Did Zapruder take "the Zapruder film"?

[Jack White]

Mr. Fetzer, below you say:

"My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most

blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the

massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.

None of the witnesses observed it. "

You are incorrect. Your claim is not true:

Bill Newman ... "By this time he was directly in front of us and

I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head." [Affidavit 11-22-63]

Bill Newman ... "At that time he heard the bullet strike the President and saw flesh fly

from the President's head." .... "He said the president was hit on the right side of the head

with the third shot ..."[FBI report 11-23-63]

Gayle Newman ... "Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us,

I heard another shot ring out, and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw

blood all over the side of his head." [Affidavit 11-22-63]

Gayle Newman ... " A few seconds later she heard another shot and saw that the

President had been hit in the head because she saw blood flowing from his body.

She said a man had been standing back on the pedestal near an arcade taking photographs

and there were a couple of people east of them on the north side of Elm Street." [FBI report 11-23-63]

NOTE: She reports man with camera on pedestal.

Gayle Newman .... Shaw trial testimony:

"Q: And what were you able to observe the effects of this shot then?

A: Yes, sir, that shot when it happened, the President's car was directly

in front of us and it was about a lane's width between us, it wasn't in the lane next to

the curb it was in the middle lane, and at that time he was shot in the head right at

his ear or right above his ear."

and

"Q: Now what was the effect of this shot upon the President's head if you were able to observe?

A: The President, his head just seemed to explode, just bits of his skull flew in the air and he fell to the side."

Bill Newman, Shaw Trial testimony:

"I caught a glimpse of his eyes, just looked like a cold stare, he just looked through me, and

then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it

hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off. "

and

"A: Well, I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white ...."

Recorded interview with Mariloyn Sitzman by Josiah Thompson, November 1966:

"Thompson: (resumes recording) So now I believe the motorcade has made the turn onto Houston Street and is proceeding down Houston Street. Sorry we were interrupted.

Sitzman: Try it again. There was nothing unusual until the first sound, which I thought was a firecracker, mainly because of the reaction of President Kennedy. He put his hands up to guard his face and leaned to the left, and the motorcade, you know, proceeded down the hill. And the next thing that I remembered correct ... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, or almost directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his fa ... [sic]

Thompson: Where on the side of the head did that shot appear to hit?

Sitzman: I would say it'd be above the ear and to the front.

Thompson: In other words, if one drew a line vertically upward from the tip of the ear, it would be forward of that line?

Sitzman: Yeah.

Thompson: It would then mean the left ... back of the temple, but on the side of the head, back of the temple?

Sitzman: Between the eye and the ear.

Thompson: Between the eye and the ear.

Sitzman: And we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less.

Thompson: Did you see what the President's movement was at that point? I mean, how his head moved or how his body seemed to move under the impact of the shot.

Sitzman: No, I guess ... I saw his, you know, the shot hit his head and what happened to his head, and I don't care what anybody says, I was looking at his head. I wasn't paying any attention which way he was moving or anything else, because it's something that I've never seen before, you know, and kind of ugh."

Zapruder himself gave a graphic description of see the head open up on the right side in a TV interview the afternoon of 11-22-63 ... and then cried in relating about it in his WC testimony.

These are some samples of witnesses reporting what you say no witness said.

You are incorrect. And documentably so. You lost your own challenge because it was based

on an untrue premise. If you know the evidence, why didn't you know this? If you don't know

the evidence, why are you promoting stuff like this?

Below you also said:

"Just as we have challenged the integrity of the film, I am

challenging your integrity. Either you have the strength of character to

acknowledge this point or you do not. Either way, we'll gain insight about

the real Bill Miller and whether you are a shill, a stooge, or an agent of

disinformation. If you are none of the above, now is the time to prove it!"

Will you correct yourself and refrain from making this false claim in the future, Mr. Fetzer?

"Either you have the strength of character to

acknowledge this point or you do not."

On the forum where you first posted this this morning, and I responded with these quotes, you have not yet had that

"strength of character" ... in fact, instead, you went on a day long rant, first trying to dive, divert and dodge while

trying to turn it into your favor. When that didn't work, I reminded you of your stated claim, you took another tack.

When that didn't work either, you launched into several personal assaults on me. There's no need to relive all that here. :-)

But you put the claim here ... so I put the documentation here that shows your claim is false.

Perhaps here you will find that "strength of character" to "acknowledge" your claim is incorrect.

I hope so.

Barb

What do these simpleton's think: that the only man with an open

umbrella on the motorcade route was pumping it up and down for

his health at the precise location of the assassination? Incredible.

And the rubbish about "lone nutters" is quite ridiculous. This is a

perfectly appropriate way to identify where someone is coming

from. They object because they are POSING as if they weren't.

That is why so many of their arguments are so strange. They are

not actually engaged in research, merely in attempting to under-

mine the progress made by others, where Tink is the bandleader.

I can't believe the assemby of phonys and fakes who have gathered

here. Bill Miller seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth

after agreeing to respond to my explanation of Zapruder frame problems.

Where are you, Bill? I know you're out there somewhere. What about

YOUR INVITATION that I tell you what Zapruder frame is bothering me

and you'll explain to me in detail whether you agree with me or not?

I've done that, Bill. Here are the links that show EXACTLY WHAT I'M

TALKING ABOUT. So why have you gone missing? Are you afraid to

response? The world is waiting, Miller. Just where have you gone?

The very same points put the lie to Josiah and Junk and Lamson and

the rest of that sordid crowd, who appear to be welcome to some

on this forum. Amazing! We live in a strange, strange world.

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:49:29 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: A challenge for Bill Miller . . .

Bill,

You wrote, "tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll

explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not", which

was an appropriate response. So here is what I am talking about:

(1) The third gif:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif

(3) The Wound Mistake:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html

My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most

blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the

massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.

None of the witnesses observed it. The Parkland doctors didn't observe

it. Even the mortician contradicts it. It didn't happen. It is fake!

