Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did Zapruder take "the Zapruder film"?


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[ 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 by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

David, are you sure that you have thought your position through thoroughly? You became part of the 'non-alteration' crowd when you said that you have seen NO PROOF of alteration ... that you had only claimed that it was possible it had been altered. With that being said, then let us have YOU (David) handle providing the in-camera Zapruder original for forensic testing.

And I (sarcastically) agree ... anyone who pays taxes should be allowed to handle the Zapruder film and project it up on a screen. They should also leave the original constitution out on a table so that any tax payer should be allowed to come and handle it as well. Heck ... our taxes helped pay for the launch codes to our nuclear arsenal ... we should be allowed to hold them in our hands and examine them. How far does one need to go to see that your position is not logical.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Barb,

With Fetzer unwittingly saying things that doesn't support Jack's claims and Jack saying things that unwittingly doesn't support Fetzer's claims ... would it not be only fair to let them call a time out so they can figure out just what stories they wish to go with so not to be continually contradicting one another. B)

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Yes, no less than four. That's more than "none" in my wacky little world. How many saw the rather large gaping wound in the right rear of the head? Many. Clint Hill in DP ... a real up close and personal view all the way to Parkland, multiple people at Parkland, most notably the treating physicians, and then, of course, damage reported by Hill and Parkland was corroborated at autopsy.

Your point? :-)

LNs deny damage to the right rear of the head at all costs because they mistakenly equate damage to the rear of the head as having to have come from a shot from the front, and they have no place in their world for that.

But why is it some CTs do the same thing as regards the wound that opened so graphically on the Zfilm? Actually, I guess that would just be the alterationists. It is not a situation where it has to be either the wound in the back or the wound on the right side ... it was both. Virtually the entire right side of JFK's head was shattered, destroyed, exploded ... the full extent of the damage, of course, could not be seen until autopy when they reflected the scalp .... when more bone fell to the table and some pieces stuck to the scalp ... and left them with one big honking area of missing bone ... 10cm lateral right from 1" right of the eop, and 17cm forward from there.

Forensic exam of the film ... sure, that would be great. Why don't you contact the Archives about that? Contact some independent qualified professional examiners about pursuing the project and have them apply to the Archives. Go for it, that's what research is all about, right?

As for being "dead set on arguing and debating the Z-film" ... not this girl. Don't know where you got that idea. The Moorman in the street issue was just that ... the Moorman in the street issue. And, imo, it has been resolved. As "proofs" of film alteration emerged, sometimes almost daily, several years ago, I did participate in some discussion about them ... saw all that I can think of debunked. I have seen no evidence that stands up to scrutiny that the film has been altered, fabricated or in any way diddled.

Have you? Tell me what you know proves the film is altered. :-) Oh wait, that's right, you yourself wrote that you can't prove it. So, it seems reasonable to you to try to make something out of others not believing the film was altered? There's logic. Believe with all the passion you want - when there is verifiable proof, let me know.

Barb :-)

Edited by Barb Junkkarinen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Yes, no less than four. That's more than "none" in my wacky little world. How many saw the rather large gaping wound in the right rear of the head? Many. Clint Hill in DP ... a real up close and personal view all the way to Parkland, multiple people at Parkland, most notably the treating physicians, and then, of course, damage reported by Hill and Parkland was corroborated at autopsy.

Your point? :-)

LNs deny damage to the right rear of the head at all costs because they mistakenly equate damage to the rear of the head as having to have come from a shot from the front, and they have no place in their world for that.

But why is it some CTs do the same thing as regards the wound that opened so graphically on the Zfilm? Actually, I guess that would just be the alterationists. It is not a situation where it has to be either the wound in the back or the wound on the right side ... it was both. Virtually the entire right side of JFK's head was shattered, destroyed, exploded ... the full extent of the damage, of course, could not be seen until autopy when they reflected the scalp .... when more bone fell to the table and some pieces stuck to the scalp ... and left them with one big honking area of missing bone ... 10cm lateral right from 1" right of the eop, and 17cm forward from there.

Forensic exam of the film ... sure, that would be great. Why don't you contact the Archives about that? Contact some independent qualified professional examiners about pursuing the project and have them apply to the Archives. Go for it, that's what research is all about, right?

As for being "dead set on arguing and debating the Z-film" ... not this girl. Don't know where you got that idea. The Moorman in the street issue was just that ... the Moorman in the street issue. And, imo, it has been resolved. As "proofs" of film alteration emerged, sometimes almost daily, several years ago, I did participate in some discussion about them ... saw all that I can think of debunked. I have seen no evidence that stands up to scrutiny that the film has been altered, fabricated or in any way diddled.

Have you? Tell me what you know proves the film is altered. :-) Oh wait, that's right, you yourself wrote that you can't prove it. So, it seems reasonable to you to try to make something out of others not believing the film was altered? There's logic. Believe with all the passion you want - when there is verifiable proof, let me know.

Barb :-)

my goodness... you finally have a grasp on evidence that demands testing. You nor I, Wild Bill Miller, Josiah Thompson Ph.D., Gary Mack, Len Brazil, or Craig Lamson can prove, nor disprove the authenticity of the alleged in-camera Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA... not even Roland Zavada (and all the Lone Nut contrary whining aside). And let's face it, that (and John Costella Ph.D. prodding, of course) is the reason Roland backed away from the 2003 UofMinn Zapruder Film Symposium....

So, to comment on your above sophomoric comment (which Wild Bill Miller also loves), "of course I can't prove its altered". and here's the rest of the story for Barb: I have never examined, touched or even seen the alleged NARA housed, in-camera original Z-film (up close and personal), have you? Now, I know this is above your pay grade but, how can a competent researcher state a film or photo is altered if that researcher can't examine the alleged "original in-camera film/photo.... Tell us how that works Barb, your best John McAdams definition will do just fine....

Hell Barb, ya can't even tell me or this board the exact date the Z-frames were numbered...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

This woman is an ever bigger phony and fraud than I had imagined in my wildest dreams. She

is making claims here THAT SHE KNOWS TO BE FALSE and grossly misrepresenting my position

to make it easier to attack. In logic, this is called "the straw man". Consider some of our recent

exchanges. Don't overlook where John Costella takes apart some of Miller's misleading arguments.

Not to suggest you are being evasive, Barb, but were his brains blown

out the back of his head to the left and rear, where they hit Officer

Hargis with such force that he thought he himself had been shot? And

if that is indeed the case--as the evidence, including the discovery

of the Harper fragment, suggests--then why is that not shown in the

Zapruder film? I am sure you want a break from all of this, because

being forced to admit that you have (intentionally or otherwise) been

part of a cover-up about film fakery is not pleasant to acknowledge.

My inference is that you actually realize that this is the case, but

you don't want to say it, because the others would be upset with you.

You have to know better, but your loyalty to them is stronger than is

your commitment to the truth about the assassination of Jack Kennedy.

That's a sad situation, but I gather it is the situation you are in.

Quoting Barb Junkkarinen <barbjfk@comcast.net>:

>Look, Jim, I am not interested in fighting with you,and as I said in my last reply, I am not interested in any prolonged discussion with you. Straw makes me sneeze, constant twisting gives me a cramp, and your ego needs bore me. And I have my own research and projects that have long been on hold while I dealt with an eye problem and had surgery. I am just about ready to be able to get back to things I need and want to be doing.

>

>If you didn't mean a wound on the left rear all the times you said to the left rear ... I am glad to hear that ... but it is how I took what you said. If it is my error, so be it.

>

>"Blown out" seems to be a biggie to you. As I already said, brains and blood and gore came from both the gaping wound in the back of the head as well as the flap wound on the right side of the head. And of course it all came out with some force due to the pressure created in the closed head. What, you think it would have been "blown out" and termed "explosive" from only one area that opened up and just dripped out from the other! [NOTE: NO question mark there ... just a rhetorical question ... again, not looking for, a discussion with you on any of this. I think I have said it enough times and clearly enough.

>

>My exhibition at the conference was only on the back of the head wound and whether or not the Parkland people could have seen a wound on the right rear of JFK's head when he was laying supine on the gurney in TR1. I said that before. And, of course, they could. LNs nonsense about how they couldn't have seen a wound there while JFK was laying on his back is pure nonsense.

>

>I've had my fill of nonsense for the week ... for the month.

>

>I have not been making any arguments here ... I have related facts of record from the medical evidence, and on your claim, your claim and the quotatiopns I provided speak for themselves. Not that your revision attempts haven't been amusing..... which takes me back to what I said about nonsense above ....

>

>

>----- jfetzer@d.umn.edu wrote:

>>From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

>>To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbjfk@comcast.net>, jfetzer@d.umn.edu

>>Cc: jwjfk@flash.net, dmantik@rtsx.com, dlifton@earthlink.net, jpcostella@hotmail.com, richdell@tampabay.rr.com

>>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:33:46 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific

>>Subject: Re: [jfk-research] A challenge for Bill Miller . . .

>>

>>Barb,

>>

>>I never really thought of you as cheap before, but the arguments you are

>>presenting here are flimsy and shallow enough to warrant that description.

>>For example, in my very first paragraph, I talked about the brains being

>>blown out to the left and to the rear, where Officer Hargis was hit by

>>them so hard that the thought he himself had been hit. But you would

>>revise my words to make it sound as though I was talking about a wound

>>at the left-rear, when I made no such claim. That is extremely shabby!

>>Do you understand the difference between "to the left rear" and "at"?

>>

>>"In an earlier post about "preaching to the converted", I took it that

>>you were endorsing the existence of a massive blow-out at the back of

>>JFK's head, which was the subject of Gary Aguilar's study in MURDER,

>>for example, where he argues for consistency in the reports about the

>>wound from multiple witnesses at Parkland and at Bethesda. Please tell

>>me if I am correct about this, because you appear to be advancing an

>>inconsistent account of brains and gore being blown out to the right

>>front BUT ALSO to the left rear. Which is it? What did you explain

>>to your audiences when you were making presentations with a model of

>>the skull of JFK? Was the massive defect at the back or the front?"

>>

>>There was an entry wound to the right temple, which of course means

>>there was a wound on the right side. Who would want to deny that?

>>I have frequently discussed it. And I have already acknowledged a

>>flap of skull blown out to the right side, which appears to have

>>revealed JFK's brains briefly for the Newmans to observe them. But

>>as I have repeatedly explained to you, seeing brains is not the same

>>thing as seeing brains blown out to the right front! And none of the

>>evidence you have cited supports you, except Zapruder. You appear to

>>be weaving a verbal web of deceit and deception. Why not answer my

>>questions? That should not be too difficult for you. They are basic:

>>

>>>> So I need to understand what you are telling me. Were brains blown out

>>>> to the right front of his cranium AND ALSO blown out to the left rear?

>>>> Moreover, if what you have been presenting all these years is that the

>>>> brains and gore were blown out to the left and rear, as virtually all

>>>> of us believe, then it it your opinion that (a) the Zapruder film, (B)

>>>> the anterior-posterior X-ray, © the caption in LIFE magazine, and (d)

>>>> Zapruder's television appearance are all fakes or fabrications? This

>>>> is where my concerns about your coherence become acute. And what is

>>>> your take on Costella's study of the wound? If you have visited his

>>>> analysis, you will find a familiar photo with his right-front intact:

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

>>

>>So, were brains blown out to the right front as well as to the left and

>>rear? I am not talking about a wound that was on the left-rear of the

>>head, but the direction in which the brains were blown out. I realize

>>you want to obfuscate and obscure the issues as much as possible, since

>>logic and evidence are against you. Just tell us, based upon your vast

>>experience, when you demonstrated the wounds on your JFK-mock ups, did

>>you describe the brains as being blown out to the right front, as the

>>Zapruder film portrays them, or to the left rear, as authentic medical

>>evidence--and even frame 374 of the Zapruder film!--indicates was the

>>case? Please don't cheapen yourself any further. Answer the question.

