Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did Zapruder take "the Zapruder film"?


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Observations about Jean. Costella places Mary's photo around

315-316 in relation to the extant film, so I think your arguments

are unavailing. The first two shots appear to have been those to

the throat (which passed through the windshield and make sound of

a firecracker) and to the back (~ 5 1/2 inches below the collar to

the right of the spinal column), where the first was probably fired

from the above-ground sewer opening at the south end of the Triple

Underpass and the second from the top of the County Records Build-

ing. They were probably fired with silenced weapons, where the

Altgens #5 shows him clutching at his throat and, I surmise, both

of these shots have already been fired. Mary caught action later,

well after Altgens took this photo and right after the shot that

entered his right temple and blew his brains out the back of his

head. The constant barrage of criticism is moving me forward.

Here are some crucial points in the discussion about Jean Hill.

NOTE (1): Correlating the Moorman with the extant Zapruder

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:28:54 +1100

From: John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>

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. Put him as seen in the Moorman

next to frame 315 of the Z, and you can figure out exactly where that

head wound is, if you believe the photographic evidence: his right

temple. And that's simply not where it should be.

John

So here John is elaborating on the inconsistency between the massive

blow out of brains and gore to the right-front shown in the Zapruder

and the fact that, given the orientation of his head in the Moorman,

it cannot be the case that that blow-out was actually coming from the

back of his head, because it was not sufficiently rotated to the left.

NOTE (2): Federal agent asks her about bullet that hit the grass

On pages 29-30, Jean is being grilled by "federal agents" of some kind:

The questioners returned then, breaking into her thoughts and starting

the interrogation all over again.

"Did you see a bullet hit the ground near you?" she was asked.

"Not that I remember. Why?"

"Then what made you jump back from the president's car so suddenly?"

"I just realized that I shouldn't touch it, that's all."

"What were you doing in the street in the first place?"

"I was trying to get him to turn toward me."

"Who?"

"President Kennedy."

"Why?"

"So Mary could take his picture. But just as he turned, the first

bullet struck him."

"How many shots did you hear?"

"I'd say at least four to six. Maybe more."

Notice that what Jean is calling "the first bullet" is probably the

fourth or even the fifth. I have already mentioned that Atgens #5

was taken after JFK had been hit in the throat and in the back. At

about this time, Connally turned to his right and then back to his

left to see what was going on. When he turned to his left, he felt

a doubling-up in his chest, which was from a shot that appears to

have been fired from the west side of the Book Depository. And he

would be hit once or perhaps even twice more. We know the "magic

bullet" theory is false (google "Reasoning about Assassinations").

So by this time, there had to have been at least three shots (or

four, if you count the bullet that hit the grass), so this was not

"the first bullet". Indeed, if you take her number of six or more

by counting from this shot, then there had to have been something

like nine or ten shots, which is in fact probably the right number.

(Try my "Assassination Science and the Language of Proof", which

shows there cannot have been less than six shots, including four

to JFK, one to Connally, and one that missed and injured Tague in

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, and Doug Horne's "Interviews with Former

NPIC Employees", which includes his interview with Homer McMahon,

who studied a film he was brought that night and determined that

there were six to eight impacts from at least three directions in

MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA.) I'm not asking you to believe me, but I

am telling you how to add up the number of shots that were fired.

This is crucial: Notice how these "federal agents" are grilling

her about BEING IN THE STREET, NEAR THE LIMOUSINE, and JUMPING

BACK FROM IT about the same time a shot hit the grass! Do you

really think there is any doubt about any of these things? Note

that she talks about the same events taking place at around 40:00

-45:00 into the interview. She says she stepped into the street

but was back on the curb by the time of the head shot, which, we

now know, was actually two shots to the head that took place very

close together: a shot to the back of the head and a shot to the

right temple. David Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE (1980), talks about how

he took frames to Richard Feynman, the Nobel winning physicist at

CalTech, and Feynman explained that the head moves forward in 312

before the massive blow-out to the right front and then movement

back and to the left on pages 48-49. Josiah has an analysis of

this phenomenon in SIX SECONDS on pages 86-92, which I have been

told he no longer accepts. So what Jean is thinking of as "the

first shot" is actually two closely-spaced shots occurring after

the shot to his throat, the shot to his back, the shot to John

Connally's chest and possibly another to his wrist and another to

his thigh, plus the shot that missed an injured James Tague. And

the shot that hits the grass must therefore be around number eight

if the shot that hit the chrome strip on the windshield has still

to be fired. Which is why it is difficult to figure all this out.

NOTE (3): CIA agent reminds Mary she was in the street

On page 63, we find a similar interrogation taking place, this time

an exchange between Jean Hill and a person--identified by FBI AIC

Gordon Shanklin--as a CIA agent, who wants to cover the same issues:

"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.

John Costella has found this exchange--and, I suspect, the earlier

one--remarkable, because, as I have pointed out, the photographic

record does NOT have Jean MOVING AT ALL--she stands perfectly still,

like a stuffed toy, and only turns her head. Moreover, 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 might be dubious of

Mary and Jean's presence in Dealey Plaza. But then again, we have

Jim Featherston and Mary and Jean's interviews and all the efforts

that have been exerted to try to keep them quite about all of this.

When the film was recreated, it was too difficult technically for

them to be in the street with the curb behind them, because it was

being used as the dividing line for optical printing combining new

events with old events, new backgrounds with old foregrounds, and

old backgrounds with new foregrounds, as David Healy has suggested.

NOTE (4): Jean reported there was another photo of her boyfriend

This, I think, may explain the "misattribution" of the officer shown in

her photograph as her boyfriend, when it was instead Officer Hargis (in

her fifth Polaroid). She may have been thinking of her fourth, which, it

appears, included her boyfriend, B. J. Martin, whom she identifies in the

book as J. B. Marshall. Jean told Jack White that she had kept the missing

photograph and had put it between the pages of a book for safekeeping so

she could give to her boyfriend, BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE PHOTO. She later

met with him, and he warned her not to tell anybody about about what she

saw that day. She showed him the Polaroid she had kept. She told Jack it

showed her boyfriend and the president's limo. He asked that she give him

the photo"as a souvenir", which she did. Years later, when she was considering

doing a book, she asked for it to be returned. He told her that HE HAD

LOST IT! Penn Jones told Jack he thought it had shown the 6th floor and

that Oswald was not there, which was the reason it has gone "missing".

