observation or witness held an impediment to the uncritical reception of the Zapruder film (public version 2) was given short shrift by Thompson, as we shall see.

First up, then, two among the closest to the shooting, Mr and Mrs Jack Franzen:

Mrs. Franzen, witness 54, p.258:

Location: N. side of Elm

No. of shots: 3

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/25/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: 24H525

Remarks: After 1st shot, notice small fragments flying inside the car.

Mr. Franzen, witness 53, p.258:

Location: N. side of Elm

No. of shots: 3 or 4

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/24/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: Archives, CD 5, p.46; 22H840

Remarks: After 1st shot, notice small fragments flying inside the car.

So much for Thompson’s summaries. In fact, the Franzens were on the south curb of Elm (2); and their accounts more interesting than Thompson would have his readers discover by reading them for themselves.

Notes:

(1) Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), Appendix 1, pp.399- 402, produced a list of 266 names “present at the scene of the assassination who were known to the Commission,” plus “11 additional names…mentioned in newspaper dispatches on November 22 and 23, 1963.”

(2) Edward J. Epstein. Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth (NY: Viking Press, 1966), p.87: “Eight witnesses standing across the street from the knoll,” and proceeded to list them in the relevant note, 91, on p.213: Jean Hill, H. Betzner, J. Altgens, J. Tague, J. Franzen, M. Moorman, Mrs. Franzen, and C. Brehm.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Josiah Thompson

[David G. Healy]

Of course, further research has revealed nothing of the sort: Mack can’t substantiate his claim; and has singularly failed, after a mere two years-worth of opportunity, to find the newspaper report that is the alleged source for his certainty. For more on this topic, see the thread on this forum: Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? A cinematic shell game sketched

Paul - please tell this forum what Mack has told you directly in your efforts to find this article and why he has not taken the time to find it for you. I said a day or so ago that when I get time and back to the States - I'll find the article. So what do you do - you post a new thread that is nothing more than someone blowing off as much as they can before any more can be done to show that you have been wrong all along. As Denis points out ... there are plenty of other articles that support what Gary has said.

You have not posted anything detailing an exhaustive search. I had asked Mack if you have been corresponding with him in an effort to find the article and he said that he hadn't heard from you in over a year. Mack has read the article and cited various things to me from it that I cannot imagine him merely making it up. If you think that such an attempt as this to try and discredit Mack is somehow working, I can tell you that its not. It discredits you as far as your intentions as a true researcher IMO.

I predict that in the end the article will be found and I hope that people will pay as much attention to your ridiculous modus-operandi than they do the article itself. Just the other day Mack said to me that he had been doing interviews the entire day for the Museum. I cannot recall the exact number that Gary did, 15 to 20 interviews and spent Friday afternoon and all day Saturday working with the Dallas Morning News on a recent story, while at the same time your arm-chair propaganda machine has been in full motion.

Isn't it funny that you cannot sell not one of your outlandish claims to a tabloid and yet Josiah and Gary remain some of the most respected researchers on the JFK assassination.

why try to defend a ghost? If Gary has something to say, let him say it..... he's on this board multiple times daily.... yet he allows a amateur to be his spokesperson. If you Miller, are representing the 6th Floor Museum as the person to speak publicly on these internet boards simply say so....

[Paul Rigby]

Paul with respect...

Denis, with respect, you intend none, so why employ the formulation?

...are you sure your not letting your animosity with Josiah Thompson and Gary Mack cloud your better judgement here?

No, I'm just tired of reading a lot of inaccurate, unsourced nonsense masquerading as received wisdom. But I do wonder at the extent of your personal commitment to Thompson, and the concomitant hostility to Fetzer, Costella et al. Like, what gives?

It is a measure of the blindness induced in you by this hostility to the anti-alterationists that you fail to comment on Thompson's proven "errors" regarding how and when the FBI learned of the Muchmore film; his reliance on a Mack newspaper clipping that almost certainly doesn't exist; and his mislocation of the Franzens in Six Seconds.

Your "one-eyedness" is shocking. Are you a flat-earther?

There are literally hundreds of references and citations for the Muchmore film first being shown on WNEW TV on 26/Nov/63. To any reasonably minded person that amount of reference would stand as proof.

List them. There aren't. And any reasonably minded person content to settle for "Thompson said Mack says" as proof of anything is a fool or a charlatan.

