Jump to content

Alen J Salerian, MD


Michael Hogan
 Share

Recommended Posts

It is plausable; and seems very likely that UM provided some kind of low-tech signal to the shooters, and RM seems to signal with his raised arm. Why in the world would these people be there, with an umbrella and do these kind of actions if they were not part of a murder that was going on a few feet away?

Absolutely. Zapruder on the wall was supposed to be the main sight. But, in fact, that honor went to the Cuban. He was the most noticable person in that Plaza (besides Kennedy) -- and quite proud. In a country not his own.

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael Hogan has no clue what he is talking about

Why you ask would I say that? I guess just like him im saying it just to say it

How does that sound Michael?

Maybe you should pay attention to whats IN the book like I did instead of dwelling on spelling errors, you act like this book is an report that Fetzer turned into an 8th grade English Teacher

Who cares (besides you and English teachers) if the book has errors? You make it sound like it was so bad that it was impossible to read the book, the errors did not take away from the flow of the book that was easy to read and understand

And for your info I own the first edition

I hope you break my post apart and point out all the spelling and punctuation errors to me so I (along with all the other researchers who care about the case instead of grammer) can get a good laugh

It's apparent from the above remarks that your reading comprehension skills are equivalent to that of an eighth-grader.

I see why you had to read Murder in Dealey Plaza 50 times.

Your claim that the book is "edited just fine" is as laughable as it is absurd. And then you want to defend that claim by sniping at me.

Maybe you should pay attention to what's in the book, instead of making yourself look like a lightweight with your childish comments.

You ask "who cares if the book has errors?" The answer is readers that care about accuracy, credibility, and veracity.

You neglected to mention that my post also referred to "a considerable number of factual misstatements." Ponder these..

Page 28) And yet, thirteen railroad employees of the Union Terminal are allowed on the bridge. Police officers White and Foster are assigned places at the East and West sides of a bridge that runs North-South. Access to the overpass bridge may have been limited to those with photography equipment.

Page 47) This momentary sighting also dovetails with the observation of sheriff's deputy Roger Craig, who also sees a Nash Rambler station wagon, also driven by a dark-complected man, about fifteen minutes after the shooting, heading west on Elm.

Page 54) Near Poydrus, when the bus becomes tied up in traffic, a man gets out of the car in front of the bus, walks back to the bus and tells Whaley the President has been shot.

Page 59) Norman Similas, of Toronto, also witnesses the assassination of JFK and promptly leaves town.

(This statement is cut and pasted from this website

No mention that Similas claimed to have a taken a photo; no mention of what he saw.)

Page 79) The second police car to arrive at the scene where Tippit was murdered is driven by Officer Gerald Hill. Riding with Hill is William Alexander. (Officer Hill testifies that he is given custody of the .38 revolver supposedly found on Oswald when he is arrested a few moments later.)

Page 87) Brewer then goes back to the box office and tells Julia Postal he thinks the man is still in the theater and to call the police. Julia then calls the police.

Page 96) Clint Hill sees a photographer taking pictures. "I'll get him," he says to Jacqueline Kennedy. "No, she replies. "I want them to see what they have done."

Page 101) 11/22 2:50 pm: Dallas police take a paraffin test of Oswald's hands and right cheek. Test is positive for hands; negative for the face. His interrogation continues. (See next)

Page 110) 11/22 8:55 pm: Pete Barnes comes in and the three crime lab men make paraffin casts of Oswald's hands and right cheek. The tests come back positive for his hands and negative for his right cheek....

Page 114) The HSCA is referred to as "The Senate Committee."

I quickly tire of dealing with guys like you that jump to false conclusions, and then act affronted when it is pointed out to them. Your response didn't even try to deal with the positive things I said about Murder in Dealey Plaza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Hogan has no clue what he is talking about

Why you ask would I say that? I guess just like him im saying it just to say it

How does that sound Michael?

Maybe you should pay attention to whats IN the book like I did instead of dwelling on spelling errors, you act like this book is an report that Fetzer turned into an 8th grade English Teacher

Who cares (besides you and English teachers) if the book has errors? You make it sound like it was so bad that it was impossible to read the book, the errors did not take away from the flow of the book that was easy to read and understand

And for your info I own the first edition

I hope you break my post apart and point out all the spelling and punctuation errors to me so I (along with all the other researchers who care about the case instead of grammer) can get a good laugh

It's apparent from the above remarks that your reading comprehension skills are equivalent to that of an eighth-grader.

I see why you had to read Murder in Dealey Plaza 50 times.

Your claim that the book is "edited just fine" is as laughable as it is absurd. And then you want to defend that claim by sniping at me.

Maybe you should pay attention to what's in the book, instead of making yourself look like a lightweight with your childish comments.

You ask "who cares if the book has errors?" The answer is readers that care about accuracy, credibility, and veracity.

You neglected to mention that my post also referred to "a considerable number of factual misstatements." Ponder these..

Page 28) And yet, thirteen railroad employees of the Union Terminal are allowed on the bridge. Police officers White and Foster are assigned places at the East and West sides of a bridge that runs North-South. Access to the overpass bridge may have been limited to those with photography equipment.

Page 47) This momentary sighting also dovetails with the observation of sheriff's deputy Roger Craig, who also sees a Nash Rambler station wagon, also driven by a dark-complected man, about fifteen minutes after the shooting, heading west on Elm.