>>

>>Jim

>>

>>P.S. What is fabricated is the image of brains blown out the right front:

>>

>>>> 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. So do you agree with them or not?

>>

>>Quoting Barb Junkkarinen <barbjfk@comcast.net>:

>>

>>> Like LNs, you seem to equate "blown out" with *exit* ... exit there

>>> being defined as the place where a bullet went out through the

>>> skull. I do not use the term "blown out" in that way, nor do I use

>>> the word "exit" except in speaking of the areas where we have

>>> anatomical evidence of bullet having passed through bone leaving

>>> evidence of its passage.

>>>

>>> LNS fight tooth and nail, to a ridulous length, against any damage

>>> to the right rear of JFK's head as noted by Clint Hill in DP and

>>> Parkland because they mistakenly equate that with an exit from a

>>> bullet fired from the front.

>>> You seem to do the same thing. It is not so.

>>>

>>> Essentially, the entire right side of JFK's skull was "blown out"

>>> ... and destroyed. Thus the grand scope of the wound as measured at

>>> the autopsy ... 10cm lateral right from 1" right of the eop, and

>>> 17cm forward from the entry notch near the eop (at the beginning of

>>> the autopy they did not have a complete entry hole, just the bottom

>>> part of the circle was presnt in the bone that remained at the

>>> lowest point of the defect ... later in the autopy, they were able

>>> to replace enough bone that completed that entry hole). It's in the

>>> documents, which you might try reading. Finck testified to exactly

>>> that before the WC.

>>>

>>> Just a few days ago, in a response to you, I noted that you seem to

>>> think there either had to be the gaping wound at the right rear of

>>> the head OR the opened wound on the right side of the head ... and I

>>> specifically stated that was not true, it is not an either or

>>> situation ... that it could be, and was, both.

>>>

>>> I have NEVER said anything about a wound on the LEFT rear of JFK's head.

>>>

>>> As for "massive blowout" vs "wound or other terminology about a

>>> wound on the side of the head ... your point, your claim, was that

>>> there was NO wound there of ANY description. Trying to redefine it

>>> now is lame. Like Jack said, you can't change the subject or the

>>> facts after the fact. ;-)

>>>

>>> It is ridiculous to keep nitpicking and trying to redefine and going

>>> over this again and again ... for no other discernible reason that

>>> you are unable to admit you were wrong.

>>>

>>> You saqid no wound (insert your own chosen description here) on the

>>> right side if the head, that it was a FABRICATION, put in to the

>>> faked film, and that NO WITNESS reported such a thing or saw it.

>>>

>>> You were wrong, as the quotes I provided specifically point out ...

>>> including a description from at least one of them as it being quite

>>> an explosive opening, a regular "blow out" if you will.

>>>

>>> Yes, brains and blood and gore exited the head from both the right

>>> side of his head (where the flap opened) AND from the RIGHT rear ...

>>> where Clint Hill in DP, and Parkland personnel noted a gaping wound

>>> ... and destroyed and missing skull in that area was noted at autopsy.

>>>

>>> I don't know where you got this "LEFT REAR" thing you are

>>> attributing to me, but get over it ... you are mistaken. I have

>>> NEVER said anything about any wound or damasge to the LEFT rear of

>>> JFK's head. Please stop attributing that to me....and note you made

>>> an error in attributing such a thing to me.

>>>

>>> I do NOT agree any wound was painted in. By now, it amazes me that

>>> you would even ask the question as I have made it quite clear that I

>>> do not believe the films were altered or fabricated.

>>>

>>> I am not interested in playing your games ... nor in launching into

>>> any prolonged discussion on film aletration with you. I was one who

>>> felt the Moorman issue could be resolved ... and it was. I addressed

>>> your claim about witnesses and the right side of the head above the

>>> ear because your claim was flat wrong and I knew it ... so I posted

>>> the quotes. I have told you several times now about the the damage

>>> to the head overall. My take on the head is not news to either David

>>> ... Lifton or Mantik.

>>>

>>> Pretty much end of story on this one, it seems to me.

>>>

>>>

>>> ----- jfetzer@d.umn.edu wrote:

>>>> From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

>>>> To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, "Barb Junkkarinen"

>>>> <barbjfk@comcast.net>, jfetzer@d.umn.edu

>>>> Cc: jwjfk@flash.net, dmantik@rtsx.com, dlifton@earthlink.net,

>>>> jpcostella@hotmail.com, richdell@tampabay.rr.com

>>>> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:32:21 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific

>>>> Subject: Re: [jfk-research] A challenge for Bill Miller . . .

>>>>

>>>> Barb,

>>>>

>>>> In an earlier post about "preaching to the converted", I took it that

>>>> you were endorsing the existence of a massive blow-out at the back of

>>>> JFK's head, which was the subject of Gary Aguilar's study in MURDER,

>>>> for example, where he argues for consistency in the reports about the

>>>> wound from multiple witnesses at Parkland and at Bethesda. Please tell

>>>> me if I am correct about this, because you appear to be advancing an

>>>> inconsistent account of brains and gore being blown out to the right

>>>> front BUT ALSO to the left rear. Which is it? What did you explain

>>>> to your audiences when you were making presentations with a model of

>>>> the skull of JFK? Was the massive defect at the back or the front?

>>>>

>>>> The challenge I posed to Bill concerned the massive blow-out to the

>>>> right-front, which we see in the Zapruder. As I have explained many

>>>> times, this appears to be part of a mutually-enforcing deception that

>>>> involves (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, (B)

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

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

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

>>>> twice breaking the plates), and (d) Zapruder when he described a blow-

>>>> out to the right-front during an interview that night (HOAX, page 435)!

>>>>

>>>> Your latest response, found in the text of your recent message below,

>>>> is to respond by CHANGING my challenge FROM the "massive blowout to

>>>> the right-front" TO "a wound on the side of the head". I hope that it

>>>> will not offend you when I observe that these are not the same thing.

>>>> You have substituted a flimsy version of my view in order to attack it.

>>>> As I have explained, the Newmans appear to have seen blood on the side

>>>> of his head, which may have been caused by damage to his ear from the

>>>> explosion of the bullet, which also appears to have blown open a flap

>>>> of skull. They may have seen brain. But seeing brain is not the same

>>>> as seeing his brains blown out to the right front! Sitzman seems to

>>>> is consistent with an entry wound at the right temple and massive blow

>>>> out to the left rear, which appears to be compatible with the Newmans.

>>>>

>>>> Zapruder, in my opinion, is part of the misdescription operation that

>>>> was taking place, where he places his hand at the right front of his

>>>> head describing where the brains and blood blew out. Interestingly,

>>>> you mention Zapruder and Sitzman but not Erwin Swartz, who observed

>>>> brains and gore blown out to left rear. He was even asked if he was

>>>> sure he didn't see brains and blood going "up and to the front". He

>>>> replied, "No, it was to the left and rear". He was very clear about

>>>> that. Indeed, his impressions were based upon viewing the film in its

>>>> original state at Eastman Kodak, where it was developed, as I explain

>>>> in HOAX, p. 27. His testimony not only impeaches the extant version

>>>> but confirms the original. His account may be found in BLOODY TREASON.

>>>>

>>>> So I need to understand what you are telling me. Were brains blown out

>>>> to the right front of his cranium AND ALSO blown out to the left rear?

>>>> Moreover, if what you have been presenting all these years is that the

>>>> brains and gore were blown out to the left and rear, as virtually all

>>>> of us believe, then it it your opinion that (a) the Zapruder film, (B)

>>>> the anterior-posterior X-ray, © the caption in LIFE magazine, and (d)

>>>> Zapruder's television appearance are all fakes or fabrications? This

>>>> is where my concerns about your coherence become acute. And what is

>>>> your take on Costella's study of the wound? If you have visited his

>>>> analysis, you will find a familiar photo with his right-front intact:

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

>>>>

>>>> 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. So do you agree with them or not?

>>>>

>>>> Jim

>>>>

>>>> > You claimed that no witness saw or reported seeing a wound on the

>>>> > side of the head.

>>>> >

>>>> > Bill Newman reported exactly thsat.

>>>> >

>>>> > Gayle Newman reported exactly that.

>>>> >

>>>> > Abraham Zapruder reported exactly that.

>>>> >

>>>> > Marilyn Sitzman reported exactly that.

>>>> >

>>>> > And I provided citations on all of them.

>>>> >

>>>> > End of that story.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> 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,

>>>> (B) 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>:

>>>>

>>>> [Hide Quoted Text]

>>>> --- 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),

>>>> (B), ©, 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

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Quoting Barb Junkkarinen <barbjfk@comcast.net>:

>>>>

>>>> > Nothing was misconstrued re the Newmans. What you have

>>>> > "misconstrued" is your ability to slide this into some exit vs entry

>>>> > issue making it sound like it was not you who made the error. ...

>>>> > but no one is stupid, Jim. Your claim was clear ... and it was

>>>> > wrong, false, untrue. You were in error .... no reason to make a big

>>>> > deal out of it and pitch a fit.

>>>> >

>>>> > You claimed that no witness saw or reported seeing a wound on the

>>>> > side of the head.

>>>> >

>>>> > Bill Newman reported exactly thsat.

>>>> >

>>>> > Gayle Newman reported exactly that.

>>>> >

>>>> > Abraham Zapruder reported exactly that.

>>>> >

>>>> > Marilyn Sitzman reported exactly that.

>>>> >

>>>> > And I provided citations on all of them.

>>>> >

>>>> > End of that story.

>>>> >

>>>> > ----- jfetzer@d.umn.edu wrote:

>>>> >> From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

>>>> >> To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@d.umn.edu

>>>> >> Cc: jwjfk@flash.net, dmantik@rtsx.com, dlifton@earthlink.net,

>>>> >> jpcostella@hotmail.com, richdell@tampabay.rr.com

>>>> >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:10:17 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific

>>>> >> Subject: Fwd: RE: [jfk-research] A challenge for Bill Miller . . .

>>>> >>

>>>> >

>>>> > Bill,

>>>> >>

>>>> >> I consulted someone who knows more about these things than you or I

>>>> >> and it turns out your arguments about the Zapruder are as phony as

>>>> >> the film. Why am I not surprised? You can talk but you can't walk.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> First it was the Newmans, where I observed that their testimony was

>>>> >> being misconstrued. Then it was Jean, but I found her explaining

>>>> >> how she stepped into the street, too. Your side is not faring well.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> I can't wait for the next installment!

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Jim

>>>> >>

>>>> >> ----- Forwarded message from jpcostella@hotmail.com -----

>>>> >> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:14:46 +1100

>>>> >> From: John Costella < jpcostella@hotmail.com >

>>>> >> Subject: RE: [jfk-research] A challenge for Bill Miller . . .