There is more to say about these things, Barb, but I hope you have the

general idea. There is too much evidence, including conducting multiple

interrogations, where the themes are repeated over and over: Jean was

in the street; what was she doing there?; why did she jump back?; did

she notice the shot that hit the grass?; she was there because she and

Mary wanted to take his picture; she stepped out into the street and

called to him; the car was so close she could touch it; she thought it

was a bad idea for her to be so close; she "jumped" back onto the curb;

Mary took her photograph; Mary got back on the grass; Mary got down and

tugged at Jean's leg; Jean remained standing. Listen to the interview

and you will find what she has to say reinforces this scenario. While

I do not insist ALL OF THESE EVENTS should be seen in the film, I do

insist that at least SOME OF THESE EVENTS should be seen there. As for

talking explicitly about the faking of the film, I think she had to know

it had been altered, but she probably thought that, like standing so very

close to the limousine, it was inadvisable to talk about it, at least, if

she wanted to live longer. And she did until subsequent to the interview.

Dealing with you, Miller, brings to mind the phrase, "Dumber than a post!", which seems to fit you to a "t". The only way

that Zapruder and Sitzman could have all those different heights in different photos and films would be if they were made

of rubber! That, brainless wonder, is a way of observing that THEY COULD NOT HAVE HAD ALL THOSE DIFFERING HEIGHTS,

because they were not made of rubber! Which provides powerful proof that their images were introduced into those photos

and films to create the impression they were on top of the pedestal. But that would have only been necessary if they were

somewhere else. I have climbed up there myself, which take some effort, and it always seemed odd to me that a woman in

a dress would even try it, since it would be very difficult to do so while preserving her modesty. Jack and Healy have made

splendid contributions to the study of the assassination. So far as I can see, you have made none--apart from interminable

posts attacking others research. Your role appears to have nothing to do with discovering the truth about the death of JFK.

Tell me you are not seriously going to pomp this laughable lame dog again! Which reminds me, I don't recall you ever

responding to questions/problems with this brought to your attention before. Shall I feign surprise? :-)

Photos of the subjects taken at different times, from different angles, with different cameras, from different distances ... with lines

drawn arbitrarily on very muddy copies ... with the subjects further from the cameras than the measured pedestal ... one would think

that if common sense didn't kick in on all that, that a little intellectual curiosity and interest in not shoveling up pure poop as

another in a long line of meaningless "proofs" you might have had an actual independent professional photographer and/or expert

look before you ran with this the first time ... let alone again!

I may have missed it, but I don't think even cameraman Healey has supported this nonsense. If not ... you might ask him why.

It may, indeed, be "powerful proof" of something ... but not of anything you are going to want to hear.

Geesh.

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<snip JFetzer post for brevity>

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip JFetzer post for brevity>

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip JFetzer post for brevity>

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?

Nope, not that it matters. The fundumentals of photography don't rest upon those items. How about you? Costella?

Given that Costella's credentials fail your own standards (hell it appears YOU fail your own standards) please tell us again why you listen to him.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

All,

The gross deception involved in Tink's attack on me over the hole in

the windshield after I posted Lifton's query about SSA Taylor's report

has drawn a response from David, who has confronted him on the issue.

What is most stunning is that, in his childish determination to "get

Fetzer", he is willing to cannibalize his own book! That provides a

striking indication of the incoherence of his own thought processes.

This, I take it, is not the first time that he has been willing to

contradict SIX SECONDS, including his relatively recent denial of

evidence of the "double hit", which David Lifton had independently

discovered during his visit with Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in

physics, as he reports in BEST EVIDENCE. This new inconsistency has

thus reinforced my advice--that he (Tink) obtain professional help!

It is difficult to imagine the lengths to which the obsessed could

be driven in their frantic attempts to denigrate and destroy those

who incur their wrath. But, for someone whose "claim to fame" has

been a 1967 book published that led to considerable public acclaim,

including a cover story in The Saturday Evening Post, to dismember,

piece by piece, his own greatest achievement for the perverse pur-

pose of attacking his nemesis invites a Freudian interpretation.

His bizarre state of mind is further illustrated by his denial of

the obvious, including the excellence of the books on JFK that I

have edited. The first had 11 contributors, the second 9 and the

third 6. How plausible is it that none of these authors, whom I

invited to contribute as experts on various aspects of the case,

would have no discoveries of value? Yet that's what he contends.

Indeed, anyone who reads the reviews from Publishers Weekly and

the experts who have endorsed these books--including Cyril Wecht,

Peter Dale Scott, Michael Parenti, Stewart Galanor, Kerry Walters,

David Lifton, and Michael Kurtz--knows better. Egad! Even Vincent

Bugliosi has conceded that mine are the only completely scientific

books ever published on JFK! So what is Josiah Thompson doing in

attacking them? Objectively, they are exceptional contributions!

Indeed, the only chapter he has ever praised--by Gary Aguilar in

MURDER--which focuses on the massive defect at the back of JFK's

skull, turns out to support a proof that the Zapruder was altered,

which has led him to remove that single sentence from his hatchet-

job review, because it undermines his persistent denial of proofs

the film is a fabrication and reflects his detachment from reality.

That he cannot accept proof after proof that the film is a fake--

many of which I have repeatedly reported on this forum--represents

one more indication of the gradual but continuous deterioration of

his mental competence. A man who devotes himself to perpetuating

deceptions may find himself no longer capable of separating truth

from fiction, reality from illusion. And that, I am sorry to say,

is how things stand with this pathetic man, whom I used to admire.

Jim

________________________

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:40:06 -0700 [02:40:06 AM CDT]

From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>

To: gum226@sbcglobal.net

Cc: "James Fetzer, Ph.D. " <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Subject: "Contamination" with "non-facts"

Josiah Thompson

You write:

" In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls away, one can see

damage to the windshield at the location later described as a

non-through-and-through hit from the rear."

"Later described". . . By who? Oh, I get it. . . You're referring to the

windshield which was examined in March, 1964?

As I noted, the report of Secret Service Agent James Taylor--who witnessed

the FBI examination that very night, November 22, 1963--states that "of

particular note [to the FBI team conducting the examination] "was the small

hole just left of center in the windshield. . . "

This is a direct quote from SS Agent Taylor's report, which is part of

Commission Document 80.

And who was the first to publish CD 80? Why that was non other than you,

Josiah Thompson, in the appendix to your own work, Six Seconds in Dallas,

published in 1967,

Now I have a few questions:

(1) Why did you publish this report, in your book, if you did not believe

that the report supported the hypothesis that there was a hole in the

windshield? And . .

(2) When did you change your mind on this matter? And. . .

(3) Why did you change your mind? (assuming you did).

Finally. . . , you write:

QUOTE:

"Fetzer keeps making up

these facts and offering them without qualification. In doing so, he

contaminates the field with non-facts."

