Jump to content
The Education Forum

Then and Now


Recommended Posts

I am only an occasional visitor to this forum or to any of the various internet forums. But I have been a part of the society of people doing research on the Kennedy assassination for over forty-two years. Hence, I have an interest in the quality and character of discussion in this area. Given what I’ve observed over the last several weeks here, I’m appalled by what passes for intelligent discussion. I’d like to bring a few facts to everyone’s attention in hopes that, over time, attention will yield some sort of remedial action.

I wrote something for this forum when I learned that it had been a locus of debate for the latest pronouncement of James Fetzer concerning his claim that the Zapruder film had been faked up. I found the thread: “New Proof of Film Fakery” with Prof. Fetzer’s “press release” announcing “the discovery of new proof” that the Zapruder and Nix films had been faked up. According to Fetzer, this was “a major breakthrough.” Jack White added his imprimatur that Fetzer’s announcement was “perhaps the most important information developed in the past several years.”

It didn’t take long to find the critical flaw in their argument. They were comparing some comments to a newsman by motorcycle cop James Chaney (buttressed by ambiguous remarks on the part of people in the pilot car) with the film evidence of the Nix and Zapruder films. These films show Officer Chaney dropping back about the time JFK was hit in the head while Chaney commented to the newsman, “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit.” What Fetzer’s announcement ignored was the fact that there were many more films which confirmed what we see in the Zapruder and Nix films. The Muchmore film, for example, shows Chaney dropping back. A still photo taken by James Altgens shows that no motorcycle was pursuing the limousine. The Bell movie film shows the same thing. Finally, both the Daniel movie film and the McIntire still photo show the limousine overtaking the pilot car the far side of the overpass while Chaney trails both by several hundred feet. In short, either Fetzer and company were simply wrong in pressing too far Chaney’s idle comment or all these films and photos were faked up for some unknown purpose.

I pointed this out. Fetzer’s response was to channel John Costella from Australia in his Post #26, 2/10/08 under “New Proof of Film Fakery”:

“Tink, you’ve lost it mate. At the time I was born you were perhaps the world’s foremost expert on the Zapruder film. Now you don’t even have an inkling of what it shows. Time to start taking notice of those ‘senior moments’ you’ve been having and start wearing the diapers. I need to repeat things for my mother, who has a similar problem and is about your age, so let me do it for you...”

Just lovely! But neither Costella nor Fetzer would reply to the simple and obvious question: Are you now claiming that all these films/photos – Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Altgents, Bell, Daniel and McIntire – have been faked up? Instead of replying to the argument put forward, Fetzer channeling Costella now says critics of their view believe that Chaney “dematerialized” and then later “rematerialized” beyond the overpass. Of course, we were claiming no such thing... only that Chaney lagged, as the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films show him lagging, and then had to catch up to deliver his message to Chief Curry in the pilot car.

Enter from stage right Paul Rigby with a thread meant to punish entitled : “How reliable is Josiah Thompson? We can find the ‘mistakes,’ but where are the apologies?” If ever a thread was designed from first to last to be a hit piece this is it. Mr. Rigby begins:

“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... 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..."

Later on, he writes: “Thompson served as a classic establishment gate-keeper, masquerading as critic... He is after all a right-wing, American male.. Thompson played a not insignificant role in constructing the dominant assassination paradigm, a model which continues to hold considerable sway to this day. If the foundations of this construct can be demonstrated to be rotten, as they have been, good things may yet follow. There are too many [mistakes] for them to be accidental. End of. Did Thompson know the Z film version circa 1967 was a fake? I can't construct any alternative explanation that works better. In order to cover something up, after all, you have to have a pretty good idea what the truth is.”

This, of course, is absolute lunacy. But let’s see if Mr. Rigby can move his argument. He maintains that there are mistakes in Appendix A of “Six Seconds” which are not just “mistakes” but indications of a devious plot on Thompson’s part “relaunch the Zapruder dreadnaught.” In this capacity, Thompson stands as “a gatekeeper for the establishment... a right-wing American male.”

Appendix A summarizes the reports of 190 witnesses in Dealey Plaza with respect to four important evidentiary issues: (1) Number of shots, (2) Bunching of shots, (3) Direction of sound/shots, (4) total time of shots. In addition, with respect to each witness additional information is given such as witness name, location, date of report, reference for report, remarks.

