SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Josiah,

Your obvious unwillingness to address crucial questions about your "micro-study" in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967) is becoming an embarrassment to everyone who has ever believed in you. You like to pose as a "stand-up guy", but this must be the eighth time I have asked for clarification about your early book and the seventh time you have "ducked and run"! That is not the image you have been trying to project for all these years. I guess when it comes down to the bottom line and your fakery has been exposed, you are not going to confront it for the world to see--not even in a protective environment like this one, where you can count on frauds and flakes like Lamson and Colby to rush to your defense whenever you get into trouble. Well, I dare say, you are in deep water now, and every member of this forum can tell that you are not willing to explain yourself. That I can understand, because your conduct in retrospect has been reprehensible and it is apparent why you do not want to confront it. Cute remarks won't cut it, Tink! Your continued evasion of these questions is a disgrace. So where do you stand on these issues today?

I and others here have now asked you a half-dozen or more times to clarify your position today in relation to your position in 1967, when SIX SECONDS was published. I have taken another look and not only is the only sketch of frame 313--which appears on page 107--indecipherable in relation to the "blob", which is the single most striking feature of the film--but I have searched in vain for sketches of frames 314, 315, and 316, which are the most important relative to portraying the wound. I have noticed one or two abstract sketches on page 87, which were used in relation to your analysis of the "doubt hit", but they are absent the kinds of details that one would expert of a "micro-study" of the Kennedy assassination. No only do you not focus on this sequence of frames--which one would have naively supposed held the key to the trajectory of the alleged "fatal shot"--but you do not even present them in sufficient detail that your readers could study them!

The "double hit" analysis on pages 86 to 95--which was the most scientific and impressive aspect of your book--along with your account of three gunmen murdering the president with four shots--all of which hit--on pages 115 to 140, which is summarized on pages 178 to 195, clearly implies the existence of a conspiracy to take him out. Yet, in the final paragraph of the text of your book, you observe, "What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor when the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald's innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. it also shows that the question of Oswald's guilt must remain--nearly four years after the event--still unanswered." This final paragraph, after all, seem to nullify the rest of your book, virtually in its entirety. Have you abandoned the "doubt hit" analysis and even the conclusion that this was a conspiracy?

Following the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who consulted Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in, Doug Horne has consulted additional experts on special effects and reported that, "When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork."" It was their professional judgment that the wound to the back of the head had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in. No matter how much you may have resisted the inference, the weight of the evidence has made it abundantly clear that the extant film is a fabrication, which should have been apparent to you already when you published SIX SECONDS in 1967!

Thus, more than forty years after the event, the specifics of your position about the assassination are still unanswered. As I have observed, it cannot have escaped your notice that the McClelland diagram, which appears on page 107 of your book, shows a blow out to the rear of the head, while the crucial frames of the film--313 through 316--show a blow out to the right-front. Surely, as the author of a "micro study" of the assassination based upon your study of the film, it had to capture your attention. After all, it provides prima facie proof that the film is a fabrication. Yet for all these intervening years, when the authenticity of the film has been in doubt, you have relentlessly attacked research that tends to show it. Well, the time has come for you to address the question and explain how it is possible that you did not relentlessly pursue this question. Because, in the absence of an adequate explanation, there are grounds to infer that your objective in writing this book was not to build a case for conspiracy or even illuminate the evidence but to obfuscate its significance, not only for the film but for the assassination itself.

Jim

QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Dec 31 2009, 01:23 AM)

"My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?"

Where do I stand today? I stand convinced that you are a ninny!!

What on earth does the McClelland quote and diagram have to do with "full frame left interpenetration?" It was part of the discussion in a chapter that showed profound differences between what the Parkland personnel observed and the published autopsy report. Back in those days before the autopsy photos were known and before any investigation of Bethesda by HSCA, this was a real advance in our knowledge of the case. There is no "inconsistency" and no "lapse."

Once again, you are simply blowing smoke trying to get me or others involved in an irrelevant debate. Just once why don't you try and limit yourself to what others want to talk about.

Josiah Thompson

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Dec 30 2009, 02:23 AM)

PI Thompson,

The limitations of publishing color photos in black and white on ordinary paper cannot have escaped you, since there are many such photographs in your own book. When I tilt the page in relation to the light, I can see the outline of the back part of the panel truck in the second (or bottom-most) of the two images. It is neither a moral or a mental lapse to not observe what was not observable due to the transition from color to black-and-white.

But your lapse appears to be of a different character altogether. The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head on page 328 was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? You didn't notice the difference?

