Alen J Salerian, MD

December 9, 2009

Bill, Since you seem intent on demonstrating your incompetence in relation to JFK research, it appears to me that you have no idea of the concept of an argument, which involves presenting evidence in support of a conclusion. You have endorsed the allegations of "factual mistakes" that Michael Hogan has advanced, but how do you know that he is right and Ira David Wood III is wrong where they diverge? Hogan actually only lists claims that he BELIEVES to be mistaken, but based upon my familiarity with Ira David Wood III's excellent work, why shouldn't we infer that in cases where they diverge, Wood is right and Hogan is wrong? Hogan doesn't even bother to explain what he thinks is right about the cases where he claims that Wood is wrong. Consider this list of particulars:

Michael Hogan says:

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 http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...ue/similas.html

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."

Apart from page 101 and 110, where two different times are given for conducting the paraffin test, which, as Wood reports, was positive for his hands but negative for his cheek, and page 114, where the House Select Committee is mistakenly referred to as "The Senate Committee", neither of which is non-trivial, all we have here is a list of claims based upon what Hogan thinks is the case without any demonstration, citation, or evidence that he is right and Wood is wrong. Page 47 offers a nice illustration, where Roger Craig's testiimony has been substantiated by film that shows Oswald walking across the street to the Rambler. So how can Hogan and you, for that matter, be so cocksure that Wood is wrong and you are right? The opposite, in my opinion, is overwhelmingly more likely to be the case.

And this moronic drivel about a "ten year old book" is simply dumbfounding. ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) included the study by Robert Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain, who concluded--based upon his review of the reports from the physicians at Parkland in comparison with the drawings and photographs of a brain stored in the National Archives--that the brain shown in those diagrams and photographs could not possibly be of the brain of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Not to make another obvious point, but the occurrence of two different brain examinations does not establish the existence of two different brains! Your comprehension appears to be so limited that you cannot even distinguish a press conference in which I participated from one that was under my control! Egad!

And your arrogance in presuming that you should be deciding who should address which issues is more than faintly absurd. You have demonstrated your incompetence with respect to the medical, autopsy, and photographic evidence on this forum in more than one thread REPEATEDLY! You appear to have no sense whatsoever of the relative importance of evidence of any of these kinds. You are not even qualified to review books like ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, as I have explained on several threads by now. I know of no significant contribution you have ever made to this case. Your only claim to fame appears to be kibitzing the work of those who are better qualified and more accomplished than you. Let it go, Bill. Enough is enough!

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 December 9, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

December 9, 2009

Dr. Salerian has asked me to post this reply to comments that have appeared

on this thread. I have responses of my own to what he presents here, but I shall

withhold them for the time being for others to have the chance to evaluate them.

Washington Center for Psychiatry

Alen J. Salerian, M.D.

Medical Director

5225 Wisconsin Ave NW #104 Washington DC 20015

Phone 202.244.9000 Fax 202.244.6610

December 08, 2009

Dear Jim,

I need your help. Please make my input available in your blog. Ever since I

began my research I promised myself not to publicly debate the issues until

and unless I had published the data in a scholarly and peer-reviewed

medical journal. And now I am violating my own law, although I have an

excuse because soon my paper will be published.

Your daring contributions to illuminate President Kennedy's death is why I

believe you are an American treasure, yet unfortunately your explanations

are invalid when it comes to the President's throat wound. Dr. Livingston's

hypothesis of a bullet with a frontal throat entry traveling to the brain and

causing tentorium damage has gross flaws. First, because anatomically the

throat is inferior to the brain, thus the bullet trajectory must suggest a

location from the ground level nearly impossible due to physical and

geographical reasons.

It is not a credit for Dr. Livingston to suggest that bullet fragments split off

by impact and one traveled south and the other north. This is silly. The

natural laws declare this claim impossible, for only an object with higher

density may cause such an occurrence.

Lastly, and in forensic terms, a forensic checkmate is the following reality: A

bullet traveling from throat to brain would have caused plenty of collateral

soft tissue and bone damage not to be observed and recorded by 10

Parkland Hospital doctors and one nurse, the only medically intact and

sterile evidence.

By now, the evidence has been shown clearly and repeatedly that the

autopsy was invalid and so were the x-rays. So was the Warren Report.

Hence, the throat wound was not induced by a bullet.