In what sense is anyone "making up ...facts"? The report of agent Charles

Taylor is rather explicit. He was there at the time the FBI conducted thei=

r

examination, and that this hole was "of particular note" to the FBI team

conducting the examination.

Setting aside the question of just who is "contaminating" the field with

"non-facts," perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:

You were the first to publish his report--which called attention to this

particular matter of their being a hole in the windshield.

Please do explain your line of reasoning by which you changed your position

on this matter. Just when did this change occur? And what was the "new

evidence"which caused this change?

DSL

____________________

[Hide Quoted Text]

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

Gee! Let's see. What could possibly be going on here? The team

of Thompson, Lamson, and Miller insists that something is wrong

with the studies of the Moorman LOS by Mantik, Fetzer, and White.

They seek to support it with manipulated images that they insist

show that Mantik, Fetzer, and White were wrong all along. There

is no good reason to believe it, but they persist--ad nauseum.

Why? The whole purpose of the study is to determine whether or

not there is internal evidence that impeaches the Zapruder and

other films, none of which show Mary was standing in the street.

Do Thompson, Lamson, and Miller accept other proofs that show

the Zapruder, Muchmore, and Nix films have been recreated to

conceal the true causes of death of JFK? Not on your life!

* They do not acknowledge that JFK's brains being blown out

to the right-front demonstrates the film is a fabrication.

* They do not acknowledge that the blood and brains were in

fact "painted in", as Roderick Ryan has observed.

* They do not acknowledge that Willliam Greer pulled the limo

to the left and stop to make sure that JFK would be killed.

* They do not acknowledge that Officer Chaney rode foreward

to inform Chief Curry that the president had been shot.

* They do not acknowledge that Secret Service agents grew

nauseated and vomited seeing brains and gore on the limo.

* They do not acknowledge that Homer McMahon reported see-

ing six to eight impacts from at least three directions.

* They do not acknowledge that David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.,

has established that the autopsy X-rays were altered.

* They do not acknowledge that Mantik has shown that JFK

was hit four times (from the front and from the back).

* They do not acknowledge that Governor Connally was hit

from one to as many as three times from the side.

* They do not acknowledge that Erwin Swartz reported see-

ing JFK's brains blown out to the left and rear.

* They do not acknowledge that the Parkland physicians

reported cerebellar and cerebral tissue extruding.

* They do not acknowledge that Connally's left turn has

been excised from the extant version of the film.

* They do not acknowledge that driver William Greer's

head turns were twice as fast as humanly possible.

* They do not acknowledge that JFK was hit in the

right temple by a frangible or exploding bullet.

* They do not acknowledge that the massive blow-out to

the back of JFK's head is visible in Z-frame 374.

* They do not acknowledge that LIFE published frame

232 with physically impossible features.

* They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven

the Stemmons Freeway sign was improperly inserted.

* They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven

the lamppost was likewise improperly inserted.

* They do not acknowledge that no witnesses in the

plaza reported the back-and-to-the-left motion.

* They do not acknowledge that anyone has seen the

original version of the film before editing.

Under these circumstances, why would anyone, in

their wildest dreams, not also anticipate that

* They will not acknowledge that Mary stepped into

the street to take her famous photograph; and,

* They will not acknowledge that Mantik/Fetzer/

White have proven she was in the street;

and attempt to belittle efforts to demonstrate

that they are wrong about this rather minute

proof of alteration, in the face of massive

evidence to the contrary enumerated here?

Yet they would claim that Mantik, Fetzer, and

White are the ones who are perpetrating fraud

and deceiving the public about the authenticity

of the film and true causes of the death of JFK!

Who's fooling who? Who's out to pull the wool

over the eyes of the public? Who are the real

liars, cheats, and frauds? Is this too hard

for anyone here to figure out? You have heard

of "disinfo ops" that take place now and then.

You are now in the midst of living one through.

P.S. For those who may be unfamiliar with the available evidence:

The shot to the throat passed through the windshield (Doug Weldon in

MURDER has the most extensive analysis, with which I agree) on pages

129-158 of MURDER; the Altgens is on page 149; the Secret Service

substitute is on page 157; another on page 158; there are shards of

glass hit his face (the mortician noticed the "shrapnel wounds" and

Mantik explained them); you can see the hit on the windshield in the

film at frame 225. Jim Lewis has been traveling around the south and

visiting junkyards to fire high-velocity rounds through old cars and

they make the sound of a "firecracker" when they pass through (also

see page 436 of HOAX). Bob Livingston noted that the Secret Service

had obtained multiple windshields "for target practice" on pages 165-

166 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE; and Richard Dudman wrote about the hole

in the windshield in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, on page 167. So I

am not buying what you are selling. You can dupe lots of people, but

you can't dupe me over this. The shot passed through the windshield.

<snip JFetzer post for brevity>

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?

Nope, not that it matters. The fundumentals of photography don't rest upon those items. How about you? Costella?

Given that Costella's credentials fail your own standards (hell it appears YOU fail your own standards) please tell us again why you listen to him.

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

All,

The gross deception involved in Tink's attack on me over the hole in

the windshield after I posted Lifton's query about SSA Taylor's report

has drawn a response from David, who has confronted him on the issue.

What is most stunning is that, in his childish determination to "get

Fetzer", he is willing to cannibalize his own book! That provides a

striking indication of the incoherence of his own thought processes.

This, I take it, is not the first time that he has been willing to

contradict SIX SECONDS, including his relatively recent denial of

evidence of the "double hit", which David Lifton had independently

discovered during his visit with Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in

physics, as he reports in BEST EVIDENCE. This new inconsistency has

thus reinforced my advice--that he (Tink) obtain professional help!

It is difficult to imagine the lengths to which the obsessed could

be driven in their frantic attempts to denigrate and destroy those

who incur their wrath. But, for someone whose "claim to fame" has

been a 1967 book published that led to considerable public acclaim,

including a cover story in The Saturday Evening Post, to dismember,

piece by piece, his own greatest achievement for the perverse pur-

pose of attacking his nemesis invites a Freudian interpretation.

His bizarre state of mind is further illustrated by his denial of

the obvious, including the excellence of the books on JFK that I

have edited. The first had 11 contributors, the second 9 and the

third 6. How plausible is it that none of these authors, whom I

invited to contribute as experts on various aspects of the case,

would have no discoveries of value? Yet that's what he contends.