Page 54) Near Poydrus, when the bus becomes tied up in traffic, a man gets out of the car in front of the bus, walks back to the bus and tells Whaley the President has been shot.

Page 59) Norman Similas, of Toronto, also witnesses the assassination of JFK and promptly leaves town.

(This statement is cut and pasted from this website

No mention that Similas claimed to have a taken a photo; no mention of what he saw.)

Page 79) The second police car to arrive at the scene where Tippit was murdered is driven by Officer Gerald Hill. Riding with Hill is William Alexander. (Officer Hill testifies that he is given custody of the .38 revolver supposedly found on Oswald when he is arrested a few moments later.)

Page 87) Brewer then goes back to the box office and tells Julia Postal he thinks the man is still in the theater and to call the police. Julia then calls the police.

Page 96) Clint Hill sees a photographer taking pictures. "I'll get him," he says to Jacqueline Kennedy. "No, she replies. "I want them to see what they have done."

Page 101) 11/22 2:50 pm: Dallas police take a paraffin test of Oswald's hands and right cheek. Test is positive for hands; negative for the face. His interrogation continues. (See next)

Page 110) 11/22 8:55 pm: Pete Barnes comes in and the three crime lab men make paraffin casts of Oswald's hands and right cheek. The tests come back positive for his hands and negative for his right cheek....

Page 114) The HSCA is referred to as "The Senate Committee."

I quickly tire of dealing with guys like you that jump to false conclusions, and then act affronted when it is pointed out to them. Your response didn't even try to deal with the positive things I said about Murder in Dealey Plaza.

Michael,

Thank you for starting this thread, and I had hoped that Dr. Salerian would join us in discussion, but its apparent that no one of his caliber will enlist in a forum that includes those who have preconceived notions of what happened and whose to blame.

Dean is quite apparently out of his league and Professor Fetzer, while on a high having been cited as a source in Horne's epic, should go back and correct his typos, errors and errata in his anthologies and republish them in the wake of Horne's references to them.

And when we get Tink Thompson's response to Horne's work, Fetzer should just remain silent, as he has been disqualified from engaging in any determination of what did and didn't happen to the Zapruder film, while Horne's work has the potential of convincing Thompson that the chain of custody of the Z-film original was lost if in fact it did spend time at the CIA's Hawkeye Works lab at the Kodak plant in Rochester, NY.

And someone else, other than Professor Fetzer, must follow Thompson's response to Horne's new data, and make sure it is well reasoned and in the same logical, analysis Horne applies to what has already been learned.

Fetzer should not be allowed to take over the soap box, though he should be granted equal time, and since Horne's book is based primarily on the original records, they should be sited rather than the mistake ridden Murder In Dealey Plaza, which if corrected, has the potential of reaching a much larger audience than Horne's technical analysis, and those students of the assassination, like Dean, should learn and full deal, and not just from those who make the most noise.

And many thanks again to Michael Hogan, a steady and intrepid student of the assassination.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Hogan has no clue what he is talking about

Why you ask would I say that? I guess just like him im saying it just to say it

How does that sound Michael?

Maybe you should pay attention to whats IN the book like I did instead of dwelling on spelling errors, you act like this book is an report that Fetzer turned into an 8th grade English Teacher

Who cares (besides you and English teachers) if the book has errors? You make it sound like it was so bad that it was impossible to read the book, the errors did not take away from the flow of the book that was easy to read and understand

And for your info I own the first edition

I hope you break my post apart and point out all the spelling and punctuation errors to me so I (along with all the other researchers who care about the case instead of grammer) can get a good laugh

It's apparent from the above remarks that your reading comprehension skills are equivalent to that of an eighth-grader.

I see why you had to read Murder in Dealey Plaza 50 times.

Your claim that the book is "edited just fine" is as laughable as it is absurd. And then you want to defend that claim by sniping at me.

Maybe you should pay attention to what's in the book, instead of making yourself look like a lightweight with your childish comments.

You ask "who cares if the book has errors?" The answer is readers that care about accuracy, credibility, and veracity.

You neglected to mention that my post also referred to "a considerable number of factual misstatements." Ponder these..

Page 28) And yet, thirteen railroad employees of the Union Terminal are allowed on the bridge. Police officers White and Foster are assigned places at the East and West sides of a bridge that runs North-South. Access to the overpass bridge may have been limited to those with photography equipment.

Page 47) This momentary sighting also dovetails with the observation of sheriff's deputy Roger Craig, who also sees a Nash Rambler station wagon, also driven by a dark-complected man, about fifteen minutes after the shooting, heading west on Elm.

Page 54) Near Poydrus, when the bus becomes tied up in traffic, a man gets out of the car in front of the bus, walks back to the bus and tells Whaley the President has been shot.

Page 59) Norman Similas, of Toronto, also witnesses the assassination of JFK and promptly leaves town.

(This statement is cut and pasted from this website

No mention that Similas claimed to have a taken a photo; no mention of what he saw.)

Page 79) The second police car to arrive at the scene where Tippit was murdered is driven by Officer Gerald Hill. Riding with Hill is William Alexander. (Officer Hill testifies that he is given custody of the .38 revolver supposedly found on Oswald when he is arrested a few moments later.)

Page 87) Brewer then goes back to the box office and tells Julia Postal he thinks the man is still in the theater and to call the police. Julia then calls the police.

Page 96) Clint Hill sees a photographer taking pictures. "I'll get him," he says to Jacqueline Kennedy. "No, she replies. "I want them to see what they have done."