We know there are phony drawings by artists who never saw the body. We

know there is a fake autopsy report that was rewritten under orders. We

know the X-rays have been altered to conceal the blow-out to the back of

the head. All of these deceptions have been subjected to meticulous and

detailed scrutiny in books I edited. But fake evidence doesn't support

a rationally justifiable or a morally responsible reply to this question.

Here's how I have put it: None of what I have said here (in laying out

around twenty proofs of fakery) even reaches to the mutually reinforcing

deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film,

( the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the

publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the right-

front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten twice after

twice breaking the plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception,

when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview

on television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Notice:

Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that

she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back

of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the

mortician! Dr. McClelland certified a drawing of the massive blow-out to

the back of the head. More than forty witnesses have confirmed that that

was the location. Dr. Crenshaw drew it for me to include in my first book.

There is an overwhelming accumulation of evidence that establishes that the

blow-out was to the back of his head, not to the right-front. And Roderick

Ryan, an expert on cinematic special effects, who received an Oscar for his

contributions in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, that the blow-out

and the head spray had been painted in. I will assume that you are familiar

with all of this, since otherwise you are incompetent to address the issue.

So my challenge to you is very simple. Do you acknowledge the blow-out to

the right-front is a fabrication? If you do, then you are thereby acknowl-

edging that the film is a fabrication. The proof is present. It is clear

and compelling. Indeed, in my view, this is the most powerful proof that

the film is a recreation and places the matter beyond any reasonable doubt.

John Costella, David Mantik, Jack White, David Lifton and I have advanced

over twenty reasons for concluding the Zapruder is a fake, as I have out-

lined below. Just as we have challenged the integrity of the film, I am

challenging your integrity. Either you have the strength of character to

acknowledge this point or you do not. Either way, we'll gain insight about

the real Bill Miller and whether you are a shill, a stooge, or an agent of

disinformation. If you are none of the above, now is the time to prove it!

Jim

Quoting bmjfk63 <IMSJLE@aol.com>:

>--- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@... wrote:

>>

>>What is not "specific" about the blow-out to the right front? Didn't you

>>get the memo? What I am talking about is detailed in paragraph 11 as (a),

>>(, ©, and (d). Even you should be able to understand that. The fact

>>that others, including Jack, John, David, and David are better on photos

>>and films, having done vastly more than have I, does not imply that I have

>>no competence at all! Evidently, I AM MUCH BETTER THAN BILL MILLER when

>>it comes to the Zapruder. That kind of verbal shell game represents your

>>kind of "research" and is completely typical of the logical blunders that

>>come from shills, stooges, and disinfo ops like you. Moreover, this is

>>as good a test case as there could be relative to the Zapruder, which you

>>have flunked! So I don't think there's any reason for you to lecture any-

>>one about competence in relation to the photographic record. It is clear

>>to everyone by now that, when it comes to real questions, you fake it all

>>the way, which, of course, is your only option when the evidence refutes

>>your position. The case for video fakery is decisive and shows that you

>>and your buddies are here to obscure, obfuscate, and undermine advances

>>in understanding the genuine causes of the death of our 35th president.

>>Hang it up, BM! You are making yourself look worse and worse to us all.

>

>

>Mr. Fetzer, I cannot help but notice that you are one of those people who claim victory before the game even starts. You did it with Hoax and yet when I listed a good many of the claims Jack made that can be easily shown to be wrong ... you bitch that Jack is being attacked. In other words - you hide behind Jack's claims and yet when they are unraveled before you, then you bitch how Jack is being mistreated. To that I can only say - Stop using Jack if you don't want his claims critiqued. You cannot use him for a shield and then complain about the blows he is getting pelted with.

>

>Now about Zapruder ... I don't want to hear any revisions. Don't mention Jack if you don't want his short-comings mentioned. Instead you tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not.

>

>Bill Miller

>

>

In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down,not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive.

This is the funniest thing I've read in ages.

Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? I guess so, otherwise Fetzer would be out of business.

Thankfully not too many on this actual forum, but the danger is that people off this forum associate us with these nuts and that's exactly why Tink, Barb, Miller etc try so hard to combat this nonsense.

What inability to comprehend!

The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.

No wonder this person is so often wrong.

Jack

[Don Jeffries]

I'm really confused. Starting with the eariest critical books written about the assassination, the Umbrella Man has consistently been referred to as "pumping up and down." Just google this and see how many results you get. I found an article by our very own Ron Ecker describing this motion as seen in the Zapruder film.

So, in my estimation, the Zapruder film we know and love, regardless of its validity, does show something like this, and has been described as showing something like this by many, many people for many, many years.

If I'm wrong, a great many other people have been wrong about the exact same thing.

[Bernice Moore]

Yes Don he does....see below..

and you are correct this is old information, it

appears some have not done the studies...

Here is Ron's link..

The Umbrella Man

Ronald L. Ecker

http://hobrad.angelfire.com/umbrella.html

And though I do not agree with all....this is interesting and dates back to ...78...

and it shows the linking of the photos and frames, if interested....and

mentions Tinks name...

June 1978 issue of Gallery Magazine

Sprague & Cutler

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html

B.....

Edited March 19, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

Mr. Fetzer, below you say:

"My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most

blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the

massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.

None of the witnesses observed it. "

You are incorrect. Your claim is not true:

Bill Newman ... "By this time he was directly in front of us and

I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head." [Affidavit 11-22-63]

Bill Newman ... "At that time he heard the bullet strike the President and saw flesh fly

from the President's head." .... "He said the president was hit on the right side of the head

with the third shot ..."[FBI report 11-23-63]

Gayle Newman ... "Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us,

I heard another shot ring out, and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw

blood all over the side of his head." [Affidavit 11-22-63]

Gayle Newman ... " A few seconds later she heard another shot and saw that the

President had been hit in the head because she saw blood flowing from his body.

She said a man had been standing back on the pedestal near an arcade taking photographs

and there were a couple of people east of them on the north side of Elm Street." [FBI report 11-23-63]

NOTE: She reports man with camera on pedestal.

Gayle Newman .... Shaw trial testimony:

"Q: And what were you able to observe the effects of this shot then?