I also find it just the least bit curious that the closest you come to sketching the blow-out to the right-front appears to be a sketch of Z313 that occurs on page 102, which seems to me to be very opaque in not indicating that the "blob", which is so conspicuous in the film, was bulging out to the right-front. Since you could be thought to have been obfuscating crucial evidence, where do you come to grips with this inconsistency--then or now?

On pages 99 and 100, you talk about the distribution of brain matter and how some was blown to the front and over Connally, but you also discuss the more substantial distribution to the left-rear, even quoting Officer Hargis, who was hit so hard by the debris that he thought he himself had been shot. Insofar as this was a crucial question that raises significant doubts about the film, why did you not pursue this with determination?

As a matter of logic and evidence, the McClelland diagram by itself appears to be sufficient to impugn the integrity of the film. As I have explained, the film shows the brains bulging out to the right-front, while we know that his brains were blown out to the left-rear. Why have you not climbed aboard the alterationist "band wagon" with this disproof of its authenticity, which is corroborated by the reports of the other Parkland physicians?

In case you harbor any doubts, the only chapter that you have ever praised in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is by your friend, Gary Aguilar, M.D., which makes this very point. So I take it you are not going to repudiate the only chapter of the book you have endorsed. Unfortunately, it makes your reluctance to concede Zapruder film fakery all the more aberrant. I invite you to clarify and correct this rather bizarre lapse in your reasoning.

My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?

James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If adding posts on less significant matters is meant to push this one down, it won't work. This one is NOT going to go away!

Josiah,

Your obvious unwillingness to address crucial questions about your "micro-study" in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967) is becoming an embarrassment to everyone who has ever believed in you. You like to pose as a "stand-up guy", but this must be the eighth time I have asked for clarification about your early book and the seventh time you have "ducked and run"! That is not the image you have been trying to project for all these years. I guess when it comes down to the bottom line and your fakery has been exposed, you are not going to confront it for the world to see--not even in a protective environment like this one, where you can count on frauds and flakes like Lamson and Colby to rush to your defense whenever you get into trouble. Well, I dare say, you are in deep water now, and every member of this forum can tell that you are not willing to explain yourself. That I can understand, because your conduct in retrospect has been reprehensible and it is apparent why you do not want to confront it. Cute remarks won't cut it, Tink! Your continued evasion of these questions is a disgrace. So where do you stand on these issues today?

I and others here have now asked you a half-dozen or more times to clarify your position today in relation to your position in 1967, when SIX SECONDS was published. I have taken another look and not only is the only sketch of frame 313--which appears on page 107--indecipherable in relation to the "blob", which is the single most striking feature of the film--but I have searched in vain for sketches of frames 314, 315, and 316, which are the most important relative to portraying the wound. I have noticed one or two abstract sketches on page 87, which were used in relation to your analysis of the "doubt hit", but they are absent the kinds of details that one would expert of a "micro-study" of the Kennedy assassination. No only do you not focus on this sequence of frames--which one would have naively supposed held the key to the trajectory of the alleged "fatal shot"--but you do not even present them in sufficient detail that your readers could study them!

The "double hit" analysis on pages 86 to 95--which was the most scientific and impressive aspect of your book--along with your account of three gunmen murdering the president with four shots--all of which hit--on pages 115 to 140, which is summarized on pages 178 to 195, clearly implies the existence of a conspiracy to take him out. Yet, in the final paragraph of the text of your book, you observe, "What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor when the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald's innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. it also shows that the question of Oswald's guilt must remain--nearly four years after the event--still unanswered." This final paragraph, after all, seem to nullify the rest of your book, virtually in its entirety. Have you abandoned the "doubt hit" analysis and even the conclusion that this was a conspiracy?

Following the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who consulted Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in, Doug Horne has consulted additional experts on special effects and reported that, "When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork."" It was their professional judgment that the wound to the back of the head had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in. No matter how much you may have resisted the inference, the weight of the evidence has made it abundantly clear that the extant film is a fabrication, which should have been apparent to you already when you published SIX SECONDS in 1967!

Thus, more than forty years after the event, the specifics of your position about the assassination are still unanswered. As I have observed, it cannot have escaped your notice that the McClelland diagram, which appears on page 107 of your book, shows a blow out to the rear of the head, while the crucial frames of the film--313 through 316--show a blow out to the right-front. Surely, as the author of a "micro study" of the assassination based upon your study of the film, it had to capture your attention. After all, it provides prima facie proof that the film is a fabrication. Yet for all these intervening years, when the authenticity of the film has been in doubt, you have relentlessly attacked research that tends to show it. Well, the time has come for you to address the question and explain how it is possible that you did not relentlessly pursue this question. Because, in the absence of an adequate explanation, there are grounds to infer that your objective in writing this book was not to build a case for conspiracy or even illuminate the evidence but to obfuscate its significance, not only for the film but for the assassination itself.