Page 101) 11/22 2:50 pm: Dallas police take a paraffin test of Oswald's hands and right cheek. Test is positive for hands; negative for the face. His interrogation continues. (See next)

Page 110) 11/22 8:55 pm: Pete Barnes comes in and the three crime lab men make paraffin casts of Oswald's hands and right cheek. The tests come back positive for his hands and negative for his right cheek....

Page 114) The HSCA is referred to as "The Senate Committee."

I quickly tire of dealing with guys like you that jump to false conclusions, and then act affronted when it is pointed out to them. Your response didn't even try to deal with the positive things I said about Murder in Dealey Plaza.

Michael,

Thank you for starting this thread, and I had hoped that Dr. Salerian would join us in discussion, but its apparent that no one of his caliber will enlist in a forum that includes those who have preconceived notions of what happened and whose to blame.

Dean is quite apparently out of his league and Professor Fetzer, while on a high having been cited as a source in Horne's epic, should go back and correct his typos, errors and errata in his anthologies and republish them in the wake of Horne's references to them.

And when we get Tink Thompson's response to Horne's work, Fetzer should just remain silent, as he has been disqualified from engaging in any determination of what did and didn't happen to the Zapruder film, while Horne's work has the potential of convincing Thompson that the chain of custody of the Z-film original was lost if in fact it did spend time at the CIA's Hawkeye Works lab at the Kodak plant in Rochester, NY.

And someone else, other than Professor Fetzer, must follow Thompson's response to Horne's new data, and make sure it is well reasoned and in the same logical, analysis Horne applies to what has already been learned.

Fetzer should not be allowed to take over the soap box, though he should be granted equal time, and since Horne's book is based primarily on the original records, they should be sited rather than the mistake ridden Murder In Dealey Plaza, which if corrected, has the potential of reaching a much larger audience than Horne's technical analysis, and those students of the assassination, like Dean, should learn and full deal, and not just from those who make the most noise.

And many thanks again to Michael Hogan, a steady and intrepid student of the assassination.

BK

I am out of my league?

Why because I can read and understand MIDP unlike you?

When I first started posting I liked you and your style, then you take a shot at Fetzer and I call you on it, now im out of my league according to the all mighty Bill Kelly?

Its nice to see the real side of you, dont call Bill out when he talks bad about someone, or else you will be branded out of your league

What a frigging joke

I cant read MIDP! It has to many errors! I hope its corrected now that Dougs 5 volumes is released! Jim needs to keep his mouth shut!

Just listen to you

I would say that your out of your league, but I wont stoop to your level

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You ask "who cares if the book has errors?" The answer is readers that care about accuracy, credibility, and veracity.

What percentage of readers care only about errors? 2% including you and Bill Kelly would be my guess

And now you say "It's apparent from the above remarks that your reading comprehension skills are equivalent to that of an eighth-grader"

And then you say "Maybe you should pay attention to what's in the book, instead of making yourself look like a lightweight with your childish comments"

So telling me I read like im in 8th grade is not a childish comment?

And my favorite is this "I quickly tire of dealing with guys like you that jump to false conclusions"

Then why did you reply to me?

I know your just itchin to break down my post and point out all the errors I make, go ahead, do it.

Me and my friends need a new grammer nazi to make fun of

Edited by Dean Hagerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horne's book is based primarily on the original records, they should be sited rather than the mistake ridden Murder In Dealey Plaza, which if corrected, has the potential of reaching a much larger audience than Horne's technical analysis, and those students of the assassination, like Dean, should learn and full deal, and not just from those who make the most noise.

Bill

I am getting all 5 volumes for X-mas

I will read them all and report back with my thoughts

I am very excited to read Volume 4

Im ready to move on from talking about the errors in MIDP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You neglected to mention that my post also referred to "a considerable number of factual misstatements." Ponder these..

Page 28) And yet, thirteen railroad employees of the Union Terminal are allowed on the bridge. Police officers White and Foster are assigned places at the East and West sides of a bridge that runs North-South. Access to the overpass bridge may have been limited to those with photography equipment.

Page 47) This momentary sighting also dovetails with the observation of sheriff's deputy Roger Craig, who also sees a Nash Rambler station wagon, also driven by a dark-complected man, about fifteen minutes after the shooting, heading west on Elm.

Page 54) Near Poydrus, when the bus becomes tied up in traffic, a man gets out of the car in front of the bus, walks back to the bus and tells Whaley the President has been shot.

Page 59) Norman Similas, of Toronto, also witnesses the assassination of JFK and promptly leaves town.

(This statement is cut and pasted from this website

No mention that Similas claimed to have a taken a photo; no mention of what he saw.)

Page 79) The second police car to arrive at the scene where Tippit was murdered is driven by Officer Gerald Hill. Riding with Hill is William Alexander. (Officer Hill testifies that he is given custody of the .38 revolver supposedly found on Oswald when he is arrested a few moments later.)

Page 87) Brewer then goes back to the box office and tells Julia Postal he thinks the man is still in the theater and to call the police. Julia then calls the police.

Page 96) Clint Hill sees a photographer taking pictures. "I'll get him," he says to Jacqueline Kennedy. "No, she replies. "I want them to see what they have done."