A: Yes, sir, that shot when it happened, the President's car was directly

in front of us and it was about a lane's width between us, it wasn't in the lane next to

the curb it was in the middle lane, and at that time he was shot in the head right at

his ear or right above his ear."

and

"Q: Now what was the effect of this shot upon the President's head if you were able to observe?

A: The President, his head just seemed to explode, just bits of his skull flew in the air and he fell to the side."

Bill Newman, Shaw Trial testimony:

"I caught a glimpse of his eyes, just looked like a cold stare, he just looked through me, and

then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it

hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off. "

and

"A: Well, I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white ...."

Recorded interview with Mariloyn Sitzman by Josiah Thompson, November 1966:

"Thompson: (resumes recording) So now I believe the motorcade has made the turn onto Houston Street and is proceeding down Houston Street. Sorry we were interrupted.

Sitzman: Try it again. There was nothing unusual until the first sound, which I thought was a firecracker, mainly because of the reaction of President Kennedy. He put his hands up to guard his face and leaned to the left, and the motorcade, you know, proceeded down the hill. And the next thing that I remembered correct ... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, or almost directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his fa ... [sic]

Thompson: Where on the side of the head did that shot appear to hit?

Sitzman: I would say it'd be above the ear and to the front.

Thompson: In other words, if one drew a line vertically upward from the tip of the ear, it would be forward of that line?

Sitzman: Yeah.

Thompson: It would then mean the left ... back of the temple, but on the side of the head, back of the temple?

Sitzman: Between the eye and the ear.

Thompson: Between the eye and the ear.

Sitzman: And we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less.

Thompson: Did you see what the President's movement was at that point? I mean, how his head moved or how his body seemed to move under the impact of the shot.

Sitzman: No, I guess ... I saw his, you know, the shot hit his head and what happened to his head, and I don't care what anybody says, I was looking at his head. I wasn't paying any attention which way he was moving or anything else, because it's something that I've never seen before, you know, and kind of ugh."

Zapruder himself gave a graphic description of see the head open up on the right side in a TV interview the afternoon of 11-22-63 ... and then cried in relating about it in his WC testimony.

These are some samples of witnesses reporting what you say no witness said.

You are incorrect. And documentably so. You lost your own challenge because it was based

on an untrue premise. If you know the evidence, why didn't you know this? If you don't know

the evidence, why are you promoting stuff like this?

Below you also said:

"Just as we have challenged the integrity of the film, I am

challenging your integrity. Either you have the strength of character to

acknowledge this point or you do not. Either way, we'll gain insight about

the real Bill Miller and whether you are a shill, a stooge, or an agent of

disinformation. If you are none of the above, now is the time to prove it!"

Will you correct yourself and refrain from making this false claim in the future, Mr. Fetzer?

"Either you have the strength of character to

acknowledge this point or you do not."

On the forum where you first posted this this morning, and I responded with these quotes, you have not yet had that

"strength of character" ... in fact, instead, you went on a day long rant, first trying to dive, divert and dodge while

trying to turn it into your favor. When that didn't work, I reminded you of your stated claim, you took another tack.

When that didn't work either, you launched into several personal assaults on me. There's no need to relive all that here. :-)

But you put the claim here ... so I put the documentation here that shows your claim is false.

Perhaps here you will find that "strength of character" to "acknowledge" your claim is incorrect.

I hope so.

Barb

What do these simpleton's think: that the only man with an open

umbrella on the motorcade route was pumping it up and down for

his health at the precise location of the assassination? Incredible.

And the rubbish about "lone nutters" is quite ridiculous. This is a

perfectly appropriate way to identify where someone is coming

from. They object because they are POSING as if they weren't.

That is why so many of their arguments are so strange. They are

not actually engaged in research, merely in attempting to under-

mine the progress made by others, where Tink is the bandleader.

I can't believe the assemby of phonys and fakes who have gathered

here. Bill Miller seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth

after agreeing to respond to my explanation of Zapruder frame problems.

Where are you, Bill? I know you're out there somewhere. What about

YOUR INVITATION that I tell you what Zapruder frame is bothering me

and you'll explain to me in detail whether you agree with me or not?

I've done that, Bill. Here are the links that show EXACTLY WHAT I'M

TALKING ABOUT. So why have you gone missing? Are you afraid to

response? The world is waiting, Miller. Just where have you gone?

The very same points put the lie to Josiah and Junk and Lamson and

the rest of that sordid crowd, who appear to be welcome to some

on this forum. Amazing! We live in a strange, strange world.

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:49:29 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: A challenge for Bill Miller . . .

Bill,

You wrote, "tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll

explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not", which

was an appropriate response. So here is what I am talking about:

(1) The third gif:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif

(3) The Wound Mistake:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html

My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most

blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the

massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.

None of the witnesses observed it. The Parkland doctors didn't observe

it. Even the mortician contradicts it. It didn't happen. It is fake!

We know there are phony drawings by artists who never saw the body. We

know there is a fake autopsy report that was rewritten under orders. We

know the X-rays have been altered to conceal the blow-out to the back of

the head. All of these deceptions have been subjected to meticulous and

detailed scrutiny in books I edited. But fake evidence doesn't support

a rationally justifiable or a morally responsible reply to this question.

Here's how I have put it: None of what I have said here (in laying out

around twenty proofs of fakery) even reaches to the mutually reinforcing

deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film,

( the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the

publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the right-

front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten twice after

twice breaking the plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception,

when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview

on television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Notice:

Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that

she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back

of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the

mortician! Dr. McClelland certified a drawing of the massive blow-out to

the back of the head. More than forty witnesses have confirmed that that

was the location. Dr. Crenshaw drew it for me to include in my first book.

There is an overwhelming accumulation of evidence that establishes that the

blow-out was to the back of his head, not to the right-front. And Roderick

Ryan, an expert on cinematic special effects, who received an Oscar for his

contributions in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, that the blow-out

and the head spray had been painted in. I will assume that you are familiar

with all of this, since otherwise you are incompetent to address the issue.

So my challenge to you is very simple. Do you acknowledge the blow-out to

the right-front is a fabrication? If you do, then you are thereby acknowl-

edging that the film is a fabrication. The proof is present. It is clear

and compelling. Indeed, in my view, this is the most powerful proof that

the film is a recreation and places the matter beyond any reasonable doubt.