Indeed, anyone who reads the reviews from Publishers Weekly and

the experts who have endorsed these books--including Cyril Wecht,

Peter Dale Scott, Michael Parenti, Stewart Galanor, Kerry Walters,

David Lifton, and Michael Kurtz--knows better. Egad! Even Vincent

Bugliosi has conceded that mine are the only completely scientific

books ever published on JFK! So what is Josiah Thompson doing in

attacking them? Objectively, they are exceptional contributions!

Indeed, the only chapter he has ever praised--by Gary Aguilar in

MURDER--which focuses on the massive defect at the back of JFK's

skull, turns out to support a proof that the Zapruder was altered,

which has led him to remove that single sentence from his hatchet-

job review, because it undermines his persistent denial of proofs

the film is a fabrication and reflects his detachment from reality.

That he cannot accept proof after proof that the film is a fake--

many of which I have repeatedly reported on this forum--represents

one more indication of the gradual but continuous deterioration of

his mental competence. A man who devotes himself to perpetuating

deceptions may find himself no longer capable of separating truth

from fiction, reality from illusion. And that, I am sorry to say,

is how things stand with this pathetic man, whom I used to admire.

Jim

________________________

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:40:06 -0700 [02:40:06 AM CDT]

From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>

To: gum226@sbcglobal.net

Cc: "James Fetzer, Ph.D. " <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Subject: "Contamination" with "non-facts"

Josiah Thompson

You write:

" In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls away, one can see

damage to the windshield at the location later described as a

non-through-and-through hit from the rear."

"Later described". . . By who? Oh, I get it. . . You're referring to the

windshield which was examined in March, 1964?

As I noted, the report of Secret Service Agent James Taylor--who witnessed

the FBI examination that very night, November 22, 1963--states that "of

particular note [to the FBI team conducting the examination] "was the small

hole just left of center in the windshield. . . "

This is a direct quote from SS Agent Taylor's report, which is part of

Commission Document 80.

And who was the first to publish CD 80? Why that was non other than you,

Josiah Thompson, in the appendix to your own work, Six Seconds in Dallas,

published in 1967,

Now I have a few questions:

(1) Why did you publish this report, in your book, if you did not believe

that the report supported the hypothesis that there was a hole in the

windshield? And . .

(2) When did you change your mind on this matter? And. . .

(3) Why did you change your mind? (assuming you did).

Finally. . . , you write:

QUOTE:

"Fetzer keeps making up

these facts and offering them without qualification. In doing so, he

contaminates the field with non-facts."

In what sense is anyone "making up ...facts"? The report of agent Charles

Taylor is rather explicit. He was there at the time the FBI conducted thei=

r

examination, and that this hole was "of particular note" to the FBI team

conducting the examination.

Setting aside the question of just who is "contaminating" the field with

"non-facts," perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:

You were the first to publish his report--which called attention to this

particular matter of their being a hole in the windshield.

Please do explain your line of reasoning by which you changed your position

on this matter. Just when did this change occur? And what was the "new

evidence"which caused this change?

DSL

____________________

[Hide Quoted Text]

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

Gee! Let's see. What could possibly be going on here? The team

of Thompson, Lamson, and Miller insists that something is wrong

with the studies of the Moorman LOS by Mantik, Fetzer, and White.

They seek to support it with manipulated images that they insist

show that Mantik, Fetzer, and White were wrong all along. There

is no good reason to believe it, but they persist--ad nauseum.

Why? The whole purpose of the study is to determine whether or

not there is internal evidence that impeaches the Zapruder and

other films, none of which show Mary was standing in the street.

Do Thompson, Lamson, and Miller accept other proofs that show

the Zapruder, Muchmore, and Nix films have been recreated to

conceal the true causes of death of JFK? Not on your life!

* They do not acknowledge that JFK's brains being blown out

to the right-front demonstrates the film is a fabrication.

* They do not acknowledge that the blood and brains were in

fact "painted in", as Roderick Ryan has observed.

* They do not acknowledge that Willliam Greer pulled the limo

to the left and stop to make sure that JFK would be killed.

* They do not acknowledge that Officer Chaney rode foreward

to inform Chief Curry that the president had been shot.

* They do not acknowledge that Secret Service agents grew

nauseated and vomited seeing brains and gore on the limo.

* They do not acknowledge that Homer McMahon reported see-

ing six to eight impacts from at least three directions.

* They do not acknowledge that David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.,

has established that the autopsy X-rays were altered.

* They do not acknowledge that Mantik has shown that JFK

was hit four times (from the front and from the back).

* They do not acknowledge that Governor Connally was hit

from one to as many as three times from the side.

* They do not acknowledge that Erwin Swartz reported see-

ing JFK's brains blown out to the left and rear.

* They do not acknowledge that the Parkland physicians

reported cerebellar and cerebral tissue extruding.

* They do not acknowledge that Connally's left turn has

been excised from the extant version of the film.

* They do not acknowledge that driver William Greer's

head turns were twice as fast as humanly possible.

* They do not acknowledge that JFK was hit in the

right temple by a frangible or exploding bullet.

* They do not acknowledge that the massive blow-out to

the back of JFK's head is visible in Z-frame 374.

* They do not acknowledge that LIFE published frame

232 with physically impossible features.

* They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven

the Stemmons Freeway sign was improperly inserted.

* They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven

the lamppost was likewise improperly inserted.

* They do not acknowledge that no witnesses in the

plaza reported the back-and-to-the-left motion.

* They do not acknowledge that anyone has seen the

original version of the film before editing.

Under these circumstances, why would anyone, in

their wildest dreams, not also anticipate that

* They will not acknowledge that Mary stepped into

the street to take her famous photograph; and,

* They will not acknowledge that Mantik/Fetzer/

White have proven she was in the street;

and attempt to belittle efforts to demonstrate

that they are wrong about this rather minute

proof of alteration, in the face of massive

evidence to the contrary enumerated here?

Yet they would claim that Mantik, Fetzer, and

White are the ones who are perpetrating fraud

and deceiving the public about the authenticity

of the film and true causes of the death of JFK!

Who's fooling who? Who's out to pull the wool

over the eyes of the public? Who are the real

liars, cheats, and frauds? Is this too hard

for anyone here to figure out? You have heard

of "disinfo ops" that take place now and then.

You are now in the midst of living one through.

P.S. For those who may be unfamiliar with the available evidence:

The shot to the throat passed through the windshield (Doug Weldon in

MURDER has the most extensive analysis, with which I agree) on pages

129-158 of MURDER; the Altgens is on page 149; the Secret Service

substitute is on page 157; another on page 158; there are shards of

glass hit his face (the mortician noticed the "shrapnel wounds" and

Mantik explained them); you can see the hit on the windshield in the

film at frame 225. Jim Lewis has been traveling around the south and

visiting junkyards to fire high-velocity rounds through old cars and

they make the sound of a "firecracker" when they pass through (also

see page 436 of HOAX). Bob Livingston noted that the Secret Service

had obtained multiple windshields "for target practice" on pages 165-

166 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE; and Richard Dudman wrote about the hole

in the windshield in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, on page 167. So I

am not buying what you are selling. You can dupe lots of people, but

you can't dupe me over this. The shot passed through the windshield.