Page 101) 11/22 2:50 pm: Dallas police take a paraffin test of Oswald's hands and right cheek. Test is positive for hands; negative for the face. His interrogation continues. (See next)

Page 110) 11/22 8:55 pm: Pete Barnes comes in and the three crime lab men make paraffin casts of Oswald's hands and right cheek. The tests come back positive for his hands and negative for his right cheek....

Page 114) The HSCA is referred to as "The Senate Committee."

For the benefit of those of us not familiar will all the minutiae of the case what are the errors? In most cases you failed to point them out. The only one I caught is that Jackie said "I want them to see what they have done." Lady Bird but some accounts say she said this to a few people.

http://www.life.com/image/ugc1008712/in-gallery/33432

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horne's book is based primarily on the original records, they should be sited rather than the mistake ridden Murder In Dealey Plaza, which if corrected, has the potential of reaching a much larger audience than Horne's technical analysis, and those students of the assassination, like Dean, should learn and full deal, and not just from those who make the most noise.

Bill

I am getting all 5 volumes for X-mas

I will read them all and report back with my thoughts

I am very excited to read Volume 4

Im ready to move on from talking about the errors in MIDP

Thanks Dean,

I'm anxious to hear your report.

I too am a student of the assassination with a lot of reading to do.

I'm just glad Prof. Fetzer isn't grading me.

Perhaps you can suggest to him some possible articles for his next anthology.

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fetzer should just remain silent, as he has been disqualified from engaging in any determination of what did and didn't happen to the Zapruder film...

BILL COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS REMARK WITH DETAILS OF THE HOW IN YOUR OPINION...

THANKS B..THANKS LEN THAT WAS THE NEXT QUANDRY...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fetzer should just remain silent, as he has been disqualified from engaging in any determination of what did and didn't happen to the Zapruder film...

BILL COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS REMARK WITH DETAILS OF THE HOW IN YOUR OPINION...

THANKS B..THANKS LEN THAT WAS THE NEXT QUANDRY...

Well, while remaining on the sidelines I followed Prof. Fetzer's two year running battle with Prof. Tink, and both of them did nothing but argue about the content of the Zapruder film, and each others virtues and vices.

Doug Horne, while acknowledging all of this in his book, focuses on the possibility that there were two different original Zapruder films at the NPIC at different times, and that is what should be further investigated as far as the disposition of JFK assassination records go.

If you want to hear a rehash of the Fetzer-Tink T. debates you can, but it doesn't and shouldn't belong in a discussion or investigation of where the Z-film was and what it was doing there.

The discussion is not about Fetzer - or his book MIDP, or the disputed conent of the film, it's about it's provenance, the chain of evidence and its admissiblity in a court of law.

And if Fetzer gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horne's book is based primarily on the original records, they should be sited rather than the mistake ridden Murder In Dealey Plaza, which if corrected, has the potential of reaching a much larger audience than Horne's technical analysis, and those students of the assassination, like Dean, should learn and full deal, and not just from those who make the most noise.

Bill

I am getting all 5 volumes for X-mas

I will read them all and report back with my thoughts

I am very excited to read Volume 4

Im ready to move on from talking about the errors in MIDP

Thanks Dean,

I'm anxious to hear your report.

I too am a student of the assassination with a lot of reading to do.

I'm just glad Prof. Fetzer isn't grading me.

Perhaps you can suggest to him some possible articles for his next anthology.

Bill Kelly

I dont know if your being serious, I hope you are

But either way I will post my thoughts and look forward to hearing more from you Bill and from everyone else on all 5 volumes (but mostly on chapter 14 in vol 4)

The person I really want to hear from is Tink Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Listen, I don't think that Bill Kelly is an ass because MURDER was over his head. But someone who does not understand the links between the medical, autopsy, and photographic evidence, as is the case with Bill Kelly, has no business reviewing a book that is chock full of studies about the medical, autopsy, and photographic evidence. In case anyone did not notice, Bill himself admitted as much when he said, "As for the medical evidence and autopsy, I never said I knew anything about it, and have only got into it now because of Doug's book." So there are many reasons why his review of MURDER would be both superficial and incompetent.

But when Michael Hogan lists a dozen or more "mistakes" in MURDER and does not observe that they are all drawn from a single chapter, which runs from pages 17 to 117, something less admirable is going on. What we have here is a monumental effort by Iran David Wood III to provide a chronology of events on 22 November 1963, which is a daunting task. Certainly, I haven't the least doubt that Michael Hogan wouldn't dare take on such a project. There is nothing wrong with observing that, in attempting to tackle this enormous task, the author would get some of the details wrong. But this attack is nothing but a VERY "cheap shot", which Bill Kelly has emulated.

All I ask is for an objective, "fair and balanced", assessment of the contributions of the leading authority on the Secret Service (Vincent Palamara); the most knowledgeable student of the Presidential limousine (Douglas Weldon, J.D.); a leading expert on the medical evidence at Parkland and at Bethesda (Gary Aguilar, M.D.); the single most highly qualified person to ever study this case (David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.); the Senior Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB (Douglas Horne); a legendary photoanalyst who advised the House Select Committee during its reinvestigation (Jack White); a world-famous philosopher who received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950 (Bertrand Russell); and a prize-winning director and playwright, who produced a brilliant if flawed chronology (Ira David Wood III). Among the conclusions established by the studies published here are these:

* that JFK was hit at least four times (once in the back from behind; once in the throat from in front; and twice in the head, once from behind and once from in front);

* that the wound to his throat was caused by a shot that penetrated the limousine windshield, which was subsequently destroyed and replaced by a substitute windshield;