John Costella, David Mantik, Jack White, David Lifton and I have advanced

over twenty reasons for concluding the Zapruder is a fake, as I have out-

lined below. Just as we have challenged the integrity of the film, I am

challenging your integrity. Either you have the strength of character to

acknowledge this point or you do not. Either way, we'll gain insight about

the real Bill Miller and whether you are a shill, a stooge, or an agent of

disinformation. If you are none of the above, now is the time to prove it!

Jim

Quoting bmjfk63 <IMSJLE@aol.com>:

>--- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@... wrote:

>>

>>What is not "specific" about the blow-out to the right front? Didn't you

>>get the memo? What I am talking about is detailed in paragraph 11 as (a),

>>(, ©, and (d). Even you should be able to understand that. The fact

>>that others, including Jack, John, David, and David are better on photos

>>and films, having done vastly more than have I, does not imply that I have

>>no competence at all! Evidently, I AM MUCH BETTER THAN BILL MILLER when

>>it comes to the Zapruder. That kind of verbal shell game represents your

>>kind of "research" and is completely typical of the logical blunders that

>>come from shills, stooges, and disinfo ops like you. Moreover, this is

>>as good a test case as there could be relative to the Zapruder, which you

>>have flunked! So I don't think there's any reason for you to lecture any-

>>one about competence in relation to the photographic record. It is clear

>>to everyone by now that, when it comes to real questions, you fake it all

>>the way, which, of course, is your only option when the evidence refutes

>>your position. The case for video fakery is decisive and shows that you

>>and your buddies are here to obscure, obfuscate, and undermine advances

>>in understanding the genuine causes of the death of our 35th president.

>>Hang it up, BM! You are making yourself look worse and worse to us all.

>

>

>Mr. Fetzer, I cannot help but notice that you are one of those people who claim victory before the game even starts. You did it with Hoax and yet when I listed a good many of the claims Jack made that can be easily shown to be wrong ... you bitch that Jack is being attacked. In other words - you hide behind Jack's claims and yet when they are unraveled before you, then you bitch how Jack is being mistreated. To that I can only say - Stop using Jack if you don't want his claims critiqued. You cannot use him for a shield and then complain about the blows he is getting pelted with.

>

>Now about Zapruder ... I don't want to hear any revisions. Don't mention Jack if you don't want his short-comings mentioned. Instead you tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not.

>

>Bill Miller

>

>

In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down,not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive.

This is the funniest thing I've read in ages.

Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? I guess so, otherwise Fetzer would be out of business.

Thankfully not too many on this actual forum, but the danger is that people off this forum associate us with these nuts and that's exactly why Tink, Barb, Miller etc try so hard to combat this nonsense.

What inability to comprehend!

The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.

No wonder this person is so often wrong.

Jack

Jack there was another that stated he agreed he saw the President was hit on the right side of the head..

an entrance...

Abraham Zapruder...

Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

Mr. LIEBELER - Tell us what happened as you took these pictures.

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).

Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.

Mr. LIEBELER - He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying].

Mr. LIEBELER - That's all right, Mr. Zapruder, would you like a drink of water? Why don't you step out and have a drink of water?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - I'm sorry--I'm ashamed of myself really, but I couldn't help it.

Mr. LIEBELER - Nobody should ever be ashamed of feeling that way, Mr. Zapruder. I feel the same way myself. It was a terrible thing.

Let me go back now for just a moment and ask you how many shots you heard altogether.

Mr. ZAPRUDER - I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot.

Mr. LIEBELER - You didn't hear any shot after you saw him hit?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - I heard the second--after the first shot--I saw him leaning over and after the second shot--it's possible after what I saw, you know, then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him," and I just felt that somebody had ganged up on him and I was still shooting the pictures until he got under the underpass--I don't even know how I did it. And then, I didn't even remember how I got down from that abutment there, but there I was, I guess, and I was walking toward--back toward my office and screaming, "They killed him, they killed him," and the people that I met on the way didn't even know what happened and they kept yelling, "What happened, what happened, what happened?" It seemed that they had heard a shot but they didn't know exactly what had happened as the car sped away, and I kept on just yelling, "They killed him, they killed him, they killed him," and finally got to my office and my secretary--I told her to call the police or the Secret Service--I don't know what she was doing, and that's about all. I was very much upset. Naturally, I couldn't imagine such a thing being done. I just went to my desk and stopped there until the police came and then we were required to get a place to develop the films. I knew I had something, I figured it might be of some help--I didn't know what.

As to what happened--I remember the police were running behind me. There were police running right behind me. Of course, they didn't realize yet, I guess, where the shot came from--that it came from that height.

Mr. LIEBELER - As you were standing on this abutment facing Elm street, you say the police ran over behind the concrete structure behind you and down the railroad track behind that, is that right?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - After the shots?

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right behind me.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head--I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came from here and it could come from there.

Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - From the direction behind you?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment, where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I saw and I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed that they came from there, because as the police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the back of me.

Mr. LIEBELER - But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - No.

Mr. LIEBELER - And you indicated that they could have come also from behind or from any other direction except perhaps from the left, because they could have been from behind or even from the front.

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, it could have been--in other words if you have a point--you could hit a point from any place, as far as that's concerned. I have no way of determining what direction the bullet was going.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder.htm

B........

[David G. Healy]

...

What inability to comprehend!

The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.

No wonder this person is so often wrong.

Jack

"The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND."

I can just here Barb now Jack: Tink, now what do we do? Where do we go with this, ya think Barb has the "strength of character" to admit her fallacy? We'll see!

Edited March 19, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Jack replies below:

"What inability to comprehend!

The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.

No wonder this person is so often wrong.

Jack"

You seem to have misunderstood Fetzer's claim. He claimed "no witnesses" reported seeing any wound on

the right side of the head. As the citations clearly show, his claim is FALSE.

Do you think Zapruder, Sitzman and John and Gayle Newman were ballistically savvy, Jack? I don't.