If there are hundreds of ref/citations for the Muchmore film, there are literally THOUSANDS for the Zapruder film first being shown on TV March 1975. Your suggestion that ALL these references are wrong and that it was the Zapruder film shown on WNEW is totally unreasonably. As is your demand that Gary Mack drop everything and search for a 45 year old newspaper clipping. This is starting to resemble a debate with a member of the Flat Earth Society! Your better than that Paul, give it up. Denis.

That's a very compelling argument, Denis: The agreed lie must be true. It ain't.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

Paul - please tell this forum what Mack has told you directly in your efforts to find this article and why he has not taken the time to find it for you. I said a day or so ago that when I get time and back to the States - I'll find the article.

Bet you don't.

So what do you do - you post a new thread that is nothing more than someone blowing off as much as they can before any more can be done to show that you have been wrong all along. As Denis points out ... there are plenty of other articles that support what Gary has said.

Mack's the ultimate source for Thompson, you, and all the others - if Mack can't substantiate his own claim, none of you can, and the claim should be withdrawn and an apology offered.

You have not posted anything detailing an exhaustive search.

As is demonstrated in the recent thread on Muchmore and WNEW-TV, I've done more work on the subject than you or any your anti-alterationist chums. The fact that I've bothered is what irks you and Denis. Tough.

I had asked Mack if you have been corresponding with him in an effort to find the article and he said that he hadn't heard from you in over a year. Mack has read the article and cited various things to me from it that I cannot imagine him merely making it up. If you think that such an attempt as this to try and discredit Mack is somehow working, I can tell you that its not. It discredits you as far as your intentions as a true researcher IMO.

Your opinion is perverse and illogical. Mack must either substantiate his claim or withdraw it. It couldn't be simpler, or more fair. He who asserts must prove. Mack can't.

I predict that in the end the article will be found and I hope that people will pay as much attention to your ridiculous modus-operandi than they do the article itself.

You're the expert, Bill, on ridiculous MOs. You substitute blind faith and obedience for evidence and research.

Just the other day Mack said to me that he had been doing interviews the entire day for the Museum. I cannot recall the exact number that Gary did, 15 to 20 interviews and spent Friday afternoon and all day Saturday working with the Dallas Morning News on a recent story, while at the same time your arm-chair propaganda machine has been in full motion.

Mack's been that busy for two years? Really?

Isn't it funny that you cannot sell not one of your outlandish claims to a tabloid and yet Josiah and Gary remain some of the most respected researchers on the JFK assassination.

CIA owns the National Enquirer, Bill, not me. Though I am flattered, one-man band that I am, to be characterised as an "arm-chair propaganda machine." Jeesh, talk about paranoia.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

Mr. Rigby,

Thank you for your correction to the chart of witnesses at the end of Six Seconds. It is correct that Mr. and Mrs. Franzen were standing on the south side of Elm Street, not the north side.

A pleasure to have been of assistance. I fully intend to offer you more such opportunities.

Sometimes a mistake is just a mistake and not part of a dark plot.

In isolation, perfectly plausible. But is it an isolated mistake?

And did you have something to say about the Chaney matter? Or did I misunderstand you?

Only intentionally. But a little patience, Mr. Thompson, after all, your readers had to wait a mere 40+ years for you to get round to correcting the Franzens mistake.

Paul

[Denis Pointing]

Paul with respect...

Denis, with respect, you intend none, so why employ the formulation?

...are you sure your not letting your animosity with Josiah Thompson and Gary Mack cloud your better judgement here?

No, I'm just tired of reading a lot of inaccurate, unsourced nonsense masquerading as received wisdom. But I do wonder at the extent of your personal commitment to Thompson, and the concomitant hostility to Fetzer, Costella et al. Like, what gives?

It is a measure of the blindness induced in you by this hostility to the anti-alterationists that you fail to comment on Thompson's proven "errors" regarding how and when the FBI learned of the Muchmore film; his reliance on a Mack newspaper clipping that almost certainly doesn't exist; and his mislocation of the Franzens in Six Seconds.

Your "one-eyedness" is shocking. Are you a flat-earther?

There are literally hundreds of references and citations for the Muchmore film first being shown on WNEW TV on 26/Nov/63. To any reasonably minded person that amount of reference would stand as proof.