<snip JFetzer post for brevity>

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?

Nope, not that it matters. The fundumentals of photography don't rest upon those items. How about you? Costella?

Given that Costella's credentials fail your own standards (hell it appears YOU fail your own standards) please tell us again why you listen to him.

Quite a list there Fetzer, you list it as if it's fact. Fact it is not.? You list a boat load of opinion and, conjecture, and yet the only things you list that actually rise above that is the work of Costella and that has been trashed with unimpeachable empirical eivdence...here:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

But so it goes for Fetzer....his MO is quite clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

You're an op, Lamson! Admit it. No one else would operate in such

reckless disregard of logic and evidence. Only a disinfo op like you!

All,

The gross deception involved in Tink's attack on me over the hole in

the windshield after I posted Lifton's query about SSA Taylor's report

has drawn a response from David, who has confronted him on the issue.

What is most stunning is that, in his childish determination to "get

Fetzer", he is willing to cannibalize his own book! That provides a

striking indication of the incoherence of his own thought processes.

This, I take it, is not the first time that he has been willing to

contradict SIX SECONDS, including his relatively recent denial of

evidence of the "double hit", which David Lifton had independently

discovered during his visit with Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in

physics, as he reports in BEST EVIDENCE. This new inconsistency has

thus reinforced my advice--that he (Tink) obtain professional help!

It is difficult to imagine the lengths to which the obsessed could

be driven in their frantic attempts to denigrate and destroy those

who incur their wrath. But, for someone whose "claim to fame" has

been a 1967 book published that led to considerable public acclaim,

including a cover story in The Saturday Evening Post, to dismember,

piece by piece, his own greatest achievement for the perverse pur-

pose of attacking his nemesis invites a Freudian interpretation.

His bizarre state of mind is further illustrated by his denial of

the obvious, including the excellence of the books on JFK that I

have edited. The first had 11 contributors, the second 9 and the

third 6. How plausible is it that none of these authors, whom I

invited to contribute as experts on various aspects of the case,

would have no discoveries of value? Yet that's what he contends.

Indeed, anyone who reads the reviews from Publishers Weekly and

the experts who have endorsed these books--including Cyril Wecht,

Peter Dale Scott, Michael Parenti, Stewart Galanor, Kerry Walters,

David Lifton, and Michael Kurtz--knows better. Egad! Even Vincent

Bugliosi has conceded that mine are the only completely scientific

books ever published on JFK! So what is Josiah Thompson doing in

attacking them? Objectively, they are exceptional contributions!

Indeed, the only chapter he has ever praised--by Gary Aguilar in

MURDER--which focuses on the massive defect at the back of JFK's

skull, turns out to support a proof that the Zapruder was altered,

which has led him to remove that single sentence from his hatchet-

job review, because it undermines his persistent denial of proofs

the film is a fabrication and reflects his detachment from reality.

That he cannot accept proof after proof that the film is a fake--

many of which I have repeatedly reported on this forum--represents

one more indication of the gradual but continuous deterioration of

his mental competence. A man who devotes himself to perpetuating

deceptions may find himself no longer capable of separating truth

from fiction, reality from illusion. And that, I am sorry to say,

is how things stand with this pathetic man, whom I used to admire.

Jim

________________________

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:40:06 -0700 [02:40:06 AM CDT]

From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>

To: gum226@sbcglobal.net

Cc: "James Fetzer, Ph.D. " <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Subject: "Contamination" with "non-facts"

Josiah Thompson

You write:

" In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls away, one can see

damage to the windshield at the location later described as a

non-through-and-through hit from the rear."

"Later described". . . By who? Oh, I get it. . . You're referring to the

windshield which was examined in March, 1964?

As I noted, the report of Secret Service Agent James Taylor--who witnessed

the FBI examination that very night, November 22, 1963--states that "of

particular note [to the FBI team conducting the examination] "was the small

hole just left of center in the windshield. . . "

This is a direct quote from SS Agent Taylor's report, which is part of

Commission Document 80.

And who was the first to publish CD 80? Why that was non other than you,

Josiah Thompson, in the appendix to your own work, Six Seconds in Dallas,

published in 1967,

Now I have a few questions:

(1) Why did you publish this report, in your book, if you did not believe

that the report supported the hypothesis that there was a hole in the

windshield? And . .

(2) When did you change your mind on this matter? And. . .

(3) Why did you change your mind? (assuming you did).

Finally. . . , you write:

QUOTE:

"Fetzer keeps making up

these facts and offering them without qualification. In doing so, he

contaminates the field with non-facts."

In what sense is anyone "making up ...facts"? The report of agent Charles

Taylor is rather explicit. He was there at the time the FBI conducted thei=

r

examination, and that this hole was "of particular note" to the FBI team

conducting the examination.

Setting aside the question of just who is "contaminating" the field with

"non-facts," perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:

You were the first to publish his report--which called attention to this

particular matter of their being a hole in the windshield.

Please do explain your line of reasoning by which you changed your position

on this matter. Just when did this change occur? And what was the "new

evidence"which caused this change?

DSL

____________________

[Hide Quoted Text]

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

Gee! Let's see. What could possibly be going on here? The team

of Thompson, Lamson, and Miller insists that something is wrong

with the studies of the Moorman LOS by Mantik, Fetzer, and White.

They seek to support it with manipulated images that they insist

show that Mantik, Fetzer, and White were wrong all along. There

is no good reason to believe it, but they persist--ad nauseum.

Why? The whole purpose of the study is to determine whether or

not there is internal evidence that impeaches the Zapruder and

other films, none of which show Mary was standing in the street.

Do Thompson, Lamson, and Miller accept other proofs that show

the Zapruder, Muchmore, and Nix films have been recreated to

conceal the true causes of death of JFK? Not on your life!

* They do not acknowledge that JFK's brains being blown out

to the right-front demonstrates the film is a fabrication.

* They do not acknowledge that the blood and brains were in

fact "painted in", as Roderick Ryan has observed.

* They do not acknowledge that Willliam Greer pulled the limo

to the left and stop to make sure that JFK would be killed.

* They do not acknowledge that Officer Chaney rode foreward

to inform Chief Curry that the president had been shot.