They described what they saw, and where on the head they saw it ... on the side of the head, which

is no small wonder because they were standing there with his right side right in front of them when he

was shot. (With the graphic opening, in the split seconds they had to see any of it, it is also no wonder

they didn't note the damage to the back of the head, few did, though it was definitely there.

For the Newmans, Zapruder and Sitzman, the graphic opening above the ear was decidedly the attention grabber.)

That some of them referred to it as where the bullet hit is of no import, Jack.... and also no surprise. Surely someone

as well steeped in this arena as you realizes that. :-)

People not familiar with ballistics quite naturally often associate the place they see wound and bleeding as the place

the shot hit. This was 1963 ... no CSI.

Bests to you, Jack, and nice try ... but no cookie. Fetzer's claim was that "no witness" reported the damage to

the side of the head. That is clearly FALSE ... whatever nits you choose to pick about what they said ... they were

witnesses, and they did report seeing wound on the right side of the head.

Barb :-)

Mr. Fetzer, below you say:

"My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most

blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the

massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.

None of the witnesses observed it. "

You are incorrect. Your claim is not true:

Bill Newman ... "By this time he was directly in front of us and

I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head." [Affidavit 11-22-63]

Bill Newman ... "At that time he heard the bullet strike the President and saw flesh fly

from the President's head." .... "He said the president was hit on the right side of the head

with the third shot ..."[FBI report 11-23-63]

Gayle Newman ... "Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us,

I heard another shot ring out, and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw

blood all over the side of his head." [Affidavit 11-22-63]

Gayle Newman ... " A few seconds later she heard another shot and saw that the

President had been hit in the head because she saw blood flowing from his body.

She said a man had been standing back on the pedestal near an arcade taking photographs

and there were a couple of people east of them on the north side of Elm Street." [FBI report 11-23-63]

NOTE: She reports man with camera on pedestal.

Gayle Newman .... Shaw trial testimony:

"Q: And what were you able to observe the effects of this shot then?

A: Yes, sir, that shot when it happened, the President's car was directly

in front of us and it was about a lane's width between us, it wasn't in the lane next to

the curb it was in the middle lane, and at that time he was shot in the head right at

his ear or right above his ear."

and

"Q: Now what was the effect of this shot upon the President's head if you were able to observe?

A: The President, his head just seemed to explode, just bits of his skull flew in the air and he fell to the side."

Bill Newman, Shaw Trial testimony:

"I caught a glimpse of his eyes, just looked like a cold stare, he just looked through me, and

then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it

hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off. "

and

"A: Well, I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white ...."

Recorded interview with Mariloyn Sitzman by Josiah Thompson, November 1966:

"Thompson: (resumes recording) So now I believe the motorcade has made the turn onto Houston Street and is proceeding down Houston Street. Sorry we were interrupted.

Sitzman: Try it again. There was nothing unusual until the first sound, which I thought was a firecracker, mainly because of the reaction of President Kennedy. He put his hands up to guard his face and leaned to the left, and the motorcade, you know, proceeded down the hill. And the next thing that I remembered correct ... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, or almost directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his fa ... [sic]

Thompson: Where on the side of the head did that shot appear to hit?

Sitzman: I would say it'd be above the ear and to the front.

Thompson: In other words, if one drew a line vertically upward from the tip of the ear, it would be forward of that line?

Sitzman: Yeah.

Thompson: It would then mean the left ... back of the temple, but on the side of the head, back of the temple?

Sitzman: Between the eye and the ear.

Thompson: Between the eye and the ear.

Sitzman: And we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less.

Thompson: Did you see what the President's movement was at that point? I mean, how his head moved or how his body seemed to move under the impact of the shot.

Sitzman: No, I guess ... I saw his, you know, the shot hit his head and what happened to his head, and I don't care what anybody says, I was looking at his head. I wasn't paying any attention which way he was moving or anything else, because it's something that I've never seen before, you know, and kind of ugh."

Zapruder himself gave a graphic description of see the head open up on the right side in a TV interview the afternoon of 11-22-63 ... and then cried in relating about it in his WC testimony.

These are some samples of witnesses reporting what you say no witness said.

You are incorrect. And documentably so. You lost your own challenge because it was based

on an untrue premise. If you know the evidence, why didn't you know this? If you don't know

the evidence, why are you promoting stuff like this?

Below you also said:

"Just as we have challenged the integrity of the film, I am

challenging your integrity. Either you have the strength of character to

acknowledge this point or you do not. Either way, we'll gain insight about

the real Bill Miller and whether you are a shill, a stooge, or an agent of

disinformation. If you are none of the above, now is the time to prove it!"

Will you correct yourself and refrain from making this false claim in the future, Mr. Fetzer?

"Either you have the strength of character to

acknowledge this point or you do not."

On the forum where you first posted this this morning, and I responded with these quotes, you have not yet had that

"strength of character" ... in fact, instead, you went on a day long rant, first trying to dive, divert and dodge while

trying to turn it into your favor. When that didn't work, I reminded you of your stated claim, you took another tack.

When that didn't work either, you launched into several personal assaults on me. There's no need to relive all that here. :-)

But you put the claim here ... so I put the documentation here that shows your claim is false.

Perhaps here you will find that "strength of character" to "acknowledge" your claim is incorrect.

I hope so.

Barb

What do these simpleton's think: that the only man with an open

umbrella on the motorcade route was pumping it up and down for

his health at the precise location of the assassination? Incredible.

And the rubbish about "lone nutters" is quite ridiculous. This is a

perfectly appropriate way to identify where someone is coming

from. They object because they are POSING as if they weren't.

That is why so many of their arguments are so strange. They are

not actually engaged in research, merely in attempting to under-

mine the progress made by others, where Tink is the bandleader.

I can't believe the assemby of phonys and fakes who have gathered

here. Bill Miller seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth

after agreeing to respond to my explanation of Zapruder frame problems.

Where are you, Bill? I know you're out there somewhere. What about

YOUR INVITATION that I tell you what Zapruder frame is bothering me

and you'll explain to me in detail whether you agree with me or not?