List them. There aren't. And any reasonably minded person content to settle for "Thompson said Mack says" as proof of anything is a fool or a charlatan.

If there are hundreds of ref/citations for the Muchmore film, there are literally THOUSANDS for the Zapruder film first being shown on TV March 1975. Your suggestion that ALL these references are wrong and that it was the Zapruder film shown on WNEW is totally unreasonably. As is your demand that Gary Mack drop everything and search for a 45 year old newspaper clipping. This is starting to resemble a debate with a member of the Flat Earth Society! Your better than that Paul, give it up. Denis.

That's a very compelling argument, Denis: The agreed lie must be true. It ain't.

Paul

Paul, you wonder at the hostility I feel towards Fetzer, Costella et al? O.K. let me explain it. I belive Fetzer an Co to be members of what I regard to be the lunatic fringe of this case. I belive their paranoid ravings to be an embarrassment to serious researchers. I belive their sensationalist rantings do nothing but damage to our cause. Bluntly, these NUTTERS are the reason why so many of the general public laugh at us and more importantly refuse to even listen to our arguments or take us seriously. Oh yeah, I also dislike them because I'm secretly a top level operative for the C.I.A. planted here as a disinformation agent. Is that what you really want to hear Paul? If you want to see the references/citations I mentioned, just use "Google". Oh sorry, I forgot, you belive Google to be a tool of the C.I.A. dont you Paul. LOL

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Paul with respect...

Denis, with respect, you intend none, so why employ the formulation?

...are you sure your not letting your animosity with Josiah Thompson and Gary Mack cloud your better judgement here?

No, I'm just tired of reading a lot of inaccurate, unsourced nonsense masquerading as received wisdom. But I do wonder at the extent of your personal commitment to Thompson, and the concomitant hostility to Fetzer, Costella et al. Like, what gives?

It is a measure of the blindness induced in you by this hostility to the anti-alterationists that you fail to comment on Thompson's proven "errors" regarding how and when the FBI learned of the Muchmore film; his reliance on a Mack newspaper clipping that almost certainly doesn't exist; and his mislocation of the Franzens in Six Seconds.

Your "one-eyedness" is shocking. Are you a flat-earther?

There are literally hundreds of references and citations for the Muchmore film first being shown on WNEW TV on 26/Nov/63. To any reasonably minded person that amount of reference would stand as proof.

List them. There aren't. And any reasonably minded person content to settle for "Thompson said Mack says" as proof of anything is a fool or a charlatan.

If there are hundreds of ref/citations for the Muchmore film, there are literally THOUSANDS for the Zapruder film first being shown on TV March 1975. Your suggestion that ALL these references are wrong and that it was the Zapruder film shown on WNEW is totally unreasonably. As is your demand that Gary Mack drop everything and search for a 45 year old newspaper clipping. This is starting to resemble a debate with a member of the Flat Earth Society! Your better than that Paul, give it up. Denis.

That's a very compelling argument, Denis: The agreed lie must be true. It ain't.

Paul

Paul, you wonder at the hostility I feel towards Fetzer, Costella et al? O.K. let me explain it. I belive Fetzer an Co to be members of what I regard to be the lunatic fringe of this case. I belive their paranoid ravings to be an embarrassment to serious researchers. I belive their sensationalist rantings do nothing but damage to our cause. Bluntly, these NUTTERS are the reason why so many of the general public laugh at us and more importantly refuse to even listen to our arguments or take us seriously. Oh yeah, I also dislike them because I'm secretly a top level operative for the C.I.A. planted here as a disinformation agent. Is that what you really want to hear Paul? If you want to see the references/citations I mentioned, just use "Google". Oh sorry, I forgot, you belive Google to be a tool of the C.I.A. dont you Paul. LOL

I'm secretly a top level operative for the C.I.A. planted here as a disinformation agent.

If true, then they have again lied, as they told me that I was the only one here!

P.S. I thought that was you that I saw going into our phonebooth entrance.

P.P.S. My compliments for the well written response. I tried it once but for some reason could not cease to continuously write "Garbage" and "BS" throughout it's body.

[Paul Rigby]

So much for Thompson’s summaries. In fact, the Franzens were on the south curb of Elm; and their accounts more interesting than Thompson would have his readers discover by reading them for themselves.