* They do not acknowledge that Secret Service agents grew

nauseated and vomited seeing brains and gore on the limo.

* They do not acknowledge that Homer McMahon reported see-

ing six to eight impacts from at least three directions.

* They do not acknowledge that David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.,

has established that the autopsy X-rays were altered.

* They do not acknowledge that Mantik has shown that JFK

was hit four times (from the front and from the back).

* They do not acknowledge that Governor Connally was hit

from one to as many as three times from the side.

* They do not acknowledge that Erwin Swartz reported see-

ing JFK's brains blown out to the left and rear.

* They do not acknowledge that the Parkland physicians

reported cerebellar and cerebral tissue extruding.

* They do not acknowledge that Connally's left turn has

been excised from the extant version of the film.

* They do not acknowledge that driver William Greer's

head turns were twice as fast as humanly possible.

* They do not acknowledge that JFK was hit in the

right temple by a frangible or exploding bullet.

* They do not acknowledge that the massive blow-out to

the back of JFK's head is visible in Z-frame 374.

* They do not acknowledge that LIFE published frame

232 with physically impossible features.

* They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven

the Stemmons Freeway sign was improperly inserted.

* They do not acknowledge that Costella has proven

the lamppost was likewise improperly inserted.

* They do not acknowledge that no witnesses in the

plaza reported the back-and-to-the-left motion.

* They do not acknowledge that anyone has seen the

original version of the film before editing.

Under these circumstances, why would anyone, in

their wildest dreams, not also anticipate that

* They will not acknowledge that Mary stepped into

the street to take her famous photograph; and,

* They will not acknowledge that Mantik/Fetzer/

White have proven she was in the street;

and attempt to belittle efforts to demonstrate

that they are wrong about this rather minute

proof of alteration, in the face of massive

evidence to the contrary enumerated here?

Yet they would claim that Mantik, Fetzer, and

White are the ones who are perpetrating fraud

and deceiving the public about the authenticity

of the film and true causes of the death of JFK!

Who's fooling who? Who's out to pull the wool

over the eyes of the public? Who are the real

liars, cheats, and frauds? Is this too hard

for anyone here to figure out? You have heard

of "disinfo ops" that take place now and then.

You are now in the midst of living one through.

P.S. For those who may be unfamiliar with the available evidence:

The shot to the throat passed through the windshield (Doug Weldon in

MURDER has the most extensive analysis, with which I agree) on pages

129-158 of MURDER; the Altgens is on page 149; the Secret Service

substitute is on page 157; another on page 158; there are shards of

glass hit his face (the mortician noticed the "shrapnel wounds" and

Mantik explained them); you can see the hit on the windshield in the

film at frame 225. Jim Lewis has been traveling around the south and

visiting junkyards to fire high-velocity rounds through old cars and

they make the sound of a "firecracker" when they pass through (also

see page 436 of HOAX). Bob Livingston noted that the Secret Service

had obtained multiple windshields "for target practice" on pages 165-

166 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE; and Richard Dudman wrote about the hole

in the windshield in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, on page 167. So I

am not buying what you are selling. You can dupe lots of people, but

you can't dupe me over this. The shot passed through the windshield.

<snip JFetzer post for brevity>

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?

Nope, not that it matters. The fundumentals of photography don't rest upon those items. How about you? Costella?

Given that Costella's credentials fail your own standards (hell it appears YOU fail your own standards) please tell us again why you listen to him.

Quite a list there Fetzer, you list it as if it's fact. Fact it is not.? You list a boat load of opinion and, conjecture, and yet the only things you list that actually rise above that is the work of Costella and that has been trashed with unimpeachable empirical eivdence...here:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

But so it goes for Fetzer....his MO is quite clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're an op, Lamson! Admit it. No one else would operate in such

reckless disregard of logic and evidence. Only a disinfo op like you!

[

Ah, the LAST refuge of a CT nutjob who has gone over the edge and been beaten at his own game!

Show us how THIS is disinfo...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever shot the film had troubles around frame 348, at least according to the extant film frame count.

http://72.130.171.242:8400/D8852/ZFRAMES.gif

With the the curb being stabilized, from 333-347 there is a nice flow. From 348-352(excluded) we get garbage. Then back to a smooth flow from 353.

Tom has picked apart(understatement of the year) the WC and supplied us with information which includes a shot near Altgen's.

The young man to Altgen's left, is diving at this point in time.

In Nix, other's are backing away.

Get the picture!!!!

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever shot the film had troubles around frame 348, at least according to the extant film frame count.

http://72.130.171.242:8400/D8852/ZFRAMES.gif

With the the curb being stabilized, from 333-347 there is a nice flow. From 348-352(excluded) we get garbage. Then back to a smooth flow from 353.

Tom has picked apart(understatement of the year) the WC and supplied us with information which includes a shot near Altgen's.

The young man to Altgen's left, is diving at this point in time.

In Nix, other's are backing away.

Get the picture!!!!

chris

Oh yea, I've got your picture....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't even know this post was here. Fetzer has taken to channeling David Lifton on several sites at the same time. Hence, it is difficult to keep up. Below is my reply to Lifton in bold face:

Welcome, David Lifton.

Fetzer has pointed out that you "confronted" me on the issue of the hole in the

windshield and that you have shown that I am "willing to cannibalize [my] own

book." Then he reproduced on this board the email you sent me with a copy to

him. When I received your email I asked permission to answer it on this board.

Since Fetzer has already posted your email on this board, I no longer require

your permission to quote it and reply to it.

Your email reads as follows:

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:40:06 -0700 [02:40:06 AM CDT]

From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink. net>

To: gum226@sbcglobal. net

Cc: "James Fetzer, Ph.D. "

Subject: "Contamination" with "non-facts"

Josiah Thompson,

You write:

"In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls away, one can see damage

to the windshield at the location later described as a non-through-and-through

hit from the rear."

"Later described". . . By who? Oh, I get it. . . You're referring to the

windshield which was examined in March, 1964?

As I noted, the report of Secret Service Agent James Taylor--who witnessed the

FBI examination that very night, November 22, 1963 – states that "of particular

note [to the FBI team conducting the examination] "was the small hole just left

of center in the windshield. . . "

This is a direct quote from SS Agent Taylor's report, which is part of

Commission Document 80.

And who was the first to publish CD 80? Why that was non other than you, Josiah

Thompson, in the appendix to your own work, Six Seconds in Dallas, published in

1967.

Now I have a few questions:

(1) Why did you publish this report, in your book, if you did not believe that

the report supported the hypothesis that there was a hole in the windshield? And

. .