Mr. Rigby’s first attempt to prove my devious plot to defend the Zapruder film in 1967 was to point to a typo. It is true that Appendix A got its directions switched and mislocated the Franzens on the north side of Elm Street when they were on the south side of Elm Street. I checked the references and immediately confirmed that Mr. Rigby’s discovery was correct.

Next he claimed that I had mis-located Mr. and Mrs. Hester north of Elm Street and that this was again part of a plot to defend the Zapruder film. When it was pointed out that the Zapruder film shows them near the Pergola (north of Elm St.) before the shooting and that #7 Altgens shows them near the Pergola (north of Elm St.) seconds after of the shooting, Mr. Rigby cited that great historian John Costella as evidence that the Altgens photo was not taken by Altgens. When it was pointed out that Richard Sprague and Richard Trask had verified that the negative of Altgens #7 was in the AP files in both chronological and serial order with the other Altgens negatives, Mr. Rigby had no reply. Hence, there was no mistake here. Mr. Rigby was just wrong. And when his own mistake is pointed out to him, he doesn’t even reply.

Next he incoherently attempted to find fault with how I characterized the reports of two witnesses (Austin Miller, Royce Skelton). When I checked and reported back that my characterization of their reports was true in every respect, he had no reply. Once again, everything I said about Miller and Skelton was correct. Mr. Rigby was just wrong. When this is pointed out to Mr. Rigby, he has nothing to say.

Now comes a real doozie! Mr. Rigby charges that I am “misogynistic,” and you “don’t have to be a feminist to find Thompson’s performance appalling.” And what is the evidence for this appalling misogyny on Thompson’s part? He failed to include in Appendix A the reports of three women (Gloria Holt, Stella Mae Jacobs, Sharon Nelson and Carol Reed), instead banishing them to a lesser list entitled “OTHER WITNESSES MENTIONED IN GOVERNMENT REPORTS.” These women and other witnesses were excluded from the chart for the simple reason that their reports said nothing about (1) number of shots, (2) bunching of shots, (3) direction of sounds/shots, (4) total time of shots. The reasons they were excluded was even given on that page where it reads:“Although the names of the following witnesses appear in official government reports, the witnesses were either not questioned by any investigative agency, or were questioned so superficially as not to elicit significant data.” Can’t Mr. Rigby read? They were left out of the chart because they didn’t say anything significant. When this is pointed out to Mr. Rigby, does he reply? No, he just keeps quiet.

Next he charges that I mischaracterized the reports of three witnesses: Karen Westbrook, Karan Hicks and Gloria Calvery. As before, with respect to Westbrook and Hicks, he is just plain wrong. The characterization in the chart is true and correct. This was pointed out to Mr. Rigby. Did he have anything to say? No.

With respect to the third witness, Mr. Rigby is partially correct. He says that the Appendix mistakenly says with respect to Calvery: “JFK directly in front of her on last shot.” This, once again is a typo and a rather harmless one at that. Why do I say “harmless?” Because Calvery is positioned on a map on page 32 of Six Seconds that locates various witnesses at the time of the first shot. There she is quoted correctly as follows: “The car he [the President] was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot.” (22H638) When this is pointed out to Mr. Rigby, does he reply? No, he says nothing.

But Mr. Rigby keeps at it. Only yesterday, he called attention to the presence of Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone in Appendix A. Rigby agrees with my characterization of Boone’s testimony before the Commission. What then is the problem? Apparently, the problem is that I didn’t also mention as a reference for Boone a report he wrote out on November 22nd and which was published as part of the Decker Exhibit. In this report, Boone says, "…I heard three shots coming [sic] from the vicinity of where the President's car was…” Mr. Rigby would have it that something important was missed by not including this as part of Boone’s summary. When you add into the equation something Mr. Rigby keeps from his reader (namely that Boone says he was standing in front of the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office at 505 Main Street when he heard “three shots coming from the vicinity of where the President’s car was”), all Boone is really saying is the that the shots seem to come from the direction of Elm Street in Dealey Plaza. This is hardly a terrifically important piece of information. Whether or not in 1967, I was even aware of this innocuous observation I can’t say.