* that the shot to the back was well below the collar, entered only about as far as the second knuckle on your little finger, and evinced no point of exit from the body;

* that no bullet transited the President's neck without hitting any bony structures and exited at the level of his tie, a trajectory that in fact turns out to be anatomically impossible;

* that, as a consequence, no bullet passed through the President and hit the Governor, who was hit by at least one and perhaps as many as two or even three separate shots;

* that, including the shot that missed and injured James Tague, an absolute minimum of six shots had to have been fired during the assassination, where the total was more likely eight, nine, or even ten;

* that at least 59 witnesses reported that the limousine slowed dramatically or came to a complete halt after bullets began to be fired, which supports the conclusion that it slowed dramatically as it came to a complete halt;

* that the first shot to the head was fired from behind and entered in the vicinity of the external occipital protuberance at the back of the head;

* that the second shot to the head was fired from in front and entered in the vicinity of the right temple;

* that the second shot was fired with a frangible or "exploding" bullet that transmitted shockwaves through the brain;

* that the impact of this bullet combined with the weakening of the skull by the first shot to the head caused 1/3 to 1/2 of his brains to be blown out in Dealey Plaza at the time;

* that the massive blow-out to the back of the head was concealed by imposing a "patch" to the right lateral cranial X-ray (of the skull taken from the right side);

* that the brain had to be reconsititued since, once the defect to the skull had been "patched", there was no place for that brain matter to have gone;

* that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs in the National Archives cannot be the brain of John Fitzgerald Kennedy;

* that two brain examinations were conducted, the first of which was with the President's brain, the second with a substitute;

* that the autopsy report was prepared without the benefit of the autopsy photographs, which were removed by the Secret Service;

* that the photographs were subsequently altered and reshot in various ways to conceal evidence of the cause of death;

* that the Zapruder film of the assassination was in the hands of the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) run by the CIA already the weekend of the assassination;

* that the extant "Zapruder film" has been massively edited to remove evidence of the actual cause of death, including the limousine having been brought to a halt in order to insure that the target would be killed.

The evidence that substantiates these conclusions is abundant and compelling. None of the findings presented here has the status of rumor or speculation. If the American government had wanted the American people to know the truth about the death of their 35th President, it would have been easy to have shown them. Because of its intransigence, fabrication, and manipulation of evidence--which appears to continue to this day--however, the American government has denied, concealed, or ignored evidence of all the kinds that we have discovered. And now Vincent Bugliosi has continued the tradition of Gerald Posner, the HSCA, and the Warren Commission by again whitewashing the evidence that proves the existence of a cover up and conspiracy in this case.

From what I have read thus far, Doug Horne has done a brilliant job of putting together a massive compilation of evidence that substantiates and, no doubt, in some cases refines the conclusions that were established in MURDER. I admire his dedication, perseverance, and intelligence in undertaking this monumental task. My complaints have nothing to do with Doug Horne's work but with careless and irresponsible students of the case who have not exerted the time and effort to understand the breadth and the depth of the research that has been accomplished during the past ten years by other dedicated students, inspired, in turn, by David Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE. For that and many other reasons, I celebrate Doug's accomplishments, which strengthen our understanding of the death of JFK.

Michael Hogan has no clue what he is talking about

Why you ask would I say that? I guess just like him im saying it just to say it

How does that sound Michael?

Maybe you should pay attention to whats IN the book like I did instead of dwelling on spelling errors, you act like this book is an report that Fetzer turned into an 8th grade English Teacher

Who cares (besides you and English teachers) if the book has errors? You make it sound like it was so bad that it was impossible to read the book, the errors did not take away from the flow of the book that was easy to read and understand

And for your info I own the first edition

I hope you break my post apart and point out all the spelling and punctuation errors to me so I (along with all the other researchers who care about the case instead of grammer) can get a good laugh

It's apparent from the above remarks that your reading comprehension skills are equivalent to that of an eighth-grader.

I see why you had to read Murder in Dealey Plaza 50 times.

Your claim that the book is "edited just fine" is as laughable as it is absurd. And then you want to defend that claim by sniping at me.

Maybe you should pay attention to what's in the book, instead of making yourself look like a lightweight with your childish comments.

You ask "who cares if the book has errors?" The answer is readers that care about accuracy, credibility, and veracity.

You neglected to mention that my post also referred to "a considerable number of factual misstatements." Ponder these..

Page 28) And yet, thirteen railroad employees of the Union Terminal are allowed on the bridge. Police officers White and Foster are assigned places at the East and West sides of a bridge that runs North-South. Access to the overpass bridge may have been limited to those with photography equipment.

Page 47) This momentary sighting also dovetails with the observation of sheriff's deputy Roger Craig, who also sees a Nash Rambler station wagon, also driven by a dark-complected man, about fifteen minutes after the shooting, heading west on Elm.

Page 54) Near Poydrus, when the bus becomes tied up in traffic, a man gets out of the car in front of the bus, walks back to the bus and tells Whaley the President has been shot.

Page 59) Norman Similas, of Toronto, also witnesses the assassination of JFK and promptly leaves town.

(This statement is cut and pasted from this website

No mention that Similas claimed to have a taken a photo; no mention of what he saw.)

Page 79) The second police car to arrive at the scene where Tippit was murdered is driven by Officer Gerald Hill. Riding with Hill is William Alexander. (Officer Hill testifies that he is given custody of the .38 revolver supposedly found on Oswald when he is arrested a few moments later.)