>>>> >> To: Jim Fetzer < jfetzer@d.umn.edu >

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Jim,

>>>> >>

>>>> >> > Mate,

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > This is the one that I would like your comments about, where Miller

>>>> >> > (below) is taking credit but, more importantly, the bracketed [ ]

>>>> >> > passages. I need to understand better what he is trying to argue.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> OK. Here goes. Feel free to post this email or parts of it.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> > [To start with - the stabilized images are great ... It appears that

>>>> >> > Costella used some of my own. Where you and I will disagree is in the

>>>> >>

>>>> >> No. I deblurred these images in 2001. This was when I was only on the

>>>> >> Lancer forum. Tink was interested.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> > [Then there is the physical science of the film itself. When a portion

>>>> >> > of an image is copied and enlarged ... the grains become blurry. The

>>>> >> > larger film-stock used to attempt to create the alteration has its own

>>>> >> > film grains which will appear sharp. And expert could spot these

>>>> >> > details in short order.]

>>>> >>

>>>> >> We've addressed this. If the genuine footage had a resolution as good

>>>> >> as or better than the Z film, or if there was more than one

>>>> original genuine

>>>> >> film, or if stills were used as well, then the graininess would only be

>>>> >> visible in the intermediate steps of editing. When the final result is

>>>> >> projected and re-photographed through the Z camera to produce the strip

>>>> >> of "original" film now in the National Archives, the limited

>>>> >> resolution of the

>>>> >> Z film will itself blur out any graininess seen in the

>>>> intermediate blowups.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> What he said would be true for a very amateur production. This is no

>>>> >> amateur production. This is the work of experts.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> > [Then there is the color shifting that will take place because

>>>> >> > Kodachrome II film was created to be shot in natural sunlight. Altered

>>>> >> > film will not be shot in natural sunlight. Artificial light will need

>>>> >> > to be used, but then again the experts say that the color shifts will

>>>> >> > occur and to an expert on Kodachrome II film - the changes could not

>>>> >> > go unnoticed under scientific scrutiny.]

>>>> >>

>>>> >> This is Roland Zavada's argument. I challenged him on it by email in late

>>>> >> 200 and early 2003, before the Duluth Z film Symposium, and he suddenly

>>>> >> went quiet and pulled out of the Symposium. He's since rejected every

>>>> >> challenge or request to debate the issue.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> The point, again, is that an amateur job would indeed look as Miller

>>>> >> describes. The Z film is no amateur job. There is no light spectrum not

>>>> >> available to the well-equipped physicist, or photogrammetrist, or CIA

>>>> >> NPIC technician, or ....

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Just remember: scientists of the calibre Miller describes would indeed

>>>> >> spot an amateur job; and it is scientists of this calibre that

>>>> created the

>>>> >> Zapruder film.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> It's like asking whether an FBI Forensics expert could fake the forensics

>>>> >> evidence at a crime scene that they themselves committed. Of course

>>>> >> they could. For god's sake, they even complain about shows like

>>>> CSI telling

>>>> >> Joe Average how to do it. How much better equipped would that very

>>>> >> expert be?

>>>> >>

>>>> >> > [These things would need to be done the old-school way in a darkroom.

>>>> >> > To date as far as I know - no alteration supporter has offered any

>>>> >> > scientific data or examples of such alterations being undetectable

>>>> >> > through scientific testing.]

>>>> >>

>>>> >> What, he wants us to create another Zapruder film? If he bankrolls the

>>>> >> project, we could do it ... but I hope he's as rich as my boss.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> John

>>>> >>

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

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

FLASH! WHAT DID MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAY ON NOVEMBER 22nd?

All,

In case a sense of deja vu overcomes you all over again in reading this subject line, let

me remind you of the great fanfare with which Tink announced that Gary Mack had listened

to a recording of the radio interview with Mary Moorman just three hours after the events,

in which he claimed to have verified that Mary had said, "I stepped out in the street. We

were right by the car", where the word "I" was actually unclear in Lifton's transcript and

I had interpreted it as "We": given that "we" were right at the car, it appeared obvious

to me that "we"--they had both!--stepped into the street. Tink was elated that Mack had

apparently confirmed that I had committed a misinterpretation, but Costella was floored

that Mack, of all persons, had confirmed that Mary had said she was in the street just a

few hours after the event! This represented a turning point in our debate about the

photo.

Now that I have taken a look at what Jean Hill has had to say, I am becoming increasingly

skeptical that Gary Mack was giving us the straight scoop about what Mary "really said",

in Tink's language. Bill Miller is not the only one who appears to make some of this

stuff up out of whole cloth. Now that I have taken a look at Bill Sloan with Jean Hill, THE

LAST DISSENTING WITNESS (1992), I have discovered on p. 63 the following exchange

between Jean Hill and a person--identified by FBI AIC Gordon Shanklin--as a CIA agent:

"You said you were 'right at the curb' on Elm Street as the presidential

limousine approached", he began, "but weren't you actually in the street

itself for several seconds?"

"Yes", she replied, regaining some of her composure. "I jumped into the

street and called out to the president to look in our direction. We wanted

to take his picture".

"Is that the only reason you were in the street?"

She frowned. "Yes, of course", she said.

"And why did you suddenly jump back from the president's car at almost

exactly the same instant the shooting started?"

"I just realized I probably shouldn't be so close, and I decided I'd better

get back.

Notice how consistent this is with Mary's description of stepping into the street, taking

her picture, stepping back on the grass and getting down so she would not be shot and

tugging at Jean's leg, so she would get down, too. I have Bill Miller to thanks for

inviting another confirmation that the film is a fraud, since it shows neither Mary

nor Jean stepping into the street, which, as David Lifton observed long ago, is the

crucial sequence of events that impugns the film.

Notice, too, that the CIA agent KNOWS WHAT JEAN DID when she stepped into the street.

Unless he was there in person--and there is no reason for us to suspect this--he must

know from viewing filmed footage of the shooting. That means the CIA has always known

that Jean and Mary both stepped into the street! So I ask: What is the probability of

Mary having said, "I stepped into the street. We were right at the car.", when both of

them stepped into the street and were right at the car?

Moreover--and this is the point of returning to this issue--what is more probable in

this situation: That Tink imposed upon Gary Mark to report back that Mary had said,

"I stepped into the street. We were right at the car", when she rather more probably

said, given that we know they both stepped into the street, "We stepped into the street.

We were right at the car."? These reports not only impugn the integrity of the Zapruder

but also the candor of the Custodian of The Sixth Floor Museum.

___________________

On 17 December 2008, with great fanfare, he issued, "FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID

ON NOVEMBER 22nd", and published a reply to an inquiry he had sent to Gary Mack:

___________________

From: "Gary Mack"<GaryM@jfk.org>

Hi Tink,

At your request, I listened to part of the 11-22-63 KRLD radio interview of Mary

Moorman, which was broadcast around 3:45pm local time. (The original unedited tape and

other KRLD in-house copies are preserved at The Sixth Floor Museum.) While there may be

lower-quality recordings elsewhere, the Museum's tapes are very clear. Here is the

relevant portion concerning where she stood:

Jay Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

Mary Moorman: Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were

right at the car.

So Mary's memory was that they stood on the grass and then stepped into the

street. Exactly when that happened is not clear from this interview.

Gary

________________________

Consider these exchanges from "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", Part VII, which is archived

at JFKresearch.com and now published in THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO 13/1 (March 2009), pp. 6-33:

Part VII. MACK?S VERIFICATION AND JOHN?S REPLY

Somewhat to my astonishment, Tink fixated on the following two sentences of this exchange:

Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

Mary: [We] stepped out in the street. We were right at the car.

In his original transcript, Lifton had written "[unclear]" where I had written "We"--and,

indeed, without any brackets that distinguished between Lifton's transcription and my

interpretation. My rationale was that, if "we were right at the car", then surely "we"

had to have "stepped out in the street". But, since "We" included Mary and Jean as its

referents, if 'We" stepped out in the street, then Mary had stepped out in the street,

and if "I" had stepped out in the street, then Mary had stepped out in the street. So she

had done so either way. But that was not how Tink perceived it. He thought I had made a

mistake--even a blunder!--and wanted to nail me for it. On 17 December 2008, with great

fanfare, he issued, "FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID ON NOVEMBER 22nd", and

published a reply to an inquiry he had sent to Gary Mack:

________________

From: "Gary Mack"<GaryM@jfk.org>

Hi Tink,

At your request, I listened to part of the 11-22-63 KRLD radio interview of Mary

Moorman, which was broadcast around 3:45pm local time. (The original unedited tape and

other KRLD in-house copies are preserved at The Sixth Floor Museum.) While there may be

lower-quality recordings elsewhere, the Museum's tapes are very clear. Here is the

relevant portion concerning where she stood:

Jay Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

Mary Moorman: Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were

right at the car.

So Mary's memory was that they stood on the grass and then stepped into the

street. Exactly when that happened is not clear from this interview.

Gary

____________________________

My impression is that the logical point--that either way, Mary was saying that she had

stepped in the street--had not registered with Tink and that, in his enthusiasm over

discovering another way to tarnish me for making a mistake, he not only ignored my point

but rushed to dismiss the next post he received, thinking it was from me when instead it

had been sent to him by John Costella:

_____________________________

-John Costella" <jpcostella@> wrote:

I'm confused. If this is the same segment of tape that Lifton was transcribing, then

wasn't she describing the moment that she took the photograph?

To be in the street, right at the car, she had to be out there when the limo came to a

stop.

She didn't say she stepped out a minute before the car arrived, or was where the car

had gone.

Gary is therefore confirming that Mary has always maintained that she stepped out into

the street to take her photo. No wonder he had such trouble with her for that more recent

interview (see Jim's cut from Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" chapter from THE GREAT ZAPRUDER

FILM HOAX). [see the Appendix--Fetzer, JFKresearch.com/Moorman/]

Curiouser and curiouser. Have we now moved to the point of doubting the authenticity

of the Moorman Polaroid in toto?

This is what we now have (inserting Gary's information):

Q: Hello, Mrs. Moorman?

A: Yes.

Q You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before?

A: Evidently, just immediately, as the. . . Cause he was, he was looking, you know,

when (ever?) I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over.

Q: What type of picture was this.

A: A polaroid picture.

Q: About how close were you?

A: (background talk, as she discusses it; can't make out)

Q: Fairly close.

A: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more (unintell). . . Because I fall behind my camera.

Q: This was right at the underpass?

A: Yes, just a few feet from the underpass (continues, but she is cut off)

Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

A: Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were right at the

car.

. . .

______________________'

Apparently in the false belief that I had sent him this response?which is somewhat

difficult to believe, under the circumstances?Tink replied in his characteristically

dismissive fashion:

______________________

<gum226@...> wrote:

You hopeless ninny. You still don't get it.

We've been arguing over what should go in the blank where Lifton's transcript reads

[unclear]. Instead of speculating, Gary Mack listened to a clear copy of the tape and

reported what was there.

That's what I reported. After dumping baseless charges and insults onto Gary and me,

you get taught a lesson in integrity. And then... you still don't get it.

No, the Moorman photo has not been altered. None of the photos taken in Dealey Plaza

that day have been altered.

Josiah Thompson

_____________________

Costella, however, was not to be denied, and his response was very clear and explicit.

What is most interesting is that, while Costella agrees with Tink on the consistency of

Mary's Polaroid with the Zapruder film, he has independently proven--on multiple

grounds--that Zapruder was faked:

__________________

Quoting John Costella jpcostella@hotmail.com

Josiah,

I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you.

I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source wasn't Gary Mack.

But at that time I thought you were going to reveal that she didn't say she stepped into the

street at all.