OK, while we’re on the subject of the Franzens, and Mr T’s apology for mislocating both parents and son – don’t forget the son: three mislocations for the price of one, now that’s what I call value for the reader’s money - on the wrong side of Elm, let’s jump a category in the thread, and move, for the moment, to the third category of my planned series:

Censored and misleading summaries of eyewitness testimony in Six Seconds in Dallas

For Thompson’s apology with respect to the Franzens to constitute meaningful contrition, it should have extended to his summaries of their testimony, for his mislocation was most definitely not his only “error” in his treatment of the family. First, a reminder of Thompson’s summaries of the parents’ statements:

Mrs. Franzen, witness 54, p.258:

Location: N. side of Elm

No. of shots: 3

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/25/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: 24H525

Remarks: After 1st shot, notice small fragments flying inside the car.

Mr. Franzen, witness 53, p.258:

Location: N. side of Elm

No. of shots: 3 or 4

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/24/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: Archives, CD 5, p.46; 22H840

Remarks: After 1st shot, notice small fragments flying inside the car.

Now for Mrs. Franzens’ testimony, edited for pith, from 24H525. She was interviewed on the day of the assassination by FBI men Ellington and Loeffler, who dictated their notes for transcription three days later, on November 25. Is Thompson’s summary remotely fair or adequate, even given its limitation of length?

“Shortly after the President’s automobile passed by…she heard a noise which sounded to her as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile…at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile…

She advised she heard two other sounds which sounded like shots from a firearm and noticed blood appearing on the side of President Kennedy’s head.

She does not remember looking at the building housing the Texas School Book Depository…she observed police officers and plain-clothes men, whom she assumed were Secret Service Agents, searching an area adjacent to the TSBD Building, from which area she assumed the shots had come…

She advised her small son called her attention to the fact that some of the men in the automobile behind the President’s car were holding guns in their hands shortly after the shots…and stated she assumed these men were Secret Service Agents.”

http://www.jfk-online.com/mrsfranzen.html

It is perfectly clear that Mrs Franzen’s testimony was of no use to proponents of Zapruder film authenticity for at least three reasons:

1) The position of the Presidential limousine on Elm when the shooting began was too far down toward the underpass (“Shortly after the President’s automobile passed by…she heard a noise”);

2) The point of origin of that noise “which sounded as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile” (i.e. it originated within the presidential limousine);

3) More than one Secret Service agent in the follow-up car drew a weapon.

Thompson thus had, in composing Six Seconds in 1966/67, a direct, obvious interest in quashing, minimising or redirecting elsewhere reader interest in any and all testimony pointing to 1), 2), and 3) for no such actions and/or features featured in the revised Zapruder fake, the authenticity of which he was, unquestionably, selling.

Worse still, from the point of view of those determined to peddle the revised Z fake to the world, was Mrs Franzen’s husband’s testimony. It was offered to the same FBI duo, and on the same day, as his wife’s. And again, I’ve edited it for essence:

“He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President's car and noticed small fragments flying inside the vehicle and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile…He noticed men, who were presumed to be Secret Service agents, riding in the car directly behind the President’s car, unloading from the car, some with firearms in their hands, and noticed police officers and these plainclothesmen running up the grassy slope across Elm Street from his location – and toward a wooded and busy area located across the Elm Street from him…Because of this activity he presumed the shots…came from the shrubbery or bushes toward which these officers appeared to be running.”

Touchingly, Franzen concluded:

Mr Franzen advised he is aware that the information which he has furnished may not be of any particular significance but advised in view of his close proximity to the President’s vehicle at the time of these shots…”

http://www.jfk-online.com/franzen.html

Jack Franzen not merely confirmed his wife’s testimony concerning an explosion occurring inside the presidential limousine, but also described Secret Servicemen, some of them armed, leaving the follow-up vehicle, whereupon some of them ran up the knoll causing him to doubt his initial reaction as to the shot point of origin. An intellectually honest summary of the Franzens’ testimonies, therefore, would look something like this:

Mrs. Franzen:

Location: S. side of Elm, towards underpass

No. of shots: 3

Bunching of shots: ---

Origin of sound/shots: Initially, inside the car; revised to TSBD due to subsequent search activities of SS & uniformed police

Date of interview: 11/22/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: 24H525

Other salient observations: Shooting commenced after presidential limousine passed her; SS men in follow-up vehicle drew weapons (attrib. to son).