I've done that, Bill. Here are the links that show EXACTLY WHAT I'M

TALKING ABOUT. So why have you gone missing? Are you afraid to

response? The world is waiting, Miller. Just where have you gone?

The very same points put the lie to Josiah and Junk and Lamson and

the rest of that sordid crowd, who appear to be welcome to some

on this forum. Amazing! We live in a strange, strange world.

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:49:29 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: A challenge for Bill Miller . . .

Bill,

You wrote, "tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll

explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not", which

was an appropriate response. So here is what I am talking about:

(1) The third gif:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif

(3) The Wound Mistake:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html

My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most

blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the

massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.

None of the witnesses observed it. The Parkland doctors didn't observe

it. Even the mortician contradicts it. It didn't happen. It is fake!

We know there are phony drawings by artists who never saw the body. We

know there is a fake autopsy report that was rewritten under orders. We

know the X-rays have been altered to conceal the blow-out to the back of

the head. All of these deceptions have been subjected to meticulous and

detailed scrutiny in books I edited. But fake evidence doesn't support

a rationally justifiable or a morally responsible reply to this question.

Here's how I have put it: None of what I have said here (in laying out

around twenty proofs of fakery) even reaches to the mutually reinforcing

deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film,

( the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the

publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the right-

front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten twice after

twice breaking the plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception,

when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview

on television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Notice:

Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that

she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back

of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the

mortician! Dr. McClelland certified a drawing of the massive blow-out to

the back of the head. More than forty witnesses have confirmed that that

was the location. Dr. Crenshaw drew it for me to include in my first book.

There is an overwhelming accumulation of evidence that establishes that the

blow-out was to the back of his head, not to the right-front. And Roderick

Ryan, an expert on cinematic special effects, who received an Oscar for his

contributions in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, that the blow-out

and the head spray had been painted in. I will assume that you are familiar

with all of this, since otherwise you are incompetent to address the issue.

So my challenge to you is very simple. Do you acknowledge the blow-out to

the right-front is a fabrication? If you do, then you are thereby acknowl-

edging that the film is a fabrication. The proof is present. It is clear

and compelling. Indeed, in my view, this is the most powerful proof that

the film is a recreation and places the matter beyond any reasonable doubt.

John Costella, David Mantik, Jack White, David Lifton and I have advanced

over twenty reasons for concluding the Zapruder is a fake, as I have out-

lined below. Just as we have challenged the integrity of the film, I am

challenging your integrity. Either you have the strength of character to

acknowledge this point or you do not. Either way, we'll gain insight about

the real Bill Miller and whether you are a shill, a stooge, or an agent of

disinformation. If you are none of the above, now is the time to prove it!

Jim

Quoting bmjfk63 <IMSJLE@aol.com>:

>--- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@... wrote:

>>

>>What is not "specific" about the blow-out to the right front? Didn't you

>>get the memo? What I am talking about is detailed in paragraph 11 as (a),

>>(, ©, and (d). Even you should be able to understand that. The fact

>>that others, including Jack, John, David, and David are better on photos

>>and films, having done vastly more than have I, does not imply that I have

>>no competence at all! Evidently, I AM MUCH BETTER THAN BILL MILLER when

>>it comes to the Zapruder. That kind of verbal shell game represents your

>>kind of "research" and is completely typical of the logical blunders that

>>come from shills, stooges, and disinfo ops like you. Moreover, this is

>>as good a test case as there could be relative to the Zapruder, which you

>>have flunked! So I don't think there's any reason for you to lecture any-

>>one about competence in relation to the photographic record. It is clear

>>to everyone by now that, when it comes to real questions, you fake it all

>>the way, which, of course, is your only option when the evidence refutes

>>your position. The case for video fakery is decisive and shows that you

>>and your buddies are here to obscure, obfuscate, and undermine advances

>>in understanding the genuine causes of the death of our 35th president.

>>Hang it up, BM! You are making yourself look worse and worse to us all.

>

>

>Mr. Fetzer, I cannot help but notice that you are one of those people who claim victory before the game even starts. You did it with Hoax and yet when I listed a good many of the claims Jack made that can be easily shown to be wrong ... you bitch that Jack is being attacked. In other words - you hide behind Jack's claims and yet when they are unraveled before you, then you bitch how Jack is being mistreated. To that I can only say - Stop using Jack if you don't want his claims critiqued. You cannot use him for a shield and then complain about the blows he is getting pelted with.

>

>Now about Zapruder ... I don't want to hear any revisions. Don't mention Jack if you don't want his short-comings mentioned. Instead you tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not.

>

>Bill Miller

>

>

In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down,not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive.

This is the funniest thing I've read in ages.

Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? I guess so, otherwise Fetzer would be out of business.

Thankfully not too many on this actual forum, but the danger is that people off this forum associate us with these nuts and that's exactly why Tink, Barb, Miller etc try so hard to combat this nonsense.

What inability to comprehend!

The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.

No wonder this person is so often wrong.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

...

What inability to comprehend!

The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.

No wonder this person is so often wrong.

Jack

"The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND."

I can just here Barb now Jack: Tink, now what do we do? Where do we go with this, ya think Barb has the "strength of character" to admit her fallacy? We'll see!

There's nowhere to go with this, though since you seem to have not comprehended the situation,

I'll type slowly. :-)

Fetzer claimed there was no wound on the side of the head ... that it was fabricated in the film.

He further claimed that "no witnesses" reported seeing such a wound on the side of JFK's head.

I posted quotes of 4 witnesses who reported seeing a wound on the side of JFK's head.

You with me so far?

That means that Fetzer's claim was wrong, false, incorrect.

Now, I find it hilarious that the "there was no wound there and no witness saw a wound there" people

are falling all over themselves, not saying a thing about the claim that a few simple quotes showed to be

false ... but now quibbling that the witnesses said this fabricated wound they couldn't have seen because

it wasn't really there and none of them had reported it was an entry wound, not an exit.

And you climb right on board Fetzer's latest "fallacy" folly, entering stage left, doing your Tony Marsh impression! ROTFL!

Best chuckle of the day. Almost.

Barb :-)

[John Dolva]

del : wrong topic

Edited March 19, 2009 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

...