Page 87) Brewer then goes back to the box office and tells Julia Postal he thinks the man is still in the theater and to call the police. Julia then calls the police.

Page 96) Clint Hill sees a photographer taking pictures. "I'll get him," he says to Jacqueline Kennedy. "No, she replies. "I want them to see what they have done."

Page 101) 11/22 2:50 pm: Dallas police take a paraffin test of Oswald's hands and right cheek. Test is positive for hands; negative for the face. His interrogation continues. (See next)

Page 110) 11/22 8:55 pm: Pete Barnes comes in and the three crime lab men make paraffin casts of Oswald's hands and right cheek. The tests come back positive for his hands and negative for his right cheek....

Page 114) The HSCA is referred to as "The Senate Committee."

I quickly tire of dealing with guys like you that jump to false conclusions, and then act affronted when it is pointed out to them. Your response didn't even try to deal with the positive things I said about Murder in Dealey Plaza.

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

Fetzer should just remain silent, as he has been disqualified from engaging in any determination of what did and didn't happen to the Zapruder film...

BILL COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS REMARK WITH DETAILS OF THE HOW IN YOUR OPINION...

THANKS B..THANKS LEN THAT WAS THE NEXT QUANDRY...

Well, while remaining on the sidelines I followed Prof. Fetzer's two year running battle with Prof. Tink, and both of them did nothing but argue about the content of the Zapruder film, and each others virtues and vices.

Doug Horne, while acknowledging all of this in his book, focuses on the possibility that there were two different original Zapruder films at the NPIC at different times, and that is what should be further investigated as far as the disposition of JFK assassination records go.

If you want to hear a rehash of the Fetzer-Tink T. debates you can, but it doesn't and shouldn't belong in a discussion or investigation of where the Z-film was and what it was doing there.

The discussion is not about Fetzer - or his book MIDP, or the disputed conent of the film, it's about it's provenance, the chain of evidence and its admissiblity in a court of law.

And if Fetzer gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters.

BK

I WAS THERE BILL I SAW AND READ ALL..BETWEEN DR.JIM AND the DR.THOMPSON..DEBATES.THERE HAS BEEN MUCH FURTHER WORK DONE AND COMMENTS MADE IN THE PAST YEARS SINCE...ABOUT THE ROCHESTER ZAPRUDER INFORMATION THIS CAME ABOUT THROUGH THE STUDIES DONE OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM ON JFK RESEARCH .COM RICH'S SITE WHERE THE MAIN STUDIES OF THE ZAPRUDER STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS SO SEEING I WAS THERE AND SAW AND READ all at the time of the debates between the two men i could say differently from your opinion...''And if thompson gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters.

thNKS...b..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fetzer should just remain silent, as he has been disqualified from engaging in any determination of what did and didn't happen to the Zapruder film...

BILL COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS REMARK WITH DETAILS OF THE HOW IN YOUR OPINION...

THANKS B..THANKS LEN THAT WAS THE NEXT QUANDRY...

Well, while remaining on the sidelines I followed Prof. Fetzer's two year running battle with Prof. Tink, and both of them did nothing but argue about the content of the Zapruder film, and each others virtues and vices.

Doug Horne, while acknowledging all of this in his book, focuses on the possibility that there were two different original Zapruder films at the NPIC at different times, and that is what should be further investigated as far as the disposition of JFK assassination records go.

If you want to hear a rehash of the Fetzer-Tink T. debates you can, but it doesn't and shouldn't belong in a discussion or investigation of where the Z-film was and what it was doing there.

The discussion is not about Fetzer - or his book MIDP, or the disputed conent of the film, it's about it's provenance, the chain of evidence and its admissiblity in a court of law.

And if Fetzer gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters.

BK

I WAS THERE BILL I SAW AND READ ALL..BETWEEN DR.JIM AND the DR.THOMPSON..DEBATES.THERE HAS BEEN MUCH FURTHER WORK DONE AND COMMENTS MADE IN THE PAST YEARS SINCE...ABOUT THE ROCHESTER ZAPRUDER INFORMATION THIS CAME ABOUT THROUGH THE STUDIES DONE OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM ON JFK RESEARCH .COM RICH'S SITE WHERE THE MAIN STUDIES OF THE ZAPRUDER STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS SO SEEING I WAS THERE AND SAW AND READ all at the time of the debates between the two men i could say differently from your opinion...''And if thompson gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters.

thNKS...b..

Hi B.,

They won't call a Congressional Oversight Hearing if Professor Fetzer asks them while promoting his ten year old book, but if the former head of Military Records for the ARRB says there is positive proof of two brains, and there's investigative leads worth pursing that indicate the Z-film was processed in any way at a secret CIA lab, then its possible they may investigate why there are records of two brains and two Z-films.

A major breakthrough.

I can't regurgitate the debates, and Fetzer already had his press conference in DC, and if he is the one who makes the case for proper oversight of these issues then we don't have a case. And they are RECORDS issues, not Medical or scientific.

But Thompson's opinion on the chain of custody is important because he is part of the chain of custody when he worked at LIFE, and is the most significant spokesman for the Z film as valid evidence in the case.

I know Rich Delarosa has seen the other film, and that his forum has done work on this topic, but apart from the study of the annomalies, if there has been any new work done at all in the ten years about chain of custody or the Rochester plant I'd like to see it.