Mr. Franzen:

Location: S. side of Elm, towards underpass

No. of shots: 3 or 4

Bunching of shots: ---

Origin of sound/shots: Initially, inside the car; revised to knoll by subsequent search of SS and uniformed police

Date of report: 11/24/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: Archives, CD 5, p.46; 22H840

Other salient observations: Some SS men in follow-up vehicle, some of them armed, raced up knoll in immediate aftermath of shooting.

The Warren Commissioners never called the Franzens to testify, and the compilers of the Hearings volumes, as we have seen, split their largely congruent testimony, publishing hers in volume 24, and his in volume 22.

Incredibly, Thompson, that unprecedentedly attentive student of the film, and nominal opponent of the cover-up, was even more cavalier with their names (he misspelt the family surname with a “t” in his table), locations and testimony. He placed all three Franzens on the wrong side of Elm, which just happened to “lose” them in the more populous north side; then offered thoroughly misleading summaries of their testimonies; and, like the Warren Reports compilers, ignored their testimony in the main body of Six Seconds’ text.

This latter point is a profoundly significant one. The principle or principles of selection by which Thompson focused on the testimony of some eyewitnesses, while ignoring that emanating, in important cases, from the even better placed, are nowhere articulated and defended in Six Seconds, but can be inferred: If they matched the thesis advanced in his book, they were in. This will be become even clearer when we examine the extent to which the Franzens’ observations were corroborated by other witnesses and sources. They were anything but isolated or eccentric observers, as we shall see.

In Six Seconds, Thompson served as a classic establishment gate-keeper, masquerading as critic. He was not alone, of course.

[Denis Pointing]

Paul with respect...

Denis, with respect, you intend none, so why employ the formulation?

...are you sure your not letting your animosity with Josiah Thompson and Gary Mack cloud your better judgement here?

No, I'm just tired of reading a lot of inaccurate, unsourced nonsense masquerading as received wisdom. But I do wonder at the extent of your personal commitment to Thompson, and the concomitant hostility to Fetzer, Costella et al. Like, what gives?

It is a measure of the blindness induced in you by this hostility to the anti-alterationists that you fail to comment on Thompson's proven "errors" regarding how and when the FBI learned of the Muchmore film; his reliance on a Mack newspaper clipping that almost certainly doesn't exist; and his mislocation of the Franzens in Six Seconds.

Your "one-eyedness" is shocking. Are you a flat-earther?

There are literally hundreds of references and citations for the Muchmore film first being shown on WNEW TV on 26/Nov/63. To any reasonably minded person that amount of reference would stand as proof.

List them. There aren't. And any reasonably minded person content to settle for "Thompson said Mack says" as proof of anything is a fool or a charlatan.

If there are hundreds of ref/citations for the Muchmore film, there are literally THOUSANDS for the Zapruder film first being shown on TV March 1975. Your suggestion that ALL these references are wrong and that it was the Zapruder film shown on WNEW is totally unreasonably. As is your demand that Gary Mack drop everything and search for a 45 year old newspaper clipping. This is starting to resemble a debate with a member of the Flat Earth Society! Your better than that Paul, give it up. Denis.

That's a very compelling argument, Denis: The agreed lie must be true. It ain't.

Paul

Paul, you wonder at the hostility I feel towards Fetzer, Costella et al? O.K. let me explain it. I belive Fetzer an Co to be members of what I regard to be the lunatic fringe of this case. I belive their paranoid ravings to be an embarrassment to serious researchers. I belive their sensationalist rantings do nothing but damage to our cause. Bluntly, these NUTTERS are the reason why so many of the general public laugh at us and more importantly refuse to even listen to our arguments or take us seriously. Oh yeah, I also dislike them because I'm secretly a top level operative for the C.I.A. planted here as a disinformation agent. Is that what you really want to hear Paul? If you want to see the references/citations I mentioned, just use "Google". Oh sorry, I forgot, you belive Google to be a tool of the C.I.A. dont you Paul. LOL

I'm secretly a top level operative for the C.I.A. planted here as a disinformation agent.

If true, then they have again lied, as they told me that I was the only one here!

P.S. I thought that was you that I saw going into our phonebooth entrance.

P.P.S. My compliments for the well written response. I tried it once but for some reason could not cease to continuously write "Garbage" and "BS" throughout it's body.