With all my deepest respect for Dr. Mantik and his expertise, his explanation

that the throat wound was caused by glass is irrational. Even then the

technology made it impossible for glass to fly off, thus the question where

did the glass come from and how can Dr. Mantik or anybody explain all the

other extraordinarily rare occurrences to explain the throat wound that

cannot be explained by Dr. Livingston's or Dr. Mantik's hypotheses.

It is the beauty of the complexity theory, the connection among seemingly

insignificant and rare events that magically connect to coincide to cause an

inexplicable action. The crucial defining factors are the occurrences of

extraordinarily rare events to collectively cause an inexplicable result of

invisible and untraceable by design. In essence, this is fantastic spy work.

Let me take my hat off to some brilliant spies and undercover technology.

Let me list all the extraordinarily rare occurrences that in a statistically

compelling way seem to be correlated with each other by design. Each

abnormal and rare event has something to do with the final two outcomes of

the President's frontal wound: death by paralysis induced by a neurotoxin

and a small entry wound.

A. A tiny throat wound not caused by a bullet.

B. A tiny throat wound without collateral bone or soft tissue damage, thus

not caused by a bullet.

C. Signs of spastic paralysis of five to seven seconds before the final

shot. Symptoms of vocal and total paralysis consistent with saxitoxin

poisoning.

D. The testimony of William Colby confirming the existence of saxitoxin, a

neurotoxin capable to silence a large barking dog or a human being

and delivered via a flechette-transported system in 1963.

E. The sudden mysterious drowning of William Colby in the Potomac

River.

F. The Secret Service washing off the President's limousine right after the

ambush (Only fits the Saxitoxin theory).

G. Several men with grossly inappropriate body and hand movements

coinciding with the sudden immobilization of the President on Elm

Street.

H. Evidence of alteration of the President's autopsy and Altgens,

Zapruder, Nix and other movies (the throat wound alteration fits well

with saxitoxin).

A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are all observable and verifiable, thus fully

supports the saxitoxin hypothesis. Statistical odds of A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H make

saxitoxin a proven theory.

Thank you for your attention, time and guidance.

With best wishes,

Alen J. Salerian, MD

Thank you for theses sensible comments about Alen Salerian's paper, which I urged him not to present. The proof that JFK was hit four times--once in the throat from in front, once in the back from behind, and twice in the head from behind and from in front--is simply overwhelming. Of special interest is the through-and-through hole in the windshield, which has been thoroughly established by Doug Weldon in his chapter in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA.
As David Andrews observes, what would have been the point of paralyzing JFK when he was already in the kill zone? The wound to the throat was described three times by Malcolm Perry, M.D., as a wound of entry. In his chapter on the medical evidence in MURDER, David Mantik explained that puncture wounds to his face, which the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, had had to fill in with wax, were apparently caused by small shards of glass when the bullet punctured the windshield.

Bob Livingston, the world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, told me that he thought the wound to the throat had hit bone and broken into two pieces, one of which went downward into the right lung, the other upward where it severed the tentorium, a tough membrane that covers the cerebellum. Otherwise, he said, even the impact of two shots to the head would not have caused cerebellum to extrude from the back of the head wound.

It was Bob, of course, who concluded that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives cannot possibly be the brain of JFK, as he explained already in his contribution to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. In his view, the death of JFK was therefore brought about by the causal interaction of three shots: the throat shot, which severed the tentorium; the back of the head shot, weakening the cranium; and the shot to the right temple, which created shock waves that blew about half his brains out the back of the head with great force.

Louis Witt's appearance before the HSCA, of course, was a joke, even though the issue is no laughing matter. The function of the umbrella seems to have been as a visual signal to shooters that, as long as it is pumping, the target is not dead and they should continue shooting. James Richards, whom I have found to be highly reliable about the identities of participants in the crime, has identified the "umbrella man" to me as Jerry Buchanan and not Louis Witt.

Jim Lewis, as I have reported on pages 11 and 436 of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, has traveled through the South and fired high-velocity rounds through the windshields of junked cars at dummies in their back seats. He has found that hitting the throat from around 200 yards--the distance from the above-ground sewer opening on the south side of the Triple Underpass--is not a difficult shot but that it makes the sound of a firecracker as it transits the glass.