So let’s add up the tab. Mr. Rigby discovered that a typo was made in the locating of the Franzens; they were on the south side of Elm Street not the north side. He also discovered that another typo marred the entry for Gloria Calvery; the limousine was in front of her for the first shot not the last shot but it’s hard to make much of this since her correct report was included in the text. Finally, I may have missed a second reference for Eugene Boone. These are the sum total of Mr. Rigby’s diligent researches which have continued now for over a week. I am surprised there aren’t more.

If one carefully peers under the cloak of inflated rhetoric, one finds that there is nothing there. That is the lesson of carefully dealing with each charge in turn. The conclusion is obvious. Instead of attempting to deal with the evidentiary point itself — namely, that either you’re wrong and should admit it or all the other photos fake because they don’t show Chaney doing what you think he should be doing — you put together a drive-by shooting of random and irrelevant charges to undermine the credibility of your interlocutor.

It was not always this way. I remember back in the beginning we critics worked together to make sure each other’s work was free from error. We shared any information that had come our way through diligent digging. I remember to this day when Paul Hoch sent to Vince Salandria and me a photocopy of the Sibert-O’Neill report which he had just obtained. None of us had any exotic credentials or cared about credentials. What we cared about was getting the facts right. Sylvia Meagher was a real bear about this and would brook no nonsense.

I look around now and scratch my head. It seems often like claims of Kennedy film forgery and 911 nonsense almost coalesce. Whoever can make the most outrageous claim seems to be deemed the winner and patient, critical analysis seems to drop by the wayside. Feverish rhetoric and pungent insult seems to be the currency of the day. This is not my world. In patiently taking apart Paul Rigby’s, nonsensical claims I’ve already wasted a lot of time and effort. I won’t waste more. But this world of dialogue is your world and I would hope you could do something to make it more productive. I have no suggestions as to what that might be but I wish you well in finding a way forward. Actually, that way forward just might consist in a majority of people not letting the lunatic fringe get away with anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I look around now and scratch my head. It seems often like claims of Kennedy film forgery and 911 nonsense almost coalesce. Whoever can make the most outrageous claim seems to be deemed the winner and patient, critical analysis seems to drop by the wayside" Why are you conflating 9/11 scepticism at the end here? Does not seem logical.

Don't you think its possible that some ridiculous 9/11 theories are used to divert attention from the real issue, the fact that the Official 9/11 Report has, over time, been proven thoroughly worthless. Or do you have more confidence in the report the Mr Keene and Mr. Oversight from Indiana?

I know that this is not the point of your thread, but it seems ironic if you are trying to accuse others of drive-by name-calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not always this way. I remember back in the beginning we critics worked together

So I've noticed, by reading John Kelin's excellent work "Praise From a Future Generation."

What happened? And why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, John Kelin has really produced a quite amazing labor of love. I don't know where it went crazy but clearly the entry of the lunatic fringe into discussion marked the beginning of the end. I'm sure people who have stayed closer to the discussion than I have will have more insight. I just find the discussion that goes on now on many threads has virtually no intellectual integrity. I feel just sad remembering how the whole thing began and the brilliance of the people who started it.

It was not always this way. I remember back in the beginning we critics worked together

So I've noticed, by reading John Kelin's excellent work "Praise From a Future Generation."

What happened? And why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I'have no opinion on the 9/11 report.

However, I do have an opinion on the silly claims of controlled demolitions and the like at the World Trade Center in New York. For the last couple of years, I've been investigating for ConEd the collapse of WTC7 on 9/11. ConEd's substation lay under WTC7. That means going over detailed engineering studies of its construction and its collapse, interviewing hundreds of firemen who were down there on 9/11, scounging up all the photos and video we can find of the building. James Fetzer, who has been pushing the Zapruder fake film argument interminably, is also founder of something called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth." That is, he was until he excommunicated the cofounder. Right now the movement seems to be in some partially Fetzer induced chaos. From time to time, Fetzer bloviates about the Towers being destroyed by beams from space or (believe me, I saw it in print!) directed energy beams from the roof of WTC7. I see the same things in claims about the fake Zapruder film (Fetzer and others blowing up the diminutive or non-existent credentials of hangers-on, emphasizing eyewitness reports over photos, the usual paranoid claims about some shadowy intelligence agency being behind this or that) used in pushing controlled demolitions and the like. Same people, same silly arguments... so that's why I link the two.