(2) When did you change your mind on this matter? And. . .

(3) Why did you change your mind? (assuming you did).

Finally. . . , you write:

"Fetzer keeps making up these facts and offering them without qualification. In

doing so, he

contaminates the field with non-facts."

In what sense is anyone "making up ...facts"? The report of agent Charles Taylor

is rather explicit. He was there at the time the FBI conducted their

examination, and that this hole was "of particular note" to the FBI team

conducting the examination.

Setting aside the question of just who is "contaminating" the field with

"non-facts," perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:

You were the first to publish his report – which called attention to this

particular matter of their being a hole in the windshield.

Please do explain your line of reasoning by which you changed your position on

this matter. Just when did this change occur? And what was the "new

evidence"which caused this change?

DSL

What is immediately obvious is that you duck my main charge against Fetzer. I

wrote:

"The problem is that Fetzer and company are in the process of making up an

alternative reality based upon misinterpretations of witness statements and

ignoring important photographs. For example, in the post you are replying to,

Fetzer says, "This is related to the bullet hole in Altgens 5.." But there is no

bullet hole in Altgens 5. What Fetzer takes to be a bullet hole is a swirl in

the dress of a spectator seen through the windshield.... Just as he was mistaken

in thinking Bill Greer turned around and shot Kennedy with a chrome revolver

(based, as happens so often with Fetzer, on a blurry copy of the Zapruder film),

so he sees a bullet hole where there is none because he is looking at a blurry

copy of the Altgens photo. In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls

away, one can see damage to the windshield at the location later described as a

non-through-and-through hit from the rear. Fetzer keeps making up these facts

and offering them without qualification. In doing so, he contaminates the field

with non-facts.

I said Fetzer simply made up the fact that Altgens 5 shows a bullet hole in the

windshield when it doesn't. This is my illustration of why Fetzer's approach is

so pernicious because it contaminates the field of what is to be taken as

evidence. Since you ducked the basic charge I leveled against Fetzer, this

means to me that you are not about to get into a discussion as to whether

Fetzer's claim about the windshield is mistaken. Instead, you come on very

strong against my more innocuous statement that "in the later Altgens 6, taken

as the limousine pulls away, one can see damage to the windshield at the

location later described as a non-through-and-through hit from the rear."

You spend a lot of time dealing with CD 80, three pages of which are printed in

miniature in an appendix to "Six Seconds in Dallas." CD 80 is a January 6, 1964

letter from Chief Rowley of the Secret Service to J. Lee Rankin of the

Commission. You make a lot of a comment from a SA Charles Taylor of the Secret

Service. I had never heard of SA Taylor and his only appearance in the three

pages I published of CD 60 is the comment from Chief Rowley that "there is

attached a copy of a report of SA Charles Taylor of the Washington Field Office

concerning the security measures surrounding the car and the activity at the

White house garage in connection with the search of the vehicle."

Chief Rowley goes on to point out that William Greer never noticed the cracks in

the windshield as he drove to the hospital. SA Hickey drove the car to Love

Field and said the damage "was not extensive enough to affect his vision."

Hickey pointed out that the windshield "in the area around the damage was

spattered with debris." SA Kinney drove the car from Andrews Air Field to the

White House garage. He "noticed very little damage to the windshield when he

was loading it on the plane; that the damage was more noticeable when he arrived

at the garage." Two paragraphs in Chief Rowley's letter refer to the detailed

examination of the windshield made in the garage. They are the following:

"Special Officer Davis of the Secret Service and SA Gies stated that they

noticed the damage to the windshield when the car arrived at the garage, that

both of them ran their hands over the outside surface of the windshield and

found it to be smooth and unbroken, and that the damage to the windshield was

entirely on the inside surface. Both were present when the windshield was

removed from the car by the Arlington Glass Company and noticed that the removal

caused the cracks in the glass to lengthen, but the outside surface still

remained unbroken and there is no hole or crack through the windshield."

"Special Agent Gies has viewed the photographs of the windshield taken by the

FBI and states that the damage noticeable to the windshield when it was first

brought into the garage was not as extensive as reflected in this photograph:

i.e. the cracks were not so apparent. Apparently, there was only a small

spiderweb-like damage visible on the inside of the windshield when the car

arrived, but SA Gies is of the opinion that the temperature changes involved in

the flight from Dallas, the temperature change and vibration from driving the

car from Andrews Air Field to the White House garage, and then the storing of

the car in the warm temperature of the White House garage is responsible for the

change in the appearance of the damaged area of the windshield visible in the

photograph taken by the FBI. The photograph is attached and labeled Exhibit I."

From this letter, it appears that SA Agent Charles Taylor submitted a report

about "security measures surrounding the car" and activity "in connection with

the search of the vehicle." From the comment you quote, it would seem he

observed an FBI examination of the vehicle. Since you quote only one sentence

from Taylor's report, we don't know the basis for his observation. On the other

hand, we know from Rowley's letter that SA Geis and Officer Davis both "ran

their hands over the outside surface of the windshield and found it to be smooth

and unbroken, and that the damage to the windshield was entirely on the inside

surface." Later, when the windshield was removed, they noticed "the removal

caused the cracks in the glass to lengthen, but the outside surface still

remained unbroken and there is no hole or crack through the windshield."

You ignored these very telling facts and contented yourself with only quoting a

sentence from Taylor's report.

No further reply to your many questions is needed. It's clear, in this

instance, that you like Fetzer, only mention that part of the evidence that

favors your claim while ignoring the rest. This is the furthest remove from

true historical scholarship. Nor has this always been the way you operated. In

the past you showed less of an intent to be "right" and more respect for what

the evidence itself showed. Also in the past, you never made your points

accompanied by an unpleasant and unflattering smirk. I am sorry to see this

happen.

Josiah Thompson

All,

The gross deception involved in Tink's attack on me over the hole in

the windshield after I posted Lifton's query about SSA Taylor's report

has drawn a response from David, who has confronted him on the issue.

What is most stunning is that, in his childish determination to "get

Fetzer", he is willing to cannibalize his own book! That provides a

striking indication of the incoherence of his own thought processes.

This, I take it, is not the first time that he has been willing to

contradict SIX SECONDS, including his relatively recent denial of

evidence of the "double hit", which David Lifton had independently

discovered during his visit with Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in

physics, as he reports in BEST EVIDENCE. This new inconsistency has

thus reinforced my advice--that he (Tink) obtain professional help!

It is difficult to imagine the lengths to which the obsessed could

be driven in their frantic attempts to denigrate and destroy those

who incur their wrath. But, for someone whose "claim to fame" has

been a 1967 book published that led to considerable public acclaim,

including a cover story in The Saturday Evening Post, to dismember,

piece by piece, his own greatest achievement for the perverse pur-

pose of attacking his nemesis invites a Freudian interpretation.