I'm especially interested in the names of anyone who worked at the Rochester plant who worked on the Z-film, besides what was done for HSCA and ARRB.

Thanks,

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fetzer should just remain silent, as he has been disqualified from engaging in any determination of what did and didn't happen to the Zapruder film...

BILL COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS REMARK WITH DETAILS OF THE HOW IN YOUR OPINION...

THANKS B..THANKS LEN THAT WAS THE NEXT QUANDRY...

Well, while remaining on the sidelines I followed Prof. Fetzer's two year running battle with Prof. Tink, and both of them did nothing but argue about the content of the Zapruder film, and each others virtues and vices.

Doug Horne, while acknowledging all of this in his book, focuses on the possibility that there were two different original Zapruder films at the NPIC at different times, and that is what should be further investigated as far as the disposition of JFK assassination records go.

If you want to hear a rehash of the Fetzer-Tink T. debates you can, but it doesn't and shouldn't belong in a discussion or investigation of where the Z-film was and what it was doing there.

The discussion is not about Fetzer - or his book MIDP, or the disputed conent of the film, it's about it's provenance, the chain of evidence and its admissiblity in a court of law.

And if Fetzer gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters.

BK

I WAS THERE BILL I SAW AND READ ALL..BETWEEN DR.JIM AND the DR.THOMPSON..DEBATES.THERE HAS BEEN MUCH FURTHER WORK DONE AND COMMENTS MADE IN THE PAST YEARS SINCE...ABOUT THE ROCHESTER ZAPRUDER INFORMATION THIS CAME ABOUT THROUGH THE STUDIES DONE OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM ON JFK RESEARCH .COM RICH'S SITE WHERE THE MAIN STUDIES OF THE ZAPRUDER STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS SO SEEING I WAS THERE AND SAW AND READ all at the time of the debates between the two men i could say differently from your opinion...''And if thompson gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters.

thNKS...b..

Hi B.,

They won't call a Congressional Oversight Hearing if Professor Fetzer asks them while promoting his ten year old book, but if the former head of Military Records for the ARRB says there is positive proof of two brains, and there's investigative leads worth pursing that indicate the Z-film was processed in any way at a secret CIA lab, then its possible they may investigate why there are records of two brains and two Z-films.

A major breakthrough.

I can't regurgitate the debates, and Fetzer already had his press conference in DC, and if he is the one who makes the case for proper oversight of these issues then we don't have a case. And they are RECORDS issues, not Medical or scientific.

But Thompson's opinion on the chain of custody is important because he is part of the chain of custody when he worked at LIFE, and is the most significant spokesman for the Z film as valid evidence in the case.

I know Rich Delarosa has seen the other film, and that his forum has done work on this topic, but apart from the study of the annomalies, if there has been any new work done at all in the ten years about chain of custody or the Rochester plant I'd like to see it.

I'm especially interested in the names of anyone who worked at the Rochester plant who worked on the Z-film, besides what was done for HSCA and ARRB.

Thanks,

BK

BILL I WILL HAVE TO DIG IN THE FILES AND SEE WHAT I HAVE SAVED AND IF PERMSSION TO REPOST IT..WOULD BE GRANTED BY SOME....BUT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD LIFTON POSTED AND COMMENTED ON INFORMATION RE ROCHESTER BACK AT LEAST IF NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS AGO RE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ROCHESTER FILMS ALSO FROM Moe Weitzman BY EMAIL TO RICH IF MEMORY SERVES ME BACK ABOUT 93 OR 4ISH THEY WERE ABOUT THE ZAPRUDER FILM HE COMPLETED FOR TIME LIFE AND THE NIX FOR UPI IF MEMORY SERVES ME,,,I BELIEVE I WOULD HAVE TO DIG THE INFO OUT GOING BY MEMORY HERE...BEAR WITH ME...NONE OF THIS HAD OR HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANOTHER VIEWED ZAPRUDER FILM BY THE 9 OR SO WHOM HAVE ATTESTED TO VIEWING SUCH...AND ALSO IN DAVID HEALEY'S STUDIES AND IN DR.GERRY MCKNIGHTS BOOK...RELEASED A FEW YEARS BACK, ALSO THE DOCUMENTS RE ALL THAT WERE AND I THINK ARE STILL POSTED ON THE WEB ABOUT ROCHESTER BY DR.FETZER..THE INFORMATION WHICH BECAME AVAILABLE FROM HORNE THROUGH THE HSCA I BELIEVE THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN OUT THERE ON THE WEB FOR SOME YEARS AND NOTHING MOVED THIS APPARENTLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO OPEN ANY NEW HEARINGS NEITHER WAS THE TWO BRAIN STUDIES INFO DONE BY DR.LIVINGSTON I BELIEVE NOR DR.WECHTS INFORMATION RELEASED WITHIN HIS BOOK..NOR HIS BEING IN ATTENDANCE AT THE COMMISSION...BUT LET'S HOPE NOW WITH ALL THAT DOUG HAS MADE AVAILABLE.AND HIS CONTACTS IT SHALL BE WITH HIS INPUT.....NO ONEI BELIEVE WANTS TO REGURGITATE ANY DEBATES LORDY THERE HAS BEEN MORE THAN ENOUGH OF THOSE THAT GO NO WHERE..WITH NOTHING MUCH EITHER IN THE WAY OF NEW INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT OR SETTLING ANYTHING..OPINIOND REMAIN THE SAME NONE WANT TO STAND IN THE OTHERS SHOES IS VERY OBVIOUS...AND THEIR WORD AS GIVEN AND OR WITNESSES IS NOT TAKEN AS A GIVEN...ALL IS DOUBTED NOW IT APPEARS...AND I DOUBT REARLY EITHER WANT TO GO AROUND THAT THORNY BUSH AGAIN...AND SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES...ONLY THEN TO BE CRITICIZED FOR THEIR BELIEFS... THERE MAY BE A COUPLE OF NAMES MENTIONED IN MCKNIGHTS BOOK IN FACT I BELIEVE SO.THOUGH THEY MAY BE THE SAME AS FOR THE HSCA OR ARRB I AM NOT SURE RIGHT NOW.....I KNOW I DO HAVE THE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE POSTED ON THE WEB SOME YEARS AGO BY DR.JIM THAT MAY STILL BE UP..BUT IF NOT I CAN POST THOSE EASILY IF YOU HAVE NOT COME ACROSS THEM...THAT IS ALL I CAN TINK OF RIGHT NOW FWIW...THANKS B...