Are you suggesting that Fetzer and his ilk are really "disinformation agents" employed "to divert attention from the real issue?" That's pretty funny. But no. I don't think so. I think he just bloviates all the time because he can't help himself... bloviation is all he knows how to do.

"I look around now and scratch my head. It seems often like claims of Kennedy film forgery and 911 nonsense almost coalesce. Whoever can make the most outrageous claim seems to be deemed the winner and patient, critical analysis seems to drop by the wayside" Why are you conflating 9/11 scepticism at the end here? Does not seem logical.

Don't you think its possible that some ridiculous 9/11 theories are used to divert attention from the real issue, the fact that the Official 9/11 Report has, over time, been proven thoroughly worthless. Or do you have more confidence in the report the Mr Keene and Mr. Oversight from Indiana?

I know that this is not the point of your thread, but it seems ironic if you are trying to accuse others of drive-by name-calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's entirely correct to say that the critics all used to work together. From my own personal experience, I can tell you that Harold Weisberg, for instance, held almost all the other critics in low regard. I recall him bitterly ranting about virtually every well-known name in the field during a dinner at his home back in the early 1980s. Indeed, it was hard to get him off the subject. I think he considered Mark Lane almost an enemy, and didn't even like to mention his name.

The Lane-Weisberg feud went back at least to the mid-1970s. When I was a teenage volunteer with Lane's Citizens Committee Of Inquiry, everyone in that group considered Weisberg a joke or a crank because Mark Lane did. I'm not sure why they felt that way about each other, but Weisberg took Lane to task early on in his "Whitewash" books. I remember one criticism he constantly leveled at Lane was that he didn't use the actual Warren Commission counsel names in "Rush To Judgment" when excerpting bits of testimony. It was a valid point, but I honestly think Weisberg was jealous of Lane's success.

Penn Jones eventually came to have suspicions about many of the critics. I remember him publishing something about the Mark Lane-Wesley Liebeler debates back in the 1960s, wherein it was alleged that they were staged (something about each of them leaping up and acting outraged, the exact same way each time-word for word). When David Lifton treated Wesley Liebeler with such kid gloves in his "Best Evidence," I know that aroused a lot of suspicions about him.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that unfortunate infighting and competing egos have always been, to some extent, a part of the JFK assassination research community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Thompson wrote:

[...]

Just lovely! But neither Costella nor Fetzer would reply to the simple and obvious question: Are you now claiming that all these films/photos – Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Altgents, Bell, Daniel and McIntire – have been faked up? Instead of replying to the argument put forward, Fetzer channeling Costella now says critics of their view believe that Chaney “dematerialized” and then later “rematerialized” beyond the overpass. Of course, we were claiming no such thing... only that Chaney lagged, as the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films show him lagging, and then had to catch up to deliver his message to Chief Curry in the pilot car.

[...]

you know Dr. Thompson if you (or anyone else for that matter) could deliver anyone of the three in-camera originals above for detailed study by experts, you might be able to get legs with this argument. You see, as of now, quite a few folks don't believe any of the above in-camera originals exist [at this time]. The integrity of ALL three films is precarious at best!

Can you sir, verify the existence of the Nix and Muchmore camera originals? Without that verification, the above point is moot. You're left with the alleged in-camera Zapruder film and on internet boards (and elsewhere) the Z-film film isn't doing well these day's...

I personally believe the same as C. Drago, the beef over the Z-film is a futile argument, enough to throw able bodied researchers into a tizzy and it has created a tizzy. Knowing that the entire Dealey Plaza assassination motion-film record/sequences may be a disaster, in many minds, there's only one area of the assassination left to deal with, LHO. And after John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee, David Lifton in the wings -- Lone Nutter's have their work cut out for them. Frankly I can't see them rising to the occasion, you?

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you say is right and it is a welcome addition to what I said.

I had in mind particularly the quite wonderful friendship I had with Sylvia Meagher, a friendship which lasted through all the petty feuds of the late 60s and 70s,right up to the time of her much too young death. Vince Salandria and I were friends for a time until we started to disagree about the interpretation of evidence. What a surprise? I never had any contact with Weisberg but I heard he was kind of prickly. Mary Ferrell and I were pals.