That's because your from southern America Tom, we express our selves a lot much more beter in southern England. LOL

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Paul with respect...

Denis, with respect, you intend none, so why employ the formulation?

...are you sure your not letting your animosity with Josiah Thompson and Gary Mack cloud your better judgement here?

No, I'm just tired of reading a lot of inaccurate, unsourced nonsense masquerading as received wisdom. But I do wonder at the extent of your personal commitment to Thompson, and the concomitant hostility to Fetzer, Costella et al. Like, what gives?

It is a measure of the blindness induced in you by this hostility to the anti-alterationists that you fail to comment on Thompson's proven "errors" regarding how and when the FBI learned of the Muchmore film; his reliance on a Mack newspaper clipping that almost certainly doesn't exist; and his mislocation of the Franzens in Six Seconds.

Your "one-eyedness" is shocking. Are you a flat-earther?

There are literally hundreds of references and citations for the Muchmore film first being shown on WNEW TV on 26/Nov/63. To any reasonably minded person that amount of reference would stand as proof.

List them. There aren't. And any reasonably minded person content to settle for "Thompson said Mack says" as proof of anything is a fool or a charlatan.

If there are hundreds of ref/citations for the Muchmore film, there are literally THOUSANDS for the Zapruder film first being shown on TV March 1975. Your suggestion that ALL these references are wrong and that it was the Zapruder film shown on WNEW is totally unreasonably. As is your demand that Gary Mack drop everything and search for a 45 year old newspaper clipping. This is starting to resemble a debate with a member of the Flat Earth Society! Your better than that Paul, give it up. Denis.

That's a very compelling argument, Denis: The agreed lie must be true. It ain't.

Paul

Paul, you wonder at the hostility I feel towards Fetzer, Costella et al? O.K. let me explain it. I belive Fetzer an Co to be members of what I regard to be the lunatic fringe of this case. I belive their paranoid ravings to be an embarrassment to serious researchers. I belive their sensationalist rantings do nothing but damage to our cause. Bluntly, these NUTTERS are the reason why so many of the general public laugh at us and more importantly refuse to even listen to our arguments or take us seriously. Oh yeah, I also dislike them because I'm secretly a top level operative for the C.I.A. planted here as a disinformation agent. Is that what you really want to hear Paul? If you want to see the references/citations I mentioned, just use "Google". Oh sorry, I forgot, you belive Google to be a tool of the C.I.A. dont you Paul. LOL

I'm secretly a top level operative for the C.I.A. planted here as a disinformation agent.

If true, then they have again lied, as they told me that I was the only one here!

P.S. I thought that was you that I saw going into our phonebooth entrance.

P.P.S. My compliments for the well written response. I tried it once but for some reason could not cease to continuously write "Garbage" and "BS" throughout it's body.

That's because your from southern America Tom, we express our selves a lot much more beter in southern England. LOL

That's because your from southern America Tom,

Sounds much better than the "genetic inbreeding" potential cause!

"Ya'll" are full of BS has been a common expression down here for as long as I can remember.

[Paul Rigby]

In part 2 of this thrilling series, I examine the mislocation of witnesses in Thompson’s 1967 Six Seconds in Dallas.

Theme the second: Mislocation of witnesses…

Witness 66, p.259, in Thompson’s Six Seconds table is Mrs Charles Hester. Here is Thompson’s summary of her evidence in the, by now, familiar format:

Location: N. side of Elm St. on slope

No. of shots: 2

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/25/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: 24H523

Remarks: Thinks she and her husband were in the direct line of fire

Here is Mrs Hester’s full statement to the FBI, from the Hearings volume and page cited by Thompson, as made on 24 November 1963:

Mrs CHARLES HESTER, 2619 Keyhold Street, Irving, Texas, advised that sometime around 12:30 p.m., on November 22, 1963, she and her husband were standing along the street at a place immediately preceding the underpass on Elm Street, where President Kennedy was shot. Mrs HESTER advised she heard two loud noises which sounded like gunshots, and she saw President KENNEDY slump in the seat of the car he was riding in. Her husband grabbed then grabbed her and shoved her to the ground. Shortly thereafter they went across to the north side of the street on an embankment in an attempt to gain shelter. She stated that she believes she and her husband actually had been in the direct line of fire. She did not see anyone with a gun when the shots were fired and stated she could not furnish any information as to exactly where the shots came from. After the President’s car had pulled away from the scene, she and her husband proceeded to their car and left the area as she was very upset.”