HERE ARE THE DOCUMENTS THAT DR.JIM HAD POSTED SOME TIME AGO..IN 1998 FOR THOSE INTERESTED....B

Important documents posted at request of Fetzer

Posted by jack white®(jack white), Nov 27,1998,17:38 Post Reply Forum

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:

EXCERPTS FROM ARRB DOCUMENT D-133

Date:

Fri, 27 Nov 1998 16:31:20 -0600 (CST)

From:

james fetzer

The following excerpts are taken from three enclosures in ARRB Document

D-133, which was prepared by Doug Horne. You may obtain the complete doc-

ument from JFK Lancer Productions by calling Tom Jones, (972) 264-2007.

________________________________________________________________________

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97

Date: 07/14/97

Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon

. . .

Mr. McMahon was manager of the NPIC (National Photo Interpretation

Center) color lab in 1963. About two days after the assassination of

President Kennedy, but before the funeral took place, a Secret Service

agent named "Bill Smith" delivered an amateur film of the assassination

to NPIC and requested that color prints be mde of frames believed to be

associated with wounding ("frames in which shots occurred"), for purpos-

es of assembling a briefing board. Mr. Smith did not explain who the

briefing boards would be for, or who would be briefed. The only persons

who witnessed this activity (which McMahon described as "an all night

job") were USSS agent Smith, Homer McMahon, and Ben Hunter (McMahon's

assistant). Although no materials produced were stamped with classifi-

cations markings, Smith told McMahon that the subject matter was to be

treated as "above top secret"; McMahon said not even his supervisor was

allowed to know what he was working on, nor was his supervisor allowed

to participate. Smith told McMahon that the had personally picked up

the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it) in

Dallas, flown it to Rochester, N.Y. (where it was developed by Kodak),

and then flown it down to NPIC in Washington so that enlargements of

selected frames could be made on NPIC's state-of-the-art equipment.

After the film (either an unslit original or possibly a duplicate)

was viewed more than once on a 16 mm projector in a briefing room at

NPIC, the original (a double-8 mm unslit original) was placed in a 10x

20x40 precison enlarger, and 5" X 7" format internegatives were made

from selected frames. A full-immersion "wet-gate" or liquid gate pro-

cess was used on the original film to reduce refractivity of the film

and maximize the optical quality of the internegatives. Subsequently,

three each 5" X 7" contact prints were made from the internegative. He

recalled that a mimimum of 20, and a maximum of 40 frames were duplicat-

ed via internegatives and prints. All prints, internegatives, and scraps

were turned over to Bill Smith at the conclusion of the work.

. . .

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 08/14/97

Date: 08/14/97

Topic: Processing of Zapruder Film by NPIC in 1963 (Revised August 15,

1997)

. . .

I asked both men [Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter] if they still recall-

ed that their event occurred prior to the President's funeral, and they

both emphatically said yes. Mr. McMahon said he believes they performed

their work the night of the same day the President was assassinated, and

Bennett Hunter said he was of the opinion they did their work on the sec-

ond night after the assassination (i.e., Saturday night).

. . .

Home McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated

definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester,

and that copies of it were made in Rochester also, and that he personal-

ly watched one of those copies projected at least 10 times that night

prior to making the internegatives of selected frames. Mr. Hunter agreed

that it seemed very likely to him that the copies of the motion picture

film would "probably have been made in Rochester", but did not independ-

ently recall.

. . .

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 06/18/97

Date: 06/17/97

Topic: ARRB Staff Interviewed Ben Hunter (Grammatical Edits Made on

June 19, 1997)(Final Edit Made June 20, 1997)

. . .

-The Zapruder film was not copied as a motion picture; in fact, Hun-

ter said that NPIC did not have that capability for color movies, since

they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for

the most part. He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., loc-

ate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, includ-

ing "studying frames leading up to shots", and then produce color prints

from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots

impacting limousine occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on

a light table and using a loupe to examine individual frames. He does not

recall whether they received any instructions as to number of shots, or

any guidance as to where to look in the film.

. . .

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97

Date: 07/14/97

Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon

. . .

Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur-

rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was

a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President

Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul-

timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were

3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in

selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said

"you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to

produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said

that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed

the fim and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings.

. . .

END

Edited by Bernice Moore
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...