As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the assassination, she

said she stepped into the street. Given that this is damaging to your case (and his), I

now agree that his authority is impeccable.

Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:

1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could

NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact,

completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens.

2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has repeated to this day,

that she stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE PHOTO

FROM THE STREET.

3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the President's or Jackie's

attention.

4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like frozen turkeys:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../jfk/clip_C.mov

5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.

6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.

The net results are:

A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as presenting a

consistent depiction of the assassination.

B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic evidence is

fraudulent.

C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is impeached as evidence--

its admissibility relies on the testimony of the photographer.

D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can see for no one

else seeing her step into the street is that she did it AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE

MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.

As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman Polaroid as telling us

anything at all. What surprises me the most is that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of

WHETHER SHE STEPPED INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from,

is the key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder film. The Polaroid

is irrelevant in all this.

My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and has tried to make

me understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't read his section in "Pig on a Leash"

should do so. [see the Appendix--Fetzer, JFKreseasrch.com/Moorman/]

(And let me also say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006,

when he dug out his transcript.)

I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it as vehemently as

Jim, past behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving us this explosive and unequivocal

evidence confirming Lifton's transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun.

I think we've all learned a lot in the past week.

John

___________________

So which is more probable: That Mary would say, "I stepped into the street. We were

right at the car.", when Jean was at her side, or that Mary would say, "We stepped into the

street. We were right at the car.", but Gary Mack would report an inaccurate version because

he had been induced to do so by Josian Thompson? One of these versions makes little or no

sense, while the other would be the obvious thing to have said. So which is more probable,

given the totality of the evidence currently available?

Jim

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.

Barb,

With Fetzer unwittingly saying things that doesn't support Jack's claims and Jack saying things that unwittingly doesn't support Fetzer's claims ... would it not be only fair to let them call a time out so they can figure out just what stories they wish to go with so not to be continually contradicting one another. B)

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

From "Pig on a Leash", we know the concern that Mack has shown in managing

Mary to keep any record of her having stepped into the street from becoming

better known. And we know the reason. She has been consistent since three

hours after the event in describing exactly how she stepped into the street,

took her photograph, stepped back onto the grass, got down and tugged at her

friend's leg to get down with her so they would not be hit by a stray bullet.

Now Jean confirms--in unmistakeable language--that she also stepped into the

street to get the president's attention, precisely as Mary had described. I

am just the least bit puzzled--not to say, floored!--that you would suggest

there is any ambiguity about the situation at all. Clearly, both of them

stepped into the street, Jean called to the president, Mary took her photo,

and they stepped back on the grass, as I have explained. Recall my points:

> Notice, too, that the CIA agent KNOWS WHAT JEAN DID when she stepped into

> the street. Unless he was there in person--and there is no reason for us to

> suspect this--he must know from viewing filmed footage of the shooting.

> That means the CIA has always known that Jean and Mary both stepped

> into the street! So I ask: What is the probability of Mary having said, "I

> stepped into the street. We were right at the car.", when both of them

> them stepped into the street and were right at the car?

>

> Moreover--and this is the point of returning to this issue--what is more

> probable in this situation: That Tink imposed upon Gary Mark to report back that Mary

> had said, "I stepped into the street. We were right at the car", when she rather more

> probably said, given that we know they both stepped into the street, "We stepped into

> the street. We were right at the car."? These reports not only impugn the integrity of

> the Zapruder but also the candor of the Custodian of The Sixth Floor Museum.

At the very least, the following conclusions can be drawn from this data:

(1) The CIA was concerned that Jean had stepped into the street;

(2) Jean had stepped into the street;

(3) The CIA had film of Jean stepping into the street;

Based upon our previous knowledge of Mary's own reports, we can conclude:

(4) Mary and Jean both stepped into the street;

(5) The CIA was concerned that they had both stepped into the street;

(6) The CIA had film of Mary and Jean stepping into the street.

It is not difficult to draw the following additional inferences:

(7) This created a problem for the CIA;

(8) The CIA needed to fix the problem;

(9) The CIA took steps to deal with it.

Remember, too, we have a video of Mary explaining how she stepped into the

street,

. I submit that, given

the quantity and quality of supporting evidence, there can be no doubt on

the question of whether Mary and Jean stepped into the street, Jean called

to JFK, Mary took her Polaroid, and they both stepped back onto the grass.

That, I submit, has been established DEFINITIVELY. About this, I submit,

there can no longer be any doubt. (Notice, by the way, the eagerness of

Bill Miller to CHANGE THE TOPIC, which is so devastating to his position!)

Miller suggests that Mary and Jean show MOTION, which can be disproven by

showing the sequence of frames relative to Mary and Jean's images. There

is no doubt that, apart from possibly miniscule movements, they are there,

in the film, embedded "like frozen turkeys", which is astonishing in itself.

Miller is playing games: They are not shown stepping into the street! With

the extraordinary events swirling all around them, it is inconceivable that

they would not react very much as you have described them in your thoughtful

reconstruction of what a real film would have shown. It thus appears that,

in pursuing the question of Mary in the street, Jack opened a hornet's nest

for those who want to conceal the fabrication of the film. It is a simple

enough matter that, once understood, should convince anyone of film fakery!

John Costella has now suggested (see below) that we have two alternatives,

whereas only one appears reasonable to me on the basis of the evidence:

______________________

We have two remarkable possibilities:

1. the one you ascribe to: that he had seen genuine footage

of the event, in which Mary and Jean jump into the street; or

2. that Mary and Jean did no such thing, but rather were

coerced into saying that they did, and he was part of that

coercion.

Scenario 2 is less conventional, but would make sense if there

were anything strange relating to Mary's Polaroid: having her

say something that can be disproved by the extant Polaroid

is a good way to destroy her credibility.

Either way, it seems highly likely that Mary was coerced into

saying something that wasn't true: either that she didn't

step into the street when she did, or that she did when she

didn't.

__________________

Since the whole effort has been to manipulate Jean and Mary into NOT saying

what they so obviously know to be the case--that they both stepped into the

street--why would you suggest, as even a remote possibility, that they were

COERCED into say that they did? That is fantastic! Reread the Appendix of

"Moorman/Zapruder Revisited" from "Pig on a Leash". The whole effort with

Mary and Jean has been dedicated to KEEPING THEM FROM SAYING THAT THEY HAD

STEPPED INTO THE STREET. If they hadn't done that, then Mary would surely

have been relieved when Mack sought to keep her from saying that, because

that would have comported with the truth. So your suggestion strikes me as

a bit bizarre. Still, I think you may be onto something about the Polaroid.

Their actions are so simple and straightforward that it must have occurred

to someone at the agency, for example, that they needed SOMETHING that could

be used to discredit them. The Polaroid is the obvious and available means

toward that end. By a very slight alteration of the photo in the area of the

pergola, it would be possible to create a line of sight that was inconsistent

with its having been taken on the street and consistent with its having been

taken on the grass. It must be extremely stressful for those who have the

responsibility for managing these things that it continues to be an issue.

If I were in that position, it would probably drive me crazy if someone like

Jack White and Jim Fetzer were continuing to pursue it, because it runs the

risk of opening up this enormous can of worms, because they really were in

the street, just as they have consistently maintained for all of these years.

That frustration, of course, would be compounded if the photographic fix had

been done properly. Egad! Even you are convinced that the photograph is in

harmony with the Zapruder, the Muchmore, and the Nix. So those responsible

must find it exasperating in the highest degree when Jack, David--who stands

with us on this issue, even if he is not participating in this debate--and I

persist in contending that the photo REALLY IS consistent with Mary standing

in the street and inconsistent with the Zapruder, the Muchmore, and the Nix,

which we do because our own experiment and those of others have confirmed it.

And that appears to me to be the explanation for why the gang has gone so far

out of its way to oppose us at every step, typically with argument that, as I

have demonstrated, time after time, are flimsy and even fallacious. And I am

becoming convinced that Miller has a more central role in this than I thought.

It is far easier to alter her photograph than to coerce either Mary or Jean

into saying something that is not true. Most of the manipulation of what they

have to say has been done by selective quotation, precisely as David Lifton

has observed. By removing a few words here and a few words there, Mack (or

Tink, or whomever) can create virtually any impression they want to convey:

__________________

By the deletion of the words ("and then I stepped back, and then, [i heard]

two more noises"), two critical matters were omitted from Mary's account,

namely: (1) the implication that she had stepped forward, very possibly into the street,

especially if she was already standing at the edge; and (2) the fact that Mary Moorman

believes that she heard three shots—the first as she took her picture and then two more!

This is quite different than the official version, but it is the one Mary has always

given as her version of this event. Mary always says that in her

various interviews-—both during this filming and elsewhere—-and it's plain as day that

what she calls the "first shot" occurred the instant she took her picture, and then

there were two more. But that raises complications and contradicts the official version,

so the problem was dealt with by making a silent edit (omitting the bracketed words

above). Obviously, when the witness' account came up against the official version, there

was nocontest—-it was the official version that prevailed.

__________________

What Lifton is describing, of course, involves "gentle coercion" by coaxing

Mary not to say what they don't want her to say and then editing the outcome

to create the impression they intend. But that is a far cry from your second

alternative, which strikes me as the least plausible remark you have made in

the course of this discussion. So I hope you will elaborate, because I am

extremely puzzled that you are suggesting that Moorman may have said some-

thing that wasn't true: either that she didn't step into the street when she did, or

that she did when she didn't. Neither alternative seems to be quite

right, when you consider the totality of the evidence, the extent to which

efforts have been made to "clean up" this loose end, and the consistency of

Mary and Jean's reports of having stepped into the street and all that. As

I have repeatedly observed, we may not always remember what we have said on

a given occasion, but it is virtually impossible for us to forget what we did!

Apart from tactics like these, there sees to be no basis for your suggestion.

_____________________

---on jfk-research, bmjfk63@... wrote:

> On the one hand, as you point out, the extant photographic

> evidence does NOT have Jean MOVING AT ALL -- she stands

> perfectly still, like a stuffed toy, and only turns her head.

> "The extant evidence doesn't have Jean moving at all" ... I see motion!

>

> I would like to point out that there are no photograophic images showing Jean Hill in the

> seconds prior to when the shooting started. The first sign of Jean on film once the

> shooting started is when Bronson took his photo, which does show Jean Hill in motion.

> She is quite clearly in mid-step as she said that she had gotten back out of the street

> before the first shot had sounded.

>

> I also wish to point out that Jean and Mary's coats can be seen blowing in the breeze.

> That when you look at the photographic record in more detail than a cursory glance, then

> one can pick up on the fact that Jean and Mary both track the limo as it first approaches

> them - as it passes them - and as it moves away from them.

>

> I will also add that the same happened with Sitzman and Zapruder for they were facing

> east when Bezter took his photo, but yet they had pivoted their bodies so to match the

> progression of the President, thus rubber doll stand-ins should be out of the question in

> case Fetzer wishes to raise it again.

>

> One more thing I will share ... Have any one of you compared the camera movements of

> Zapruder as seen in the Nix film to the simataneous movements seen in the Zapruder

>camera? I have and found them to be many and consistent.

>

> Bill Miller

_____________________

Quoting John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>:

Jim, and all (including the forum),

This exchange is remarkable, as I'll make clear in a moment:

Now that I have taken a look at Bill Sloan with Jean Hill, THE

LAST DISSENTING WITNESS (1992), I have discovered on p. 63 the

following exchange between Jean Hill and a person--identified by

FBI AIC Gordon Shanklin--as a CIA agent:

"You said you were 'right at the curb' on Elm Street as the presidential

limousine approached", he began, "but weren't you actually in the street

itself for several seconds?"