Alen, whom I know personally, is sincere in his research, but in this instance he does not have it right. In his paper, he asserts that "A second bullet struck President Kennedy with posterior entry 6.5 inches below his neckline and was lodged in his chest." This is only partially correct, since the shot to the back was about 5.5 inches below the collar and not at the base of the neck, as the "magic bullet" theory requires. But it was a shallow wound with no point of exit.

Indeed, the determination of the location of the wound to the back--on the basis of the shirt, the jacket, the autopsy diagram, the FBI sketch, Berkley's death certificate, and re-enactment photographs--establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the "magic bullet" theory is not only provably false but--as David Mantik has demonstrated--is not even anatomically possible, which means the wound to the throat and those to Connally require other shots and shooters.

I have laid this out in "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and published in a peer-reviewed journal, which is accessible via google. Surely it is not necessary to continue to debate issues that have long since been resolved. While I like Bill Kelly's review of Doug Horne's Vol. IV, I am just the least bit surprised that he does not appear to be aware that key issues were already addressed by Doug in his chapters in MURDER.

In particular, the existence of a second supplemental autopsy exam--during which another brain was substituted for the original--is reported there as well as Homer McMahon's report of observing 6-8 impacts on JFK. I think that, in this instance, there was a mistake in transcription, since that appears to be the correct number of impacts upon the occupants, not on JFK alone. He was hit four times, Connally as many as three, which equals a number between 6 and 8.

I am grateful to Bernice for publishing the review of MURDER by John Delane Williams in THE FOUTH DECADE, which appeared in 2001. Even Vincent Bugliosi acknowledged that ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX are the only three "exclusively scientific" books on the assassination of JFK. All things considered, it might be a good idea if some of you were to invest your time in actually reading them.

So where was the flechette at Parkland?
As much as I feel that the person that I believe is TUM is perhaps the only man (outside of Gordon Liddy) willing and able to fire an umbrella flechette gun at a moving president in a public street at broad noon, I don't believe that this happened at all, and I think that the flechette story is a dodge and an obfuscation.

We know of umbrella-point toxin stabs in KGB wetwork. Is there one known case of US or other flechette gun use in an assassination, kidnapping, or like?

Does anybody think, or know, that such a throat shot is possible today with any dart equipment?

Again, what if the dart had struck JFK in the face in front of crowds?

Has anybody ever checked TUM's position to see if he could have hit Kennedy with such weaponry, windshield or no?

Why, again, was it necessary to paralyze Kennedy in a two-block sized kill zone?

I suspect strongly that in an Algens 6 where the windshield is not retouched (unlike the TSBD doorway) you can see Kellerman eyeing the hole in the windshield made by the bullet that has just struck JFK's throat.

Can anyone get Dr Salerian on the Forum, with all respect as a researcher accorded?

BTW, where does the dart theory originate? Does it pre-date HSCA? I may have known this in the 70s, but have forgotten now.

Michael Hogan · December 10, 2009

Apart from page 101 and 110, where two different times are given for conducting the paraffin test, which, as Wood reports, was positive for his hands but negative for his cheek, and page 114, where the House Select Committee is mistakenly referred to as "The Senate Committee", neither of which is non-trivial, all we have here is a list of claims based upon what Hogan thinks is the case without any demonstration, citation, or evidence that he is right and Wood is wrong. Page 47 offers a nice illustration, where Roger Craig's testiimony has been substantiated by film that shows Oswald walking across the street to the Rambler. So how can Hogan and you, for that matter, be so cocksure that Wood is wrong and you are right? The opposite, in my opinion, is overwhelmingly more likely to be the case.

How do you explain this?

On page 44 of MIDP: Deputy Roger Craig, also in the photo, is pictured looking at the man and the station wagon. The Hertz sign, on the top of the Book Depository,

shows the time at 12:40 PM

.

On page 47 of MIDP: 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.

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:

It was not "a dozen or more." Try counting them. Regarding your comment that I did not observe that those mistakes were drawn from a single chapter, it was not my responsibility to do so. I had already written:

I owned a copy of the first and third editions. When I learned Professor Fetzer was planning on issuing a fifth printing

in 2002, I wrote him and told him that there were still many errors in the third printing. Most concerned spelling, punctuation

and grammar, but there was also a considerable number of factual misstatements.
Some chapters contained a much

higher percentage of errors than others, which I ascribed to the various authors.