In other words, Thompson’s summary of Mrs Hester’s location and statement is “erroneous” in the extreme. An honest version would read:

Location: S. side of Elm St. close to underpass

No. of shots: 2

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/24/63

Total time of shots: ---

References: 24H523

Remarks: Accompanied by husband; thinks she and her husband were in the direct line of fire

Inevitably, in the case of this witness and her husband, there’s a lot more at stake than normal, for the Hesters feature on a pre-assassination Zapruder film sequence; and are central to an attempt to create an important post-assassination photographic verifier for the Zapruder-Sitzman presence on the concrete abutment. Read on.

Costella vindicated: Why Altgens didn’t remember the Hesters or his seventh photo

In John Costella’s “A Scientist’s Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication,” the second chapter of part II of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and deception in the death of JFK (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 2003), he devotes a section to the question of how many photographs AP’s James Altgens took of the motorcade, the assassination and its aftermath. The relevant extract runs as follows:

“But the second additional photograph (allegedly the seventh and last in the sequence overall) is even more problematical. This purports to show Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman walking away from the ‘Zapruder pedestal,” with the Hesters crouched on the ground nearby. If genuine, it would be the clearest photographic evidence actually showing Abraham Zapruder in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination – albeit from behind.

The problem with this additional photograph is that Altgens explicitly states what he did after taking this photo of Clint Hill on the back of the limousine: he crossed to the north side of Elm Street! Yet a detailed analysis reveals that this extra photograph was taken from the south side of Elm. Altgens also described in detail for Liebeler everything he observed after the assassination…Does he describe Zapruder and Sitzman, or the Hester couple crouched on the ground – a sight he apparently thought worthy enough to take a photograph of? Absolutely not…So where were Zapruder, Sitzman and the Hesters? Why don’t they rate a mention at all in the Altgens testimony?,” pp.204-205

The answers couldn’t be more straightforward: the Hesters weren’t there at the time Altgens crossed the road; and Altgens did not take the seventh photo attributed to him by Trask (1), Thompson (2) et al. The Hesters were instead, at best, en route; and someone else took the photo:

Mrs Charles Hester statement to the FBI, 24 November 1963, as recorded by J. Doyle Williams and Henry J. Oliver, 24H523:

Mrs CHARLES HESTER, 2619 Keyhold Street, Irving, Texas, advised that sometime around 12:30 p.m., on November 22, 1963, she and her husband were standing along the street at a place immediately preceding the underpass on Elm Street, where President Kennedy was shot. Mrs HESTER advised she heard two loud noises which sounded like gunshots, and she saw President KENNEDY slump in the seat of the car he was riding in. Her husband grabbed then grabbed her and shoved her to the ground. Shortly thereafter they went across to the north side of the street on an embankment in an attempt to gain shelter. She stated that she believes she and her husband actually had been in the direct line of fire. She did not see anyone with a gun when the shots were fired and stated she could not furnish any information as to exactly where the shots came from. After the President’s car had pulled away from the scene, she and her husband proceeded to their car and left the area as she was very upset.”

Where are the Hesters on the Zapruder film, public version two? Why do we not see them on it when, according to Mrs Hester, at the time of the shooting, she and her husband were close to the underpass on the south side of Elm, allegedly facing Zapruder’s camera?

Notes

(1) Richard B. Trask. Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the assassination of President Kennedy (Danvers, Ma: Yeoman Press, 1994), pp. 316-317: “With the presidential Lincoln disappearing into the underpass, Altgens made a picture of the activity across Elm Street showing amateur movie maker Abraham Zapruder and his secretary Marilyn Sitzman just after they had gotten down from the concrete wall from where he had filmed the assassination. In the middle of the frame are Mr and Mrs Charles Hester hunkered down in front of the colonnade area.”

(2) Josiah Thompson, Proof the Zapruder Film Is Authentic: “Marilyn then described how she and Abe got down off the pedestal, ran down the hill in front of the pedestal and then made their way back into the pergola structure. They were photographed there first by AP photographer James Altgens and then by Art Rickerby of Life magazine.”

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...pson-proof.html

Paul