What inability to comprehend!

The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.

No wonder this person is so often wrong.

Jack

"The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND."

I can just here Barb now Jack: Tink, now what do we do? Where do we go with this, ya think Barb has the "strength of character" to admit her fallacy? We'll see!

There's nowhere to go with this, though since you seem to have not comprehended the situation,

I'll type slowly. :-)

Fetzer claimed there was no wound on the side of the head ... that it was fabricated in the film.

He further claimed that "no witnesses" reported seeing such a wound on the side of JFK's head.

I posted quotes of 4 witnesses who reported seeing a wound on the side of JFK's head.

You with me so far?

That means that Fetzer's claim was wrong, false, incorrect.

Now, I find it hilarious that the "there was no wound there and no witness saw a wound there" people

are falling all over themselves, not saying a thing about the claim that a few simple quotes showed to be

false ... but now quibbling that the witnesses said this fabricated wound they couldn't have seen because

it wasn't really there and none of them had reported it was an entry wound, not an exit.

And you climb right on board Fetzer's latest "fallacy" folly, entering stage left, doing your Tony Marsh impression! ROTFL!

Best chuckle of the day. Almost.

Barb :-)

Barb,

I'm not on any factions "fallacy" train here.... (remember I can't prove the Z-film is altered, eh! I'm still waiting for 6th Floor/Mack/Miller contingent to make the alleged Z-film available for forensic testing)

It does appear though you're on the Tinkster's train choo-chooing all the way down that Lone Nut track.... What ya need to do is give us your best shot at being a Cter, Barb! Here & Now. Attacking Dr. Jim Fetzer and Jack White personally, simply because they don't conform to the Dallas City fathers image of preserving local and national history (even when its an outright lie) is simply nonsense. You, Miller the Tinkster are just making noise.

There's 45 questions and 16 smoking guns out there Barb, even .john ran from them, they've been posted to this forum a few times, and countless time at acj -- no lone nutter can touch them. Perhaps you'll be the first, eh?

Edited March 19, 2009 by David G. Healy

[John Dolva]

Hi David, I suppose I'm one of a number of '.johns' here, so I don't know if it's me you refer to here? If not. pls ignore.

_______

> If so : I made an early on prediction regarding fetzers behaviour pattern, about a three stage process :

drag the discussion down to his level, (being aware of it one then stonewalls that and legitimise a better paradigm),

take the high ground (which he did),

leave in a huff and declare everyone personas non grata.

(from what Joshia writes he appears to have now completed these stages).

This prediction is based on past experience of trying to discuss things with him where he publicly deaclares me a person to ignore in a rather condescending manner. Once I read his first response to me here, he, for some reason, felt it necessary to start with something about having no idea who I was and not remembering ever coming across me. Having gotten that out of the way, he then followed with a rather oldschoolmasterish, patient and simple, just dotted with hints of insults, 'explanation'. At this point I choose not to go down the road that would inevitably, probably sooner rather than later, end up back where it did before again. So having instead more or less sat back and watch this unfold. and you seem a reasonable person unlike fetzer, could you pick the pithiest question and ask it please?

________

[Bernice Moore]

"My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most

blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the

massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.

None of the witnesses observed it. "

Dr.J.Fetzer..

He did not say the side of the head.......

The Wound Mistake....The Zapruder Film..

Dr.John Costella...

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/wound.html

The Blood mistake

Dr.John Costella

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/blood.html

JFK assassination film hoax

A simple introduction: Dr.John Costella studies..

All chapters....

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

B....

Edited March 20, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Jack White]

...

What inability to comprehend!

The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.

No wonder this person is so often wrong.

Jack

"The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND."

I can just here Barb now Jack: Tink, now what do we do? Where do we go with this, ya think Barb has the "strength of character" to admit her fallacy? We'll see!

There's nowhere to go with this, though since you seem to have not comprehended the situation,

I'll type slowly. :-)

Fetzer claimed there was no wound on the side of the head ... that it was fabricated in the film.

He further claimed that "no witnesses" reported seeing such a wound on the side of JFK's head.

I posted quotes of 4 witnesses who reported seeing a wound on the side of JFK's head.

You with me so far?

That means that Fetzer's claim was wrong, false, incorrect.

Now, I find it hilarious that the "there was no wound there and no witness saw a wound there" people

are falling all over themselves, not saying a thing about the claim that a few simple quotes showed to be

false ... but now quibbling that the witnesses said this fabricated wound they couldn't have seen because

it wasn't really there and none of them had reported it was an entry wound, not an exit.

And you climb right on board Fetzer's latest "fallacy" folly, entering stage left, doing your Tony Marsh impression! ROTFL!

Best chuckle of the day. Almost.

Barb :-)

Again, a lack of comprehension. All quotes described ENTRY WOUND, not EXIT WOUND.

Changing the subject doe not changes the facts.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Below, Jack says:

"

Again, a lack of comprehension. All quotes described ENTRY WOUND, not EXIT WOUND.

Changing the subject doe not changes the facts.

Jack"

Exactly right, Jack! The *subject* introduced by Jim Fetzer, was his challenge, previously quoted,

wherein he claimed that NO WITNESS saw or reported seeing wound to the right side of JFK's head ...

where we see a graphic opening in the Z film.

The *facts* are that, as I posted, no less than four witnesses DID report seeing the

wound on the right side of JFK's head.

The SUBJECT was Jim's claim.

The FACTS, quoted statements and testimonies, show that the SUBJECT, his claim, was WRONG.

Exit vs entry (when the claim was that NO WITNESS saw or reported ANY wound on the right side of his head,

that, in fact, the wound did not exist, but was painted into the faked film) is a hoot from you and Jim at this point ...

because of the parenthetical information. It's just a dance to avoid the obvious .... that I have no doubt is clear to

everyone else .... Jim's *subject* which was the *claim* was shown to be *wrong* by the *facts* I cited.

Pretty simple. And there's really no reason to beleaguer the point. The *subject* and the *facts* are not going to change

.... no matter how hard anyone tries. :-)

Barb :-).

...

What inability to comprehend!