"Yes", she replied, regaining some of her composure. "I jumped into the

street and called out to the president to look in our direction. We wanted

to take his picture".

"Is that the only reason you were in the street?"

She frowned. "Yes, of course", she said.

"And why did you suddenly jump back from the president's car at almost

exactly the same instant the shooting started?"

"I just realized I probably shouldn't be so close, and I decided I'd better

get back."

Now let me tell you why this is remarkable. It has three prongs.

On the one hand, as you point out, the extant photographic

evidence does NOT have Jean MOVING AT ALL -- she stands

perfectly still, like a stuffed toy, and only turns her head.

Secondly, as far as I can recall from the reading I did for my

eyewitness compilation (at Assassination Research), the only

eyewitness who mentioned Jean or Mary at all (other than

each other) was S. M. Holland:

"And another report rang out and he slumped down in his seat,

and about that time Mrs. Kennedy was looking at these girls

over here [indicating]. The girls standing—now one of them

was taking a picture, and the other one was just standing

there, and she [Mrs. Kennedy] turned around facing the

President and Governor Connally. In other words, she realized

what was happening, I guess."

Thirdly, every single Zapruder frame published by LIFE magazine

is remarkable, in that NOT ONE SHOWS MARY OR JEAN.

So we have this amazing situation, whereby if it weren't for

the photographic evidence, we'd be as dubious of Mary's and

Jean's presence in Dealey Plaza as we are of Norman Similas.

And of course this begs the question: if the photographic

evidence doesn't show Jean moving, and the only other

eyewitness who mentioned them claimed that Jean was

"just standing there", then why did the questioning agent

insist that Jean jumped into the street -- "leading the

witness" into "remembering" things that she hadn't

previously stated?

We have two remarkable possibilities:

1. the one you ascribe to: that he had seen genuine footage

of the event, in which Mary and Jean jump into the street; or

2. that Mary and Jean did no such thing, but rather were

coerced into saying that they did, and he was part of that

coercion.

Scenario 2 is less conventional, but would make sense if there

were anything strange relating to Mary's Polaroid: having her

say something that can be disproved by the extant Polaroid

is a good way to destroy her credibility.

Either way, it seems highly likely that Mary was coerced into

saying something that wasn't true: either that she didn't

step into the street when she did, or that she did when she

didn't.

John

_________________

Quoting Jim Fetzer <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>:

All,

In case a sense of deja vu overcomes you all over again in reading this subject line, let

me remind you of the great fanfare with which Tink announced that Gary Mack had listened

to a recording of the radio interview with Mary Moorman just three hours after the

events, in which he claimed to have verified that Mary had said, "I stepped out in the

street. We were right by the car", where the word "I" was actually unclear in Lifton's

transcript and I had interpreted it as "We": given that "we" were right at the car, it

appeared obvious to me that "we"--they had both!--stepped into the street. Tink was

elated that Mack had apparently confirmed that I had committed a misinterpretation,

but Costella was floored that Mack, of all persons, had confirmed that Mary had said

she was in the street just a few hours after the event! This represented a turning point

in our debate about the photo.

Now that I have taken a look at what Jean Hill has had to say, I am becoming increasingly

skeptical that Gary Mack was giving us the straight scoop about what Mary "really said",

in Tink's language. Bill Miller is not the only one who appears to make some of this

stuff up out of whole cloth. Now that I have taken a look at Bill Sloan with Jean Hill,

THE LAST DISSENTING WITNESS (1992), I have discovered on p. 63 the following exchange

between Jean Hill and a person--identified by FBI AIC Gordon Shanklin--as a CIA agent:

"You said you were 'right at the curb' on Elm Street as the presidential

limousine approached", he began, "but weren't you actually in the street

itself for several seconds?"

"Yes", she replied, regaining some of her composure. "I jumped into the

street and called out to the president to look in our direction. We wanted

to take his picture".

"Is that the only reason you were in the street?"

She frowned. "Yes, of course", she said.

"And why did you suddenly jump back from the president's car at almost

exactly the same instant the shooting started?"

"I just realized I probably shouldn't be so close, and I decided I'd better

get back.

Notice how consistent this is with Mary's description of stepping into the street, taking

her picture, stepping back on the grass and getting down so she would not be shot and

tugging at Jean's leg, so she would get down, too. I have Bill Miller to thanks for

inviting another confirmation that the film is a fraud, since it shows neither Mary nor

Jean stepping into the street, which, as David Lifton observed long ago, is the crucial

sequence of events that impugns the film.

Notice, too, that the CIA agent KNOWS WHAT JEAN DID when she stepped into the street.

Unless he was there in person--and there is no reason for us to suspect this--he must

know from viewing filmed footage of the shooting. That means the CIA has always known

that Jean and Mary both stepped into the street! So I ask: What is the probability of

Mary having said, "I stepped into the street. We were right at the car.", when both of

them stepped into the street and were right at the car?

Moreover--and this is the point of returning to this issue--what is more probable in this

situation: That Tink imposed upon Gary Mark to report back that Mary had said, "I

stepped into the street. We were right at the car", when she rather more probably said,

given that we know they both stepped into the street, "We stepped into the street. We

were right at the car."? These reports not only impugn the integrity of the Zapruder but

also the candor of the Custodian of The Sixth Floor Museum.

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)

David, are you sure that you have thought your position through thoroughly? You became part of the 'non-alteration' crowd when you said that you have seen NO PROOF of alteration ... that you had only claimed that it was possible it had been altered. With that being said, then let us have YOU (David) handle providing the in-camera Zapruder original for forensic testing.

And I (sarcastically) agree ... anyone who pays taxes should be allowed to handle the Zapruder film and project it up on a screen. They should also leave the original constitution out on a table so that any tax payer should be allowed to come and handle it as well. Heck ... our taxes helped pay for the launch codes to our nuclear arsenal ... we should be allowed to hold them in our hands and examine them. How far does one need to go to see that your position is not logical.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLASH! WHAT DID MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAY ON NOVEMBER 22nd?

All,

In case a sense of deja vu overcomes you all over again in reading this subject line, let

me remind you of the great fanfare with which Tink announced that Gary Mack had listened

to a recording of the radio interview with Mary Moorman just three hours after the events,

in which he claimed to have verified that Mary had said, "I stepped out in the street. We

were right by the car", where the word "I" was actually unclear in Lifton's transcript and

I had interpreted it as "We": given that "we" were right at the car, it appeared obvious

to me that "we"--they had both!--stepped into the street. Tink was elated that Mack had

apparently confirmed that I had committed a misinterpretation, but Costella was floored

that Mack, of all persons, had confirmed that Mary had said she was in the street just a

few hours after the event! This represented a turning point in our debate about the

photo.

Now that I have taken a look at what Jean Hill has had to say, I am becoming increasingly

skeptical that Gary Mack was giving us the straight scoop about what Mary "really said",

in Tink's language. Bill Miller is not the only one who appears to make some of this

stuff up out of whole cloth. Now that I have taken a look at Bill Sloan with Jean Hill, THE

LAST DISSENTING WITNESS (1992), I have discovered on p. 63 the following exchange

between Jean Hill and a person--identified by FBI AIC Gordon Shanklin--as a CIA agent:

"You said you were 'right at the curb' on Elm Street as the presidential

limousine approached", he began, "but weren't you actually in the street

itself for several seconds?"

"Yes", she replied, regaining some of her composure. "I jumped into the

street and called out to the president to look in our direction. We wanted

to take his picture".

"Is that the only reason you were in the street?"

She frowned. "Yes, of course", she said.

"And why did you suddenly jump back from the president's car at almost

exactly the same instant the shooting started?"

"I just realized I probably shouldn't be so close, and I decided I'd better

get back.

Notice how consistent this is with Mary's description of stepping into the street, taking

her picture, stepping back on the grass and getting down so she would not be shot and

tugging at Jean's leg, so she would get down, too. I have Bill Miller to thanks for

inviting another confirmation that the film is a fraud, since it shows neither Mary

nor Jean stepping into the street, which, as David Lifton observed long ago, is the

crucial sequence of events that impugns the film.

Notice, too, that the CIA agent KNOWS WHAT JEAN DID when she stepped into the street.

Unless he was there in person--and there is no reason for us to suspect this--he must

know from viewing filmed footage of the shooting. That means the CIA has always known

that Jean and Mary both stepped into the street! So I ask: What is the probability of

Mary having said, "I stepped into the street. We were right at the car.", when both of

them stepped into the street and were right at the car?

Moreover--and this is the point of returning to this issue--what is more probable in

this situation: That Tink imposed upon Gary Mark to report back that Mary had said,

"I stepped into the street. We were right at the car", when she rather more probably

said, given that we know they both stepped into the street, "We stepped into the street.

We were right at the car."? These reports not only impugn the integrity of the Zapruder

but also the candor of the Custodian of The Sixth Floor Museum.

___________________

On 17 December 2008, with great fanfare, he issued, "FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID

ON NOVEMBER 22nd", and published a reply to an inquiry he had sent to Gary Mack:

___________________

From: "Gary Mack"<GaryM@jfk.org>

Hi Tink,

At your request, I listened to part of the 11-22-63 KRLD radio interview of Mary

Moorman, which was broadcast around 3:45pm local time. (The original unedited tape and

other KRLD in-house copies are preserved at The Sixth Floor Museum.) While there may be

lower-quality recordings elsewhere, the Museum's tapes are very clear. Here is the

relevant portion concerning where she stood:

Jay Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

Mary Moorman: Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were

right at the car.

So Mary's memory was that they stood on the grass and then stepped into the

street. Exactly when that happened is not clear from this interview.

Gary

________________________

Consider these exchanges from "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", Part VII, which is archived

at JFKresearch.com and now published in THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO 13/1 (March 2009), pp. 6-33:

Part VII. MACK?S VERIFICATION AND JOHN?S REPLY

Somewhat to my astonishment, Tink fixated on the following two sentences of this exchange:

Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

Mary: [We] stepped out in the street. We were right at the car.

In his original transcript, Lifton had written "[unclear]" where I had written "We"--and,

indeed, without any brackets that distinguished between Lifton's transcription and my

interpretation. My rationale was that, if "we were right at the car", then surely "we"

had to have "stepped out in the street". But, since "We" included Mary and Jean as its

referents, if 'We" stepped out in the street, then Mary had stepped out in the street,

and if "I" had stepped out in the street, then Mary had stepped out in the street. So she

had done so either way. But that was not how Tink perceived it. He thought I had made a

mistake--even a blunder!--and wanted to nail me for it. On 17 December 2008, with great

fanfare, he issued, "FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID ON NOVEMBER 22nd", and

published a reply to an inquiry he had sent to Gary Mack:

________________

From: "Gary Mack"<GaryM@jfk.org>

Hi Tink,

At your request, I listened to part of the 11-22-63 KRLD radio interview of Mary

Moorman, which was broadcast around 3:45pm local time. (The original unedited tape and

other KRLD in-house copies are preserved at The Sixth Floor Museum.) While there may be

lower-quality recordings elsewhere, the Museum's tapes are very clear. Here is the

relevant portion concerning where she stood:

Jay Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

Mary Moorman: Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were

right at the car.