His bizarre state of mind is further illustrated by his denial of

the obvious, including the excellence of the books on JFK that I

have edited. The first had 11 contributors, the second 9 and the

third 6. How plausible is it that none of these authors, whom I

invited to contribute as experts on various aspects of the case,

would have no discoveries of value? Yet that's what he contends.

Indeed, anyone who reads the reviews from Publishers Weekly and

the experts who have endorsed these books--including Cyril Wecht,

Peter Dale Scott, Michael Parenti, Stewart Galanor, Kerry Walters,

David Lifton, and Michael Kurtz--knows better. Egad! Even Vincent

Bugliosi has conceded that mine are the only completely scientific

books ever published on JFK! So what is Josiah Thompson doing in

attacking them? Objectively, they are exceptional contributions!

Indeed, the only chapter he has ever praised--by Gary Aguilar in

MURDER--which focuses on the massive defect at the back of JFK's

skull, turns out to support a proof that the Zapruder was altered,

which has led him to remove that single sentence from his hatchet-

job review, because it undermines his persistent denial of proofs

the film is a fabrication and reflects his detachment from reality.

That he cannot accept proof after proof that the film is a fake--

many of which I have repeatedly reported on this forum--represents

one more indication of the gradual but continuous deterioration of

his mental competence. A man who devotes himself to perpetuating

deceptions may find himself no longer capable of separating truth

from fiction, reality from illusion. And that, I am sorry to say,

is how things stand with this pathetic man, whom I used to admire.

Jim

________________________

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:40:06 -0700 [02:40:06 AM CDT]

From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>

To: gum226@sbcglobal.net

Cc: "James Fetzer, Ph.D. " <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Subject: "Contamination" with "non-facts"

Josiah Thompson

You write:

" In the later Altgens 6, taken as the limousine pulls away, one can see

damage to the windshield at the location later described as a

non-through-and-through hit from the rear."

"Later described". . . By who? Oh, I get it. . . You're referring to the

windshield which was examined in March, 1964?

As I noted, the report of Secret Service Agent James Taylor--who witnessed

the FBI examination that very night, November 22, 1963--states that "of

particular note [to the FBI team conducting the examination] "was the small

hole just left of center in the windshield. . . "

This is a direct quote from SS Agent Taylor's report, which is part of

Commission Document 80.

And who was the first to publish CD 80? Why that was non other than you,

Josiah Thompson, in the appendix to your own work, Six Seconds in Dallas,

published in 1967,

Now I have a few questions:

(1) Why did you publish this report, in your book, if you did not believe

that the report supported the hypothesis that there was a hole in the

windshield? And . .

(2) When did you change your mind on this matter? And. . .

(3) Why did you change your mind? (assuming you did).

Finally. . . , you write:

QUOTE:

"Fetzer keeps making up

these facts and offering them without qualification. In doing so, he

contaminates the field with non-facts."

In what sense is anyone "making up ...facts"? The report of agent Charles

Taylor is rather explicit. He was there at the time the FBI conducted thei=

r

examination, and that this hole was "of particular note" to the FBI team

conducting the examination.

Setting aside the question of just who is "contaminating" the field with

"non-facts," perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:

You were the first to publish his report--which called attention to this

particular matter of their being a hole in the windshield.

Please do explain your line of reasoning by which you changed your position

on this matter. Just when did this change occur? And what was the "new

evidence"which caused this change?

DSL

____________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josiah,

If we can leave aside the issue of film alteration for a moment, would you please answer a few questions?

First, do you believe there was an actual hole in the windshield at some point, as reported by a handful of credible witnesses?

Second, do you believe there was a huge gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, as reported by numerous medical people in Dallas?

Third, do you believe the non-fatal rear entry wound was lccated 5-6 inches down on JFK's back, as evidenced by the holes in his clothing, Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death, Sibert & O'Neill's FBI report, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever shot the film had troubles around frame 348, at least according to the extant film frame count.

http://72.130.171.242:8400/D8852/ZFRAMES.gif

With the the curb being stabilized, from 333-347 there is a nice flow. From 348-352(excluded) we get garbage. Then back to a smooth flow from 353.

Tom has picked apart(understatement of the year) the WC and supplied us with information which includes a shot near Altgen's.

The young man to Altgen's left, is diving at this point in time.

In Nix, other's are backing away.

Get the picture!!!!

chris

Oh yea, I've got your picture....

Good.

Now,

Zapruder was so inept at filming, even with the limo traveling at approx 10 mph, right in front of him, this is where it ends up within the frame,compared to cars traveling at approx 40 mph.

Now, move those limo participants into their approx proper location.

Much better!!!! Getting them closer to center frame. A little more realistic.

The SUV which rides higher than the limo, would put the limo occupants even closer to center frame.

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever shot the film had troubles around frame 348, at least according to the extant film frame count.

http://72.130.171.242:8400/D8852/ZFRAMES.gif

With the the curb being stabilized, from 333-347 there is a nice flow. From 348-352(excluded) we get garbage. Then back to a smooth flow from 353.

Tom has picked apart(understatement of the year) the WC and supplied us with information which includes a shot near Altgen's.

The young man to Altgen's left, is diving at this point in time.

In Nix, other's are backing away.

Get the picture!!!!

chris

Oh yea, I've got your picture....

Good.

Now,

Zapruder was so inept at filming, even with the limo traveling at approx 10 mph, right in front of him, this is where it ends up within the frame,compared to cars traveling at approx 40 mph.

Now, move those limo participants into their approx proper location.

Much better!!!! Getting them closer to center frame. A little more realistic.

The SUV which rides higher than the limo, would put the limo occupants even closer to center frame.

chris

Well folks in yet another AMAZING discovery, chris davidson, poster child for the superb method of research, the form a conclusion and mold the evidence to fit, has found that amateur photographer Abe Zapruder was ...well...an amateur! Film at eleven! Sorry but that's worth about a buck fifty in Zimbabwe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig,

I'm pretty sure the residents of Zimbabwe recognize Elm St. goes downhill.

You encourage others to recreate examples for comparison, yet when the result is starkly different, you write it off as "filmed by an amateur".

Please show us your pedestal footage.

In fact, the offer extends to everyone.

Let's see what other amateur/ even professional results look like.

And while we're waiting, I'll provide them with another comparison example(from the pedestal) of a car traveling downhill.

A Z difference of 6 degrees CCW at this point.

Follow that curbline.

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
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...