Bill Kelly was spot on when he wrote that the book could have been better edited.....

As far as me not giving citations for my claims, where are the citations in Wood's chronology? I didn't see any. I simply posted a response to a foolish remark made by a member of this forum. You published a book, that included a lengthy timeline totally lacking in sources for its claims. Do you have no responsibility to see that your book is properly sourced?

My points were made to someone who claimed to have read MIDP 50 times and that it was "edited just fine." I was not about to do his work for him. I guess I'll do it for you. Do you think Whaley was the bus driver? Did you read the Warren Commission testimony of Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal? Why was it written that "Norman Similas, of Toronto, also witnesses the assassination of JFK and promptly leaves town" What is the significance of that in the timeline? Where is it written that Jacqueline Kennedy told Clint Hill, "No, I want them to see what they have done." The other claims need no citations other than the quote from your book which I provided.

On page 66, David Wood writes: "One theory suggests that (Eugene) Brading actually directed the assassination." As with everything else, he offers no documentation for the claim.

Is this the type of scholarship you endorse?

Bill, Since you seem intent on demonstrating your incompetence in relation to JFK research, it appears to me that you have no idea of the concept of an argument, which involves presenting evidence in support of a conclusion. You have endorsed the allegations of "factual mistakes" that Michael Hogan has advanced, but how do you know that he is right and Ira David Wood III is wrong where they diverge? Hogan actually only lists claims that he BELIEVES to be mistaken, but based upon my familiarity with Ira David Wood III's excellent work, why shouldn't we infer that in cases where they diverge, Wood is right and Hogan is wrong? Hogan doesn't even bother to explain what he thinks is right about the cases where he claims that Wood is wrong. Consider this list of particulars......:

You could have checked my simple claims in about ten minutes had you choosen to do so. The fact that you didn't bother to do so before posting the above speaks for itself.

You were too lazy to address your sharply worded but wrongful criticisms of my post directly to me, choosing rather to couch them in a response to Bill Kelly.

Kathleen Collins · December 10, 2009

In this instance, Dean Hagerman doesn't know what he is talking about.

Michael Hogan has no clue what he is talking about

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

How does that sound Michael?

Maybe you should pay attention to what's 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

You asked for it. Your mistakes in bold and purple above.

"Maybe you should pay attention to what's IN the book... You act like this book is an report that Fetzer turned into an 8th grade English Teacher."

Question: How can you turn a book into an 8th grade English Teacher? Books can't become people. They're inanimate objects. :lol:

Kathy C B.A. English, from a Jesuit College. So there!

Edited December 10, 2009 by Kathleen Collins

Kathleen Collins · December 10, 2009

Now I'm pathetic, on top of all the nice things Johnny Bevlaquavelva said about me.
BK

Bill, you write well and you're entitled to your opinion. But you know what? To me you'll always be the fellow who didn't see a resemblance to Harvey Oswald in the dark when Donald O. Norton joined your party, which included Mae Brussels. And you walked away.

You walked away.

Kathy C

December 10, 2009

You make a federal case out of a five minute discrepancy? On page 44, Roger Craig looks at the man and the station wagon, and the time on the Hertz clock is 12:40 PM. On page 47, Roger Craig sees a Nash Rambler also driven by a dark complected man about fifteen minutes after the assassination. But the assassination went down at 12:30 PM. So both observations were within a five minute interval, where you appear to be asking for more precision than reports like these are likely to provide. Based upon this example, I infer that your complaints are trivial and that, while you may be a prolific poster, you are not a serious student of the death of JFK. What is the relevance of these trivialites--where I reiterate that I have more confidence in Ira David Wood than I do in you--to the major points established in this book, which I have enumerated above? You can't be serious. When you have something important to report, let me know. Your complaints seem to be highly inconsequential. And I find it offensive that you did not point out that they were all drawn from a single chapter, where the author has courageously undertaken the most difficult project of all in attempting to chronicle every significant event of 22 November 1963! I really think you need to reconsider your priorities. You should not spend all your time on trifles. I replied in relation to Bill Kelly, who followed your lead, since he at least makes an effort to deal with real issues, while you, it appears, do not. But you and he both spend your copious free time kibitzing others who, like Ira David Wood, are making more serious and consequential contributions to the case than are you.