So Mary's memory was that they stood on the grass and then stepped into the

street. Exactly when that happened is not clear from this interview.

Gary

____________________________

My impression is that the logical point--that either way, Mary was saying that she had

stepped in the street--had not registered with Tink and that, in his enthusiasm over

discovering another way to tarnish me for making a mistake, he not only ignored my point

but rushed to dismiss the next post he received, thinking it was from me when instead it

had been sent to him by John Costella:

_____________________________

-John Costella" <jpcostella@> wrote:

I'm confused. If this is the same segment of tape that Lifton was transcribing, then

wasn't she describing the moment that she took the photograph?

To be in the street, right at the car, she had to be out there when the limo came to a

stop.

She didn't say she stepped out a minute before the car arrived, or was where the car

had gone.

Gary is therefore confirming that Mary has always maintained that she stepped out into

the street to take her photo. No wonder he had such trouble with her for that more recent

interview (see Jim's cut from Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" chapter from THE GREAT ZAPRUDER

FILM HOAX). [see the Appendix--Fetzer, JFKresearch.com/Moorman/]

Curiouser and curiouser. Have we now moved to the point of doubting the authenticity

of the Moorman Polaroid in toto?

This is what we now have (inserting Gary's information):

Q: Hello, Mrs. Moorman?

A: Yes.

Q You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before?

A: Evidently, just immediately, as the. . . Cause he was, he was looking, you know,

when (ever?) I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over.

Q: What type of picture was this.

A: A polaroid picture.

Q: About how close were you?

A: (background talk, as she discusses it; can't make out)

Q: Fairly close.

A: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more (unintell). . . Because I fall behind my camera.

Q: This was right at the underpass?

A: Yes, just a few feet from the underpass (continues, but she is cut off)

Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

A: Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were right at the

car.

. . .

______________________'

Apparently in the false belief that I had sent him this response?which is somewhat

difficult to believe, under the circumstances?Tink replied in his characteristically

dismissive fashion:

______________________

<gum226@...> wrote:

You hopeless ninny. You still don't get it.

We've been arguing over what should go in the blank where Lifton's transcript reads

[unclear]. Instead of speculating, Gary Mack listened to a clear copy of the tape and

reported what was there.

That's what I reported. After dumping baseless charges and insults onto Gary and me,

you get taught a lesson in integrity. And then... you still don't get it.

No, the Moorman photo has not been altered. None of the photos taken in Dealey Plaza

that day have been altered.

Josiah Thompson

_____________________

Costella, however, was not to be denied, and his response was very clear and explicit.

What is most interesting is that, while Costella agrees with Tink on the consistency of

Mary's Polaroid with the Zapruder film, he has independently proven--on multiple

grounds--that Zapruder was faked:

__________________

Quoting John Costella jpcostella@hotmail.com

Josiah,

I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you.

I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source wasn't Gary Mack.

But at that time I thought you were going to reveal that she didn't say she stepped into the

street at all.

As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the assassination, she

said she stepped into the street. Given that this is damaging to your case (and his), I

now agree that his authority is impeccable.

Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:

1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could

NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact,

completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens.

2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has repeated to this day,

that she stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE PHOTO

FROM THE STREET.

3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the President's or Jackie's

attention.

4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like frozen turkeys:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../jfk/clip_C.mov

5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.

6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.

The net results are:

A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as presenting a

consistent depiction of the assassination.

B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic evidence is

fraudulent.

C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is impeached as evidence--

its admissibility relies on the testimony of the photographer.

D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can see for no one

else seeing her step into the street is that she did it AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE

MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.

As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman Polaroid as telling us

anything at all. What surprises me the most is that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of

WHETHER SHE STEPPED INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from,

is the key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder film. The Polaroid

is irrelevant in all this.

My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and has tried to make

me understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't read his section in "Pig on a Leash"

should do so. [see the Appendix--Fetzer, JFKreseasrch.com/Moorman/]

(And let me also say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006,

when he dug out his transcript.)

I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it as vehemently as

Jim, past behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving us this explosive and unequivocal

evidence confirming Lifton's transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun.

I think we've all learned a lot in the past week.

John

___________________

So which is more probable: That Mary would say, "I stepped into the street. We were

right at the car.", when Jean was at her side, or that Mary would say, "We stepped into the

street. We were right at the car.", but Gary Mack would report an inaccurate version because

he had been induced to do so by Josian Thompson? One of these versions makes little or no

sense, while the other would be the obvious thing to have said. So which is more probable,

given the totality of the evidence currently available?

Jim

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.

Barb,

With Fetzer unwittingly saying things that doesn't support Jack's claims and Jack saying things that unwittingly doesn't support Fetzer's claims ... would it not be only fair to let them call a time out so they can figure out just what stories they wish to go with so not to be continually contradicting one another. B)

Bill

So exactly WHEN did this supposed conversation with Jean Hill and some unnamed and unknown "cia" agent take place Jim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Healy said:

"I have never examined, touched or even seen the alleged NARA housed, in-camera original Z-film (up close and personal), have you? Now, I know this is above your pay grade but, how can a competent researcher state a film or photo is altered if that researcher can't examine the alleged "original in-camera film/photo.... Tell us how that works Barb, ..."

Why are you asking me this question ... I have never claimed the film has been altered. Sounds like a great question for your alteration captains White & Fetzer though. :-)

Barring any verifiable evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to suspect the Zfilm, or any other of the Elm St. films or photos, of having been altered.

You wiggle around the point .... achoo .... that being that there have not been any verifiable, stand up to scrutiny, "proofs" (despite many proffers) that the film is fake.

Since it's a great interest of yours, why don't you just get right on trying to get a forensic examination done of the film. And see if you can find when the frames were numbered. You are correct ... I do not know. It's not an area that holds my interest, but hey, I am open ... like I said before, if any verifiable evidence of tampering comes up ... let me know.

Bests to you, David

Barb :-)

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)

Yes, no less than four. That's more than "none" in my wacky little world. How many saw the rather large gaping wound in the right rear of the head? Many. Clint Hill in DP ... a real up close and personal view all the way to Parkland, multiple people at Parkland, most notably the treating physicians, and then, of course, damage reported by Hill and Parkland was corroborated at autopsy.

Your point? :-)

LNs deny damage to the right rear of the head at all costs because they mistakenly equate damage to the rear of the head as having to have come from a shot from the front, and they have no place in their world for that.

But why is it some CTs do the same thing as regards the wound that opened so graphically on the Zfilm? Actually, I guess that would just be the alterationists. It is not a situation where it has to be either the wound in the back or the wound on the right side ... it was both. Virtually the entire right side of JFK's head was shattered, destroyed, exploded ... the full extent of the damage, of course, could not be seen until autopy when they reflected the scalp .... when more bone fell to the table and some pieces stuck to the scalp ... and left them with one big honking area of missing bone ... 10cm lateral right from 1" right of the eop, and 17cm forward from there.

Forensic exam of the film ... sure, that would be great. Why don't you contact the Archives about that? Contact some independent qualified professional examiners about pursuing the project and have them apply to the Archives. Go for it, that's what research is all about, right?

As for being "dead set on arguing and debating the Z-film" ... not this girl. Don't know where you got that idea. The Moorman in the street issue was just that ... the Moorman in the street issue. And, imo, it has been resolved. As "proofs" of film alteration emerged, sometimes almost daily, several years ago, I did participate in some discussion about them ... saw all that I can think of debunked. I have seen no evidence that stands up to scrutiny that the film has been altered, fabricated or in any way diddled.

Have you? Tell me what you know proves the film is altered. :-) Oh wait, that's right, you yourself wrote that you can't prove it. So, it seems reasonable to you to try to make something out of others not believing the film was altered? There's logic. Believe with all the passion you want - when there is verifiable proof, let me know.

Barb :-)

my goodness... you finally have a grasp on evidence that demands testing. You nor I, Wild Bill Miller, Josiah Thompson Ph.D., Gary Mack, Len Brazil, or Craig Lamson can prove, nor disprove the authenticity of the alleged in-camera Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA... not even Roland Zavada (and all the Lone Nut contrary whining aside). And let's face it, that (and John Costella Ph.D. prodding, of course) is the reason Roland backed away from the 2003 UofMinn Zapruder Film Symposium....

So, to comment on your above sophomoric comment (which Wild Bill Miller also loves), "of course I can't prove its altered". and here's the rest of the story for Barb: I have never examined, touched or even seen the alleged NARA housed, in-camera original Z-film (up close and personal), have you? Now, I know this is above your pay grade but, how can a competent researcher state a film or photo is altered if that researcher can't examine the alleged "original in-camera film/photo.... Tell us how that works Barb, your best John McAdams definition will do just fine....

Hell Barb, ya can't even tell me or this board the exact date the Z-frames were numbered...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Barb,

And just when I thought you were acknowledging your misrepresentations of

my position. As you know, I have always maintained the shot from the front

entered his right temple. And I have acknowledged that the explosion of

this frangible opened a flap above his ear and damaged the ear, which may

have exposed his brains to the Newman. But "seeing brains" and "seeing

brains exploding to the right-front", as the Zapruder film displays, are

not the same thing. I have asked you if you think there was a massive

blow-out of brains to the right-front as well as to the left rear. I was

not thereby suggesting that the wound to the back of his skull was at the

"left rear". We all know it was to the rear and slightly to the right.

But the blow-out of the brains was to the left rear and even hit Officer

Hargis with such force that he thought he himself had been shot. Indeed,

the discovery of the Harper fragment is additional supporting evidence,

but we all know that that is the case. What I found so odd about your

replies is their persistent distortion of my position about all of this.

You have claimed that the Newmans, Zaprduer and Sitzman have testified

to a wound on the right front. I agree there were injuries to the right

front, but that the damage was relatively less severe than the wound to

the back of his head. Since (a) Zapruder shows brains and gore being

blown out to the right front--a deception that is reinforced by others,

including (B) the missing mass on the anterior-posterior X-ray, © the

caption in LIFE saying that frame 313 established the direction of the

shot, when blew his brains out to the right front; and (d) Zapruder's

television using his had to indicate a blow-out to the right front--my

question to you has always been (and it is really very simple), Do you

believe that his brains were blown out to the right front? Because, if

you do not believe this--if you believe, as most students of the crime

acknowledge, that they were not blown out to the right front--then the

Zapruder film has been impeached, because it shows something that is

not the case: indeed, the crucial feature of the film has been faked!

This is why I suggested that Josiah confronts a dilemma, where, in his

original review of MURDER on amazon.com, he dismissed all the chapters

except the one by Gary Aguilar. Because this chapter is devoted to the

consistency of the descriptions of the wound to the back of the head at

Parkland and at Bethesda, and he produced a powerful argument that they

were consistent. This may have been intended to counter David Lifton's

suggestions of surgery to the head, but, more importantly, they confirm

that the blow-out of brains and gore was to the left and rear, not to

the right and front. Although Aguilar is not addressing implications

of his study for the authenticity of the film, which was not his topic,

they are clear, obvious, and compelling. If you understand the medical

evidence, especially as represented by David Mantik's synthesis in the

same book--indeed, in the chapter following Aguilar's--then you under-

stand that the damage to the skull and the Zapruder film are at odds in

such serious ways that the authenticity of the film has been impeached.

Sometimes I have the impression that you have not considered any of my

arguments. You have gone so far as to say, "essentially, the entire

right side of JFK's skull was 'blown out'... and destroyed." But you

appear to be playing games here. Even Jackie observed that, from the

front, he looked just fine, but that she had had a terrible time hold-

ing his brains and skull together at the back. McClelland's diagram

and Crenshaw's diagram both show the blow out to the back of the head.