What is different now, I think, is the way ideology trumps evidentiary matters and the concomitant division into different tribes. Earlier, one might disagree over evidence but one didn't fall into one tribe or another.

But thank you for the correct and very welcome adjustment to what I said. I think you're very right indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your very thoughtful reply. Please understand that the only part of 911 conspiracy thinking that I reject outright is the claim that "controlled demolitions" brought down the two towers and WTC7. All the rest, I just have to say... I don't know.

Peter Dale Scott and I have been pals for thirty-five years. Along with Paul Hoch and Russ Stetler we wrote a book together in the late 70s. I saw Peter at the memorial service for a mutual friend two weeks ago and we had a fine talk about 911.

I think what you said about the early researchers of the JFK killing was right on target. We did think we could make a genuine breakthrough.

Again thanks for your thoughtful comments that put me to thinking.

I think what you say is right and it is a welcome addition to what I said.

I had in mind particularly the quite wonderful friendship I had with Sylvia Meagher, a friendship which lasted through all the petty feuds of the late 60s and 70s,right up to the time of her much too young death. Vince Salandria and I were friends for a time until we started to disagree about the interpretation of evidence. What a surprise? I never had any contact with Weisberg but I heard he was kind of prickly. Mary Ferrell and I were pals.

What is different now, I think, is the way ideology trumps evidentiary matters and the concomitant division into different tribes. Earlier, one might disagree over evidence but one didn't fall into one tribe or another.

But thank you for the correct and very welcome adjustment to what I said. I think you're very right indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know Dr. Thompson if you (or anyone else for that matter) could deliver anyone of the three in-camera originals above for detailed study by experts, you might be able to get legs with this argument. You see, as of now, quite a few folks don't believe any of the above in-camera originals exist [at this time]. The integrity of ALL three films is precarious at best!

Well actually, Zavada, who is an expert in Kodachrome II film has examined the Zapruder film and claimed it to be the camera original. But more interestingly is that the claims of alteration and such doesn't take verification of the films being the originals to spot the silly mistakes within the claims themselves. I assume that you agreed to that point when you stated to the membership of this forum that you have seen 'no proof of alteration'.

Can you sir, verify the existence of the Nix and Muchmore camera originals? Without that verification, the above point is moot. You're left with the alleged in-camera Zapruder film and on internet boards (and elsewhere) the Z-film film isn't doing well these day's...

Who is the Zapruder film not doing well with, David??? Certainly not you and I who have both said that we have seen no proof of alteration. What geniuses are saying differently ... the ones who think rain sensors are listening devices? 6.5 billion people in the world and those who you are speaking about are a select few. One would think that if their claims had any merit that getting a wagon full of real experts to support their claims would be a piece of cake, but it doesn't happen - WHY??? It doesn't happen because anyone with any knowledge of the subject can spot their errors. You cite Costella, who by the way is one of those crack-pots who thinks a rain-sensor is a listening device, or is so paranoid that when his jostled suitcase has his cordless razor kick on inside the bag that it must be related to the CIA.

Josiah mentioned Harold Weisberg and I am probably the last person who ever interviewed Harold before he died. I can say without reservation that Harold viewed the discussion of alteration as 'utter nonsense brought on by ignorant people' - Harold's words ... not mine, even though I agree whole heartedly. One such example has been posted in the past. Costella made a big production out of Moorman's photo having this large window of time whereas it could have been altered to make it appear someone was standing on the pedestal so to help promote one of Jack's alteration claims. Had Costella of just checked with someone who was more of a historian instead of listening to the lunatics around him, then he might have seen NBC's showing of Moorman's photo that was filmed not 35 minutes after the assassination and lo' and behold it shows two people standing on the pedestal. Harold would be turned over in his grave if he could read the foolishness that makes it onto this forum.

I personally believe the same as C. Drago, the beef over the Z-film is a futile argument, enough to throw able bodied researchers into a tizzy and it has created a tizzy. Knowing that the entire Dealey Plaza assassination motion-film record/sequences may be a disaster, in many minds, there's only one area of the assassination left to deal with, LHO. And after John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee, David Lifton in the wings -- Lone Nutter's have their work cut out for them. Frankly I can't see them rising to the occasion, you?