The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.

No wonder this person is so often wrong.

Jack

"The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND."

I can just here Barb now Jack: Tink, now what do we do? Where do we go with this, ya think Barb has the "strength of character" to admit her fallacy? We'll see!

There's nowhere to go with this, though since you seem to have not comprehended the situation,

I'll type slowly. :-)

Fetzer claimed there was no wound on the side of the head ... that it was fabricated in the film.

He further claimed that "no witnesses" reported seeing such a wound on the side of JFK's head.

I posted quotes of 4 witnesses who reported seeing a wound on the side of JFK's head.

You with me so far?

That means that Fetzer's claim was wrong, false, incorrect.

Now, I find it hilarious that the "there was no wound there and no witness saw a wound there" people

are falling all over themselves, not saying a thing about the claim that a few simple quotes showed to be

false ... but now quibbling that the witnesses said this fabricated wound they couldn't have seen because

it wasn't really there and none of them had reported it was an entry wound, not an exit.

And you climb right on board Fetzer's latest "fallacy" folly, entering stage left, doing your Tony Marsh impression! ROTFL!

Best chuckle of the day. Almost.

Barb :-)

Again, a lack of comprehension. All quotes described ENTRY WOUND, not EXIT WOUND.

Changing the subject doe not changes the facts.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

Below, Jack says:

"

Again, a lack of comprehension. All quotes described ENTRY WOUND, not EXIT WOUND.

Changing the subject doe not changes the facts.

Jack"

Exactly right, Jack! The *subject* introduced by Jim Fetzer, was his challenge, previously quoted,

wherein he claimed that NO WITNESS saw or reported seeing wound to the right side of JFK's head ...

where we see a graphic opening in the Z film.

The *facts* are that, as I posted, no less than four witnesses DID report seeing the

wound on the right side of JFK's head.

The SUBJECT was Jim's claim.

The FACTS, quoted statements and testimonies, show that the SUBJECT, his claim, was WRONG.

Exit vs entry (when the claim was that NO WITNESS saw or reported ANY wound on the right side of his head,

that, in fact, the wound did not exist, but was painted into the faked film) is a hoot from you and Jim at this point ...

because of the parenthetical information. It's just a dance to avoid the obvious .... that I have no doubt is clear to

everyone else .... Jim's *subject* which was the *claim* was shown to be *wrong* by the *facts* I cited.

Pretty simple. And there's really no reason to beleaguer the point. The *subject* and the *facts* are not going to change

.... no matter how hard anyone tries. :-)

Barb :-).

...

What inability to comprehend!

The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.

No wonder this person is so often wrong.

Jack

"The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND."

I can just here Barb now Jack: Tink, now what do we do? Where do we go with this, ya think Barb has the "strength of character" to admit her fallacy? We'll see!

There's nowhere to go with this, though since you seem to have not comprehended the situation,

I'll type slowly. :-)

Fetzer claimed there was no wound on the side of the head ... that it was fabricated in the film.

He further claimed that "no witnesses" reported seeing such a wound on the side of JFK's head.

I posted quotes of 4 witnesses who reported seeing a wound on the side of JFK's head.

You with me so far?

That means that Fetzer's claim was wrong, false, incorrect.

Now, I find it hilarious that the "there was no wound there and no witness saw a wound there" people

are falling all over themselves, not saying a thing about the claim that a few simple quotes showed to be

false ... but now quibbling that the witnesses said this fabricated wound they couldn't have seen because

it wasn't really there and none of them had reported it was an entry wound, not an exit.

And you climb right on board Fetzer's latest "fallacy" folly, entering stage left, doing your Tony Marsh impression! ROTFL!

Best chuckle of the day. Almost.

Barb :-)

Again, a lack of comprehension. All quotes described ENTRY WOUND, not EXIT WOUND.

Changing the subject doe not changes the facts.

Jack

hmmmm, no less than 4 witnesses claimed a wound on the side of the head, humph! How many witnesses claimed a (rather large) hole in the back of Kennedy's head, again? Listen Barb, if your dead set on arguing and debating the Z-film, have the non-alteration crowd handlers provide the alleged in-camera Zapruder original for forensic testing. Simple as that.

What's the big deal, the Zapruder family is enjoying 16 million American taxpayer dollar$ for a film we (the American taxpayers) can't touch or mount up on a projector and run.... The Z-film film isn't the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.... get over it!

(emphasis mine)

[Bill Miller]

[ name=David G. Healy' date='Mar 19 2009, 10:29 PM' post='164359]

Barb,

I'm not on any factions "fallacy" train here.... (remember I can't prove the Z-film is altered, eh! I'm still waiting for 6th Floor/Mack/Miller contingent to make the alleged Z-film available for forensic testing)

David, It seems like your choice of words have now been altered ... mark this moment for 'Hoax 2: The Ever Changing Story'! The theme should be how YOU have always said that YOU could look at the film and tell if it is genuine or not. It was YOUR position that caused me to ask you if you had ever bothered to even make the necessary request to examine the Zapruder film. (By the way, more than a year later ... hows that request coming, David?)

Now it appears you have passed the obligation of examining the film from yourself to the people who specialize in forensics. That's a good idea and I am behind you 100% there for no one was going to just let some boob have a chance of ruining a one of a kind film. So who do you have in mind for the testing, David? It should be someone that you are satisfied that they are more competent than yourself so there will be no more talk of 'possible alteration' so to keep the pot needlessly stirring.

If I had any say so in the matter, then I'd want this person in forensics to be as qualified as the scientist who worked with Zavada in inventing Kodachrome II film or else they will be relying on those same people for their information and to date you have not trusted their veracity and/or abilities pertaining to the physical characteristics of Kodachrome II film. So who do YOU suggest doing the forensic testing, David???

And who ever you choose, let us hope that they know that the Musuem owns the image; the NARA owns the film. Access to the film for study is decided solely by NARA.

This person will hopefully not need to be repeatedly told that they will have to go to the National Archives ... and NOT the 6th Floor Museum to find the original film. I look forward to hearing your progress in the near future.

Bill Miller

Edited March 20, 2009 by Bill Miller