As I discovered, frame 374 actually displays it. And Mantik's work on

the X-rays has confirmed the dimensions of the blow out--shapped a bit

like a cashew--when the "patch" that was use to conceal it is exposed.

You do not even seem to appreciate Costella's studies, which include:

(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

Indeed, in relation to the third, if you scroll down to the bottom of

the page, you will see a familiar autopsy photograph, which contradicts

your claim that "the entire right side of JFK's skull was 'blown out"

... and destroyed". For someone who likes to pose as an expert on the

death of JFK, your limitations are showing. As in the case of Josiah

Thompson, your position appears to be the result of sloppy research or

deliberate deception. Given the extent to which we have discussed this

simple point in detail, it is difficult for me to imagine that you don't

know any better than you feign. And it is quite remarkable that, after

announcing you were not going to reply to me again, you have done that.

It must mean that, as the evidence for Zapruder fabrication increases

without bound, you are being used as a form of emotional distraction. It

won't work, but I can't imagine any other reason why you are doing this.

Jim

Quoting Barb Junkkarinen:

>> > If you didn't mean a wound on the left rear all the times you said

>> > to the left rear ... I am glad to hear that ... but it is how I took

>> > what you said. If it is my error, so be it.

>> >

>> > "Blown out" seems to be a biggie to you. As I already said, brains

>> > and blood and gore came from both the gaping wound in the back of

>> > the head as well as the flap wound on the right side of the head.

>> > And of course it all came out with some force due to the pressure

>> > created in the closed head. What, you think it would have been

>> > "blown out" and termed "explosive" from only one area that opened up

>> > and just dripped out from the other!

David Healy said:

"I have never examined, touched or even seen the alleged NARA housed, in-camera original Z-film (up close and personal), have you? Now, I know this is above your pay grade but, how can a competent researcher state a film or photo is altered if that researcher can't examine the alleged "original in-camera film/photo.... Tell us how that works Barb, ..."

Why are you asking me this question ... I have never claimed the film has been altered. Sounds like a great question for your alteration captains White & Fetzer though. :-)

Barring any verifiable evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to suspect the Zfilm, or any other of the Elm St. films or photos, of having been altered.

You wiggle around the point .... achoo .... that being that there have not been any verifiable, stand up to scrutiny, "proofs" (despite many proffers) that the film is fake.

Since it's a great interest of yours, why don't you just get right on trying to get a forensic examination done of the film. And see if you can find when the frames were numbered. You are correct ... I do not know. It's not an area that holds my interest, but hey, I am open ... like I said before, if any verifiable evidence of tampering comes up ... let me know.

Bests to you, David

Barb :-)

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)

Yes, no less than four. That's more than "none" in my wacky little world. How many saw the rather large gaping wound in the right rear of the head? Many. Clint Hill in DP ... a real up close and personal view all the way to Parkland, multiple people at Parkland, most notably the treating physicians, and then, of course, damage reported by Hill and Parkland was corroborated at autopsy.

Your point? :-)

LNs deny damage to the right rear of the head at all costs because they mistakenly equate damage to the rear of the head as having to have come from a shot from the front, and they have no place in their world for that.

But why is it some CTs do the same thing as regards the wound that opened so graphically on the Zfilm? Actually, I guess that would just be the alterationists. It is not a situation where it has to be either the wound in the back or the wound on the right side ... it was both. Virtually the entire right side of JFK's head was shattered, destroyed, exploded ... the full extent of the damage, of course, could not be seen until autopy when they reflected the scalp .... when more bone fell to the table and some pieces stuck to the scalp ... and left them with one big honking area of missing bone ... 10cm lateral right from 1" right of the eop, and 17cm forward from there.

Forensic exam of the film ... sure, that would be great. Why don't you contact the Archives about that? Contact some independent qualified professional examiners about pursuing the project and have them apply to the Archives. Go for it, that's what research is all about, right?

As for being "dead set on arguing and debating the Z-film" ... not this girl. Don't know where you got that idea. The Moorman in the street issue was just that ... the Moorman in the street issue. And, imo, it has been resolved. As "proofs" of film alteration emerged, sometimes almost daily, several years ago, I did participate in some discussion about them ... saw all that I can think of debunked. I have seen no evidence that stands up to scrutiny that the film has been altered, fabricated or in any way diddled.

Have you? Tell me what you know proves the film is altered. :-) Oh wait, that's right, you yourself wrote that you can't prove it. So, it seems reasonable to you to try to make something out of others not believing the film was altered? There's logic. Believe with all the passion you want - when there is verifiable proof, let me know.

Barb :-)

my goodness... you finally have a grasp on evidence that demands testing. You nor I, Wild Bill Miller, Josiah Thompson Ph.D., Gary Mack, Len Brazil, or Craig Lamson can prove, nor disprove the authenticity of the alleged in-camera Zapruder Film currently housed at NARA... not even Roland Zavada (and all the Lone Nut contrary whining aside). And let's face it, that (and John Costella Ph.D. prodding, of course) is the reason Roland backed away from the 2003 UofMinn Zapruder Film Symposium....

So, to comment on your above sophomoric comment (which Wild Bill Miller also loves), "of course I can't prove its altered". and here's the rest of the story for Barb: I have never examined, touched or even seen the alleged NARA housed, in-camera original Z-film (up close and personal), have you? Now, I know this is above your pay grade but, how can a competent researcher state a film or photo is altered if that researcher can't examine the alleged "original in-camera film/photo.... Tell us how that works Barb, your best John McAdams definition will do just fine....

Hell Barb, ya can't even tell me or this board the exact date the Z-frames were numbered...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

All,

I found some of Barb's observations so extraordinary that I sent the below

post to several of those with whom I collaborate to make sure that there

wasn't something here I was missing. The passages that puzzled me include:

> You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ...

> which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping

> wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said

> they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back

> of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements,

> notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area

> of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his

> skull.

>

> The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred

> to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and

> the back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the

> camera.

This, of course, makes me wonder whether Barb has ever looked at frame

374, for example, where the blow-out is visible, reviewed John's studies

of the film, which I have highlighted many times now, or ever read HOAX.

I would place a considerable bet that she has never read HOAX, but since

it is so easy to look at frame 374 or watch John's studies of the film,

(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

I don't know what to make of her position, in light of the quantity and

quality of the evidence arrayed against here. In any case, John sent me

an extremely interesting suggestion about a possible relationship between

Mary's photograph and Zapruder's film, which I wanted to share with you.

Jim

----- Forwarded message from jpcostella@hotmail.com -----

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:28:54 +1100

From: John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>

Subject: RE: [jfk-research] Re: Josiah Thompson: Sloppy research or deliberate deception?

Jim,

I still sit on Tink's side when it comes to the extant Moorman and what camera position

it implies, so make sure that the issues are disentangled.

Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The

explanation I like best is David Lifton's in Best Evidence about the time they got hold

of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my

website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL.

The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that

somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are

seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself

dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316,

and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required -- and as

you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318

but does not rotate left or right.

Indeed, maybe that's the point of all this Moorman guff. Forget about the pedestal

for the moment, and look at JFK. Place the Moorman next to Zapruder frame 315

or 316, and you have two (allegedly genuine) different views of the same instant

of time. That shows you that the "red blob" that explodes out the front of his head in

the Z-toon is indeed supposed to be coming out of his right temple. If his head had

been rotated massively to the left, we'd be able to see his face in the Moorman --

but we don't.

John

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:06:28 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Fwd: Re: [jfk-research] Re: Josiah Thompson: Sloppy research or deliberate

deception?

David and David, Jack and John,

I especially need your opinions on this issue. Am I right or wrong that the

medical evidence, especially of the massive blow-out to the back of the head,

is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which shows a massive blow-out to the right-

front side of the head? You can even see it in frame 374 of the film itself.

Here is my basic argument, which I have been advancing for quite a while now:

Tink adopted the pose that there is a simple choice between accepting

Mary's testimony and the alleged consistency of all of the films and

photographs, when their consistency is not enough to establish their

authenticity. That would dictate, for example, discounting the

massive and detailed proof that the Zapruder is a recreation! He

talked as though Costella were on his side, when he is actually Tink’s

greatest nightmare. It was as though Tink hadn’t read "New Proof of

JFK Film Fakery" presenting John's latest proof, much less THE GREAT

ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. None of what I have said here even reaches

to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the

right-front in the Zapruder film, (B) 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. Jackie

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

she 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! It's not just that Tink’s little boat has sprung a

leak. It has sunk like a sieve into the ocean of truth!

Jim

----- Forwarded message from barbjfk@comcast.net -----

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:25:04 +0000 (UTC)

From: Barb Junkkarinen <barbjfk@comcast.net>

Subject: Re: [jfk-research] Re: Josiah Thompson: Sloppy research or

deliberate deception?

You are preaching to the choir. I presented and exhibition ...

complete with gurney from a local hospital, JFK and Parkland personnel

stand-ins and a tasteful rubber wound made to the avg dimension

described at Parkland ... to show everyone there is NO doubt that with

JFK laying on his back on a gurney in TR1, the Parkland doctors could

without a doubt, see exactly what they said they saw ... and where

they saw it.

You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ...

which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping

wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said

they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back

of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements,

notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area

of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his

skull.

The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred

to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and

the back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the

camera.

Think before you leap ... and you can't really think about anything in

this arena, let alone promote leaps of fancy, until you know and

understand the evidence.

This woman is an ever bigger phony and fraud than I had imagined in my wildest dreams.

Well said Jim! By the way, I believe the "Umbrella Man" was in fact Mary Poppins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

According to Bill Sloan with Jean Hill, JFK: THE LAST DISSENTING WITNESS (1992), that

conversation occurred in early December 1963, or less than three weeks after the events

of 22 November. There are many other passages of great interest in relation to the debate

over the authenticity of the Zapruder film that leave scant room for doubt, including these:

p. 21: As nearly as Jean remembers today, Mary clicked off four or five photos as the

limousine rolled toward them. Then, suddenly, the car was virtually on top of them, and

Jean could see every occupant with amazing clarity.

p. 22: "Hey, Mr. President", Jean shouted impulsively when teh car was almost abreast of

her. "Look over here. We want to take your picture." In her desperation and excitement,

she stepped off the curb into the street as she spoke, almost touching the front fender of the

limousine before she instinctively drew back.

. . .

Jean saw the president driven backward and sideways as a second shot struck him with

tremendous force. The whole back of his head appeared to explode and a cloud of blood

-red mist filled the air and spattered down on the windshield of J. B.'s motorcycle.

. . .

"Jean, get down!" Mary screamed, as she and the other panicked bystanders nearby threw

themselves to the ground. But although she was every bit as convinced as Mary that they

were directly in the line of fire, Jean stood there, immobilized by the shock of what she had

seen, while her friend tugged desperately at her legs.

What I find most interesting about these passages is the consistency of Jean's description

in comparison with Mary's, where Mary reported stepping into the street, taking her photo,

stepping back onto the grass, getting down and tugging at Jean's leg to get her down, too.

It is difficult to imagine how anyone could continue to believe the Zapruder is authentic,

even in the absence of having studied other proofs that this and other films were altered.

FLASH! WHAT DID MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAY ON NOVEMBER 22nd?