Apart from page 101 and 110, where two different times are given for conducting the paraffin test, which, as Wood reports, was positive for his hands but negative for his cheek, and page 114, where the House Select Committee is mistakenly referred to as "The Senate Committee", neither of which is non-trivial, all we have here is a list of claims based upon what Hogan thinks is the case without any demonstration, citation, or evidence that he is right and Wood is wrong. Page 47 offers a nice illustration, where Roger Craig's testiimony has been substantiated by film that shows Oswald walking across the street to the Rambler. So how can Hogan and you, for that matter, be so cocksure that Wood is wrong and you are right? The opposite, in my opinion, is overwhelmingly more likely to be the case.

How do you explain this?

On page 44 of MIDP: Deputy Roger Craig, also in the photo, is pictured looking at the man and the station wagon. The Hertz sign, on the top of the Book Depository,
shows the time at 12:40 PM
.

On page 47 of MIDP: 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.

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:

It was not "a dozen or more." Try counting them. Regarding your comment that I did not observe that those mistakes were drawn from a single chapter, it was not my responsibility to do so. I had already written:

I owned a copy of the first and third editions. When I learned Professor Fetzer was planning on issuing a fifth printing

in 2002, I wrote him and told him that there were still many errors in the third printing. Most concerned spelling, punctuation

and grammar, but there was also a considerable number of factual misstatements.
Some chapters contained a much

higher percentage of errors than others, which I ascribed to the various authors.

Bill Kelly was spot on when he wrote that the book could have been better edited.....

As far as me not giving citations for my claims, where are the citations in Wood's chronology? I didn't see any. I simply posted a response to a foolish remark made by a member of this forum. You published a book, that included a lengthy timeline totally lacking in sources for its claims. Do you have no responsibility to see that your book is properly sourced?

My points were made to someone who claimed to have read MIDP 50 times and that it was "edited just fine." I was not about to do his work for him. I guess I'll do it for you. Do you think Whaley was the bus driver? Did you read the Warren Commission testimony of Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal? Why was it written that "Norman Similas, of Toronto, also witnesses the assassination of JFK and promptly leaves town" What is the significance of that in the timeline? Where is it written that Jacqueline Kennedy told Clint Hill, "No, I want them to see what they have done." The other claims need no citations other than the quote from your book which I provided.

On page 66, David Wood writes: "One theory suggests that (Eugene) Brading actually directed the assassination." As with everything else, he offers no documentation for the claim.

Is this the type of scholarship you endorse?

Bill, Since you seem intent on demonstrating your incompetence in relation to JFK research, it appears to me that you have no idea of the concept of an argument, which involves presenting evidence in support of a conclusion. You have endorsed the allegations of "factual mistakes" that Michael Hogan has advanced, but how do you know that he is right and Ira David Wood III is wrong where they diverge? Hogan actually only lists claims that he BELIEVES to be mistaken, but based upon my familiarity with Ira David Wood III's excellent work, why shouldn't we infer that in cases where they diverge, Wood is right and Hogan is wrong? Hogan doesn't even bother to explain what he thinks is right about the cases where he claims that Wood is wrong. Consider this list of particulars......:

You could have checked my simple claims in about ten minutes had you choosen to do so. The fact that you didn't bother to do so before posting the above speaks for itself.

You were too lazy to address your sharply worded but wrongful criticisms of my post directly to me, choosing rather to couch them in a response to Bill Kelly.

Edited December 10, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

William Kelly · December 10, 2009

Now I'm pathetic, on top of all the nice things Johnny Bevlaquavelva said about me.
BK

Bill, you write well and you're entitled to your opinion. But you know what? To me you'll always be the fellow who didn't see a resemblance to Harvey Oswald in the dark when Donald O. Norton joined your party, which included Mae Brussels. And you walked away.

You walked away.

Kathy C

Hi Kath,

Welcome to the Bash Bill Bandwagon.

If I remember correctly, it was 1972 at the University of Dayton, Ohio, which Harvard spelling educated John Bevelaquavelva calls a third rate school. It was a party school, and I was with a hot date who didn't want to go back to John Judge's apartment and discuss conspiracy theories, with Norton, Mae and John Judge, and I agreed.

I'd probably walk away today too.

BK

Edited December 10, 2009 by William Kelly

William Kelly · December 10, 2009

Since Dr. Salerian's name is at the top of this thread I'd like to give his note a little thought. Thanks for posting this Jim, BK