David, I find your recent remarks to be more double-talk on your part when it comes to the sequences seen on the assassination films. For years it was YOU who kept harping for someone to prove once and for all that these films are in sync with one another. Then once it was done ... you shut up for a while. Then you started back in with your 'Baghdad Bob' propaganda and claimed that the films cannot be shown to be the original films, so now they should be suspect on that point. You remind me of the little kid who just wants to jerk chains by saying "WHY?" to every answer you get. Isn't it funny that you pushed for someone testing the films to see if they were in sync as if that would mean something in your view and you had no verification that they were the originals ... nor did it matter. The truth is that this game can easily be seen for what it is. Several hundred people watched the assassination unfold and not a one of them has said that the assassination films, that have been seen countless times, has shown anything other than what they remember. Only a select few double-talkers and paranoid individuals make such assertions. People who write articles on a photo possibly being altered without knowing that it was shown on TV while still in Moorman's possession make such claims ... What a waste of space!!! The boards (as you called them) have become infiltrated with lunatics who post conclusions first and the investigation comes after the fact. They use poor images, which isn't always a fault to them, but not admitting the degree of error they may have made due to not having better images to work with IS their fault and there is no excuse for such reckless shoddiness.

Now before you come back with another ignorant say-nothing reply, first tell me why it is that the alteration pushers cannot get any credible experts to support their alleged earth-shattering finds? Is it your position that all the experts in the world are LNrs ... that simply can't be true. The Enquirer will print a story that JFK survived Dallas and is being kept alive in the basement of the White House, so why cannot anyone get them to print these alteration claims? I know the answer as I suspect that you do, too. Like you said, 'I have seen no proof of alteration.'

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not always this way. I remember back in the beginning we critics worked together

So I've noticed, by reading John Kelin's excellent work "Praise From a Future Generation."

What happened? And why?

In the mid-60's, all the first generation researchers had to do was point

to the bullet holes in JFK's clothes to establish the fact of conspiracy.

I guess this explanation was too simple for the arm-chair detectives who

followed.

Tink, would you care to tell us why you abandoned the emphasis on this

elegant and irrefutable evidence in favor the the highly technical NAA and acoustics

studies, which, after all, require a advanced college degrees to verify?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your very thoughtful reply. Please understand that the only part of 911 conspiracy thinking that I reject outright is the claim that "controlled demolitions" brought down the two towers and WTC7.

Did Newton get it wrong with his First Law?

Care to tell us how the massive steel vertical tri-cores pancake-collapsed

in free-fall speed directly in the path of greatest resistance?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The film alteration argument has failed, in my book.

Zap alteration argument is not only a waste of time, it clouds the important

evidence to be found in the Dealey Plaza film-photos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really think I've "abandoned" anything. Pieces of evidence get their importance and keep that importance as the focus shifts to other, more complicated pieces of evidence. The new work on NAA by Randich and Grant show that any attempt to link bullet fragments by trace element composition is fruitless. Basically, that takes NAA off the table. The acoustics is something else entirely and my own bet is that Don Thomas is very close to justifying that evidence.

The Zapruder film alteration discussion has proved divisive because of the tactics used and should now be over. The claim failed. Actually, the Dealey Plaza photos can tell us an enormous amount about what happened. They repay close study.

It was not always this way. I remember back in the beginning we critics worked together

So I've noticed, by reading John Kelin's excellent work "Praise From a Future Generation."

What happened? And why?

In the mid-60's, all the first generation researchers had to do was point

to the bullet holes in JFK's clothes to establish the fact of conspiracy.

I guess this explanation was too simple for the arm-chair detectives who

followed.

Tink, would you care to tell us why you abandoned the emphasis on this

elegant and irrefutable evidence in favor the the highly technical NAA and acoustics

studies, which, after all, require a advanced college degrees to verify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The film alteration argument has failed, in my book.

Zap alteration argument is not only a waste of time, it clouds the important

evidence to be found in the Dealey Plaza film-photos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

FWIW .... The 'film alteration' claim has always seemed to me to just be something designed to spark sensationalism because of a lack of desire to look for sensible solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...