All,

In case a sense of deja vu overcomes you all over again in reading this subject line, let

me remind you of the great fanfare with which Tink announced that Gary Mack had listened

to a recording of the radio interview with Mary Moorman just three hours after the events,

in which he claimed to have verified that Mary had said, "I stepped out in the street. We

were right by the car", where the word "I" was actually unclear in Lifton's transcript and

I had interpreted it as "We": given that "we" were right at the car, it appeared obvious

to me that "we"--they had both!--stepped into the street. Tink was elated that Mack had

apparently confirmed that I had committed a misinterpretation, but Costella was floored

that Mack, of all persons, had confirmed that Mary had said she was in the street just a

few hours after the event! This represented a turning point in our debate about the

photo.

Now that I have taken a look at what Jean Hill has had to say, I am becoming increasingly

skeptical that Gary Mack was giving us the straight scoop about what Mary "really said",

in Tink's language. Bill Miller is not the only one who appears to make some of this

stuff up out of whole cloth. Now that I have taken a look at Bill Sloan with Jean Hill, THE

LAST DISSENTING WITNESS (1992), I have discovered on p. 63 the following exchange

between Jean Hill and a person--identified by FBI AIC Gordon Shanklin--as a CIA agent:

"You said you were 'right at the curb' on Elm Street as the presidential

limousine approached", he began, "but weren't you actually in the street

itself for several seconds?"

"Yes", she replied, regaining some of her composure. "I jumped into the

street and called out to the president to look in our direction. We wanted

to take his picture".

"Is that the only reason you were in the street?"

She frowned. "Yes, of course", she said.

"And why did you suddenly jump back from the president's car at almost

exactly the same instant the shooting started?"

"I just realized I probably shouldn't be so close, and I decided I'd better

get back.

Notice how consistent this is with Mary's description of stepping into the street, taking

her picture, stepping back on the grass and getting down so she would not be shot and

tugging at Jean's leg, so she would get down, too. I have Bill Miller to thanks for

inviting another confirmation that the film is a fraud, since it shows neither Mary

nor Jean stepping into the street, which, as David Lifton observed long ago, is the

crucial sequence of events that impugns the film.

Notice, too, that the CIA agent KNOWS WHAT JEAN DID when she stepped into the street.

Unless he was there in person--and there is no reason for us to suspect this--he must

know from viewing filmed footage of the shooting. That means the CIA has always known

that Jean and Mary both stepped into the street! So I ask: What is the probability of

Mary having said, "I stepped into the street. We were right at the car.", when both of

them stepped into the street and were right at the car?

Moreover--and this is the point of returning to this issue--what is more probable in

this situation: That Tink imposed upon Gary Mark to report back that Mary had said,

"I stepped into the street. We were right at the car", when she rather more probably

said, given that we know they both stepped into the street, "We stepped into the street.

We were right at the car."? These reports not only impugn the integrity of the Zapruder

but also the candor of the Custodian of The Sixth Floor Museum.

___________________

On 17 December 2008, with great fanfare, he issued, "FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID

ON NOVEMBER 22nd", and published a reply to an inquiry he had sent to Gary Mack:

___________________

From: "Gary Mack"<GaryM@jfk.org>

Hi Tink,

At your request, I listened to part of the 11-22-63 KRLD radio interview of Mary

Moorman, which was broadcast around 3:45pm local time. (The original unedited tape and

other KRLD in-house copies are preserved at The Sixth Floor Museum.) While there may be

lower-quality recordings elsewhere, the Museum's tapes are very clear. Here is the

relevant portion concerning where she stood:

Jay Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

Mary Moorman: Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were

right at the car.

So Mary's memory was that they stood on the grass and then stepped into the

street. Exactly when that happened is not clear from this interview.

Gary

________________________

Consider these exchanges from "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", Part VII, which is archived

at JFKresearch.com and now published in THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO 13/1 (March 2009), pp. 6-33:

Part VII. MACK?S VERIFICATION AND JOHN?S REPLY

Somewhat to my astonishment, Tink fixated on the following two sentences of this exchange:

Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

Mary: [We] stepped out in the street. We were right at the car.

In his original transcript, Lifton had written "[unclear]" where I had written "We"--and,

indeed, without any brackets that distinguished between Lifton's transcription and my

interpretation. My rationale was that, if "we were right at the car", then surely "we"

had to have "stepped out in the street". But, since "We" included Mary and Jean as its

referents, if 'We" stepped out in the street, then Mary had stepped out in the street,

and if "I" had stepped out in the street, then Mary had stepped out in the street. So she

had done so either way. But that was not how Tink perceived it. He thought I had made a

mistake--even a blunder!--and wanted to nail me for it. On 17 December 2008, with great

fanfare, he issued, "FLASH! WHAT MARY MOORMAN REALLY SAID ON NOVEMBER 22nd", and

published a reply to an inquiry he had sent to Gary Mack:

________________

From: "Gary Mack"<GaryM@jfk.org>

Hi Tink,

At your request, I listened to part of the 11-22-63 KRLD radio interview of Mary

Moorman, which was broadcast around 3:45pm local time. (The original unedited tape and

other KRLD in-house copies are preserved at The Sixth Floor Museum.) While there may be

lower-quality recordings elsewhere, the Museum's tapes are very clear. Here is the

relevant portion concerning where she stood:

Jay Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

Mary Moorman: Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were

right at the car.

So Mary's memory was that they stood on the grass and then stepped into the

street. Exactly when that happened is not clear from this interview.

Gary

____________________________

My impression is that the logical point--that either way, Mary was saying that she had

stepped in the street--had not registered with Tink and that, in his enthusiasm over

discovering another way to tarnish me for making a mistake, he not only ignored my point

but rushed to dismiss the next post he received, thinking it was from me when instead it

had been sent to him by John Costella:

_____________________________

-John Costella" <jpcostella@> wrote:

I'm confused. If this is the same segment of tape that Lifton was transcribing, then

wasn't she describing the moment that she took the photograph?

To be in the street, right at the car, she had to be out there when the limo came to a

stop.

She didn't say she stepped out a minute before the car arrived, or was where the car

had gone.

Gary is therefore confirming that Mary has always maintained that she stepped out into

the street to take her photo. No wonder he had such trouble with her for that more recent

interview (see Jim's cut from Lifton's "Pig on a Leash" chapter from THE GREAT ZAPRUDER

FILM HOAX). [see the Appendix--Fetzer, JFKresearch.com/Moorman/]

Curiouser and curiouser. Have we now moved to the point of doubting the authenticity

of the Moorman Polaroid in toto?

This is what we now have (inserting Gary's information):

Q: Hello, Mrs. Moorman?

A: Yes.

Q You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before?

A: Evidently, just immediately, as the. . . Cause he was, he was looking, you know,

when (ever?) I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over.

Q: What type of picture was this.

A: A polaroid picture.

Q: About how close were you?

A: (background talk, as she discusses it; can't make out)

Q: Fairly close.

A: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more (unintell). . . Because I fall behind my camera.

Q: This was right at the underpass?

A: Yes, just a few feet from the underpass (continues, but she is cut off)

Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

A: Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were right at the

car.

. . .

______________________'

Apparently in the false belief that I had sent him this response?which is somewhat

difficult to believe, under the circumstances?Tink replied in his characteristically

dismissive fashion:

______________________

<gum226@...> wrote:

You hopeless ninny. You still don't get it.

We've been arguing over what should go in the blank where Lifton's transcript reads

[unclear]. Instead of speculating, Gary Mack listened to a clear copy of the tape and

reported what was there.

That's what I reported. After dumping baseless charges and insults onto Gary and me,

you get taught a lesson in integrity. And then... you still don't get it.

No, the Moorman photo has not been altered. None of the photos taken in Dealey Plaza

that day have been altered.

Josiah Thompson

_____________________

Costella, however, was not to be denied, and his response was very clear and explicit.

What is most interesting is that, while Costella agrees with Tink on the consistency of

Mary's Polaroid with the Zapruder film, he has independently proven--on multiple

grounds--that Zapruder was faked:

__________________

Quoting John Costella jpcostella@hotmail.com

Josiah,

I didn't dump any baseless charges and insults onto Gary and you.

I did say, with smiley face, that I hoped the impeccable secret source wasn't Gary Mack.

But at that time I thought you were going to reveal that she didn't say she stepped into the

street at all.

As it turns out, Gary has confirmed that just three hours after the assassination, she

said she stepped into the street. Given that this is damaging to your case (and his), I

now agree that his authority is impeccable.

Let me summarise, from MY point of view, where we are now:

1. It has been established, without any doubt, that the extant Moorman Polaroid could

NOT have been taken from the street by someone of Mary's height. It is, in fact,

completely consistent with the Zapruder film's location of her lens.

2. Mary said, just three hours after the assassination, and has repeated to this day,

that she stepped out into the street. IGNORE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE TOOK THE PHOTO

FROM THE STREET.

3. Both Mary and Jean describe Jean waving and trying to get the President's or Jackie's

attention.

4. The Zapruder film shows the two of them stuck on the grass like frozen turkeys:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../jfk/clip_C.mov

5. The Nix and Muchmore films are consistent with the Zapruder film.

6. To my knowledge, no one else described Mary stepping into the street.

The net results are:

A. The Moorman Polaroid joins the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films as presenting a

consistent depiction of the assassination.

B. Mary Moorman either was and is a complete xxxx, or the photographic evidence is

fraudulent.

C. If in B the former is the case, then the Moorman Polaroid is impeached as evidence--

its admissibility relies on the testimony of the photographer.

D. If the latter is the case, then the only possible explanation I can see for no one

else seeing her step into the street is that she did it AFTER THE LIMO STOPPED AND THE

MOTORCYCLES DISPERSED.

As I've said plenty of times, I don't like relying on the Moorman Polaroid as telling us

anything at all. What surprises me the most is that Gary's revelation shows that the issue of

WHETHER SHE STEPPED INTO THE STREET, regardless of where the photo was taken from,

is the key issue here. THAT's the event that does not appear in the Zapruder film. The Polaroid

is irrelevant in all this.

My apologies to David Lifton, who has understood this all along, and has tried to make

me understand. I recommend that anyone who hasn't read his section in "Pig on a Leash"

should do so. [see the Appendix--Fetzer, JFKreseasrch.com/Moorman/]

(And let me also say that I haven't communicated with Lifton on this issue since 2006,

when he dug out his transcript.)

I also give my apologies to Gary and Tink. Although I didn't state it as vehemently as

Jim, past behaviour didn't prepare me for them giving us this explosive and unequivocal

evidence confirming Lifton's transcript, and filling in the missing pronoun.

I think we've all learned a lot in the past week.

John

___________________

So which is more probable: That Mary would say, "I stepped into the street. We were

right at the car.", when Jean was at her side, or that Mary would say, "We stepped into the

street. We were right at the car.", but Gary Mack would report an inaccurate version because

he had been induced to do so by Josian Thompson? One of these versions makes little or no

sense, while the other would be the obvious thing to have said. So which is more probable,

given the totality of the evidence currently available?

Jim

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.

Barb,

With Fetzer unwittingly saying things that doesn't support Jack's claims and Jack saying things that unwittingly doesn't support Fetzer's claims ... would it not be only fair to let them call a time out so they can figure out just what stories they wish to go with so not to be continually contradicting one another. B)

Bill

So exactly WHEN did this supposed conversation with Jean Hill and some unnamed and unknown "cia" agent take place Jim?

Edited by James H. Fetzer
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...