Jim

QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Dec 31 2009, 01:23 AM)

"My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?"

Where do I stand today? I stand convinced that you are a ninny!!

What on earth does the McClelland quote and diagram have to do with "full frame left interpenetration?" It was part of the discussion in a chapter that showed profound differences between what the Parkland personnel observed and the published autopsy report. Back in those days before the autopsy photos were known and before any investigation of Bethesda by HSCA, this was a real advance in our knowledge of the case. There is no "inconsistency" and no "lapse."

Once again, you are simply blowing smoke trying to get me or others involved in an irrelevant debate. Just once why don't you try and limit yourself to what others want to talk about.

Josiah Thompson

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Dec 30 2009, 02:23 AM)

PI Thompson,

The limitations of publishing color photos in black and white on ordinary paper cannot have escaped you, since there are many such photographs in your own book. When I tilt the page in relation to the light, I can see the outline of the back part of the panel truck in the second (or bottom-most) of the two images. It is neither a moral or a mental lapse to not observe what was not observable due to the transition from color to black-and-white.

But your lapse appears to be of a different character altogether. The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head on page 328 was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? You didn't notice the difference?

I also find it just the least bit curious that the closest you come to sketching the blow-out to the right-front appears to be a sketch of Z313 that occurs on page 102, which seems to me to be very opaque in not indicating that the "blob", which is so conspicuous in the film, was bulging out to the right-front. Since you could be thought to have been obfuscating crucial evidence, where do you come to grips with this inconsistency--then or now?

On pages 99 and 100, you talk about the distribution of brain matter and how some was blown to the front and over Connally, but you also discuss the more substantial distribution to the left-rear, even quoting Officer Hargis, who was hit so hard by the debris that he thought he himself had been shot. Insofar as this was a crucial question that raises significant doubts about the film, why did you not pursue this with determination?

As a matter of logic and evidence, the McClelland diagram by itself appears to be sufficient to impugn the integrity of the film. As I have explained, the film shows the brains bulging out to the right-front, while we know that his brains were blown out to the left-rear. Why have you not climbed aboard the alterationist "band wagon" with this disproof of its authenticity, which is corroborated by the reports of the other Parkland physicians?

In case you harbor any doubts, the only chapter that you have ever praised in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is by your friend, Gary Aguilar, M.D., which makes this very point. So I take it you are not going to repudiate the only chapter of the book you have endorsed. Unfortunately, it makes your reluctance to concede Zapruder film fakery all the more aberrant. I invite you to clarify and correct this rather bizarre lapse in your reasoning.

My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?

James H. Fetzer

Edited December 31, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

While we may disagree with some of Tink's conclusions, and wish he'd pursued different aspects of the evidence, it is an historical fact that his book really shook things up. In the aftermath of the CBS four-part special, and the AP's widely circulated series supporting the Warren Commission, the feeling among the media was almost certainly that Mark Lane, Epstein, and Weisberg, etc, had been countered. And then came Thompson...his book not only received mountains of publicity, and was deservedly taken seriously, it scared the government's hired experts into re-interpreting Kennedy's wounds, and moving the entrance on the back of JFK's head to a location more in line with what they claimed was an exit wound on the top of his head. (The Clark Panel's leader, Russell Fisher, said the Clark Panel was convened in part to refute the junk in Thompson's book.)

So...if anything, Tink's book forced the government's hand, and revealed it would willingly embrace any line of nonsense as long as they could claim there was but one shooter firing from behind named Oswald.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Pat Speer

[Dean Hagerman]

While we may disagree with some of Tink's conclusions, and wish he'd pursued different aspects of the evidence, it is an historical fact that his book really shook things up. In the aftermath of the CBS four-part special, and the AP's widely circulated series supporting the Warren Commission, the feeling among the media was almost certainly that Mark Lane, Epstein, and Weisberg, etc, had been countered. And then came Thompson...his book not only received mountains of publicity, and was deservedly taken seriously, it scared the government's hired experts into re-interpreting Kennedy's wounds, and moving the entrance on the back of JFK's head to a location more in line with what they claimed was an exit wound on the top of his head. (The Clark Panel's leader, Russell Fisher, said the Clark Panel was convened in part to refute the junk in Thompson's book.)

So...if anything, Tink's book forced the government's hand, and revealed it would willingly embrace any line of nonsense as long as they could claim there was but one shooter firing from behind named Oswald.

Pat I agree with that 100%

I still love SSID

I still read it

I still belive in some of Tinks very important theories

That is one of the reasons I am very dumbfounded as to why Tink changed his mind about the double head hit

Edited December 31, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Pamela Brown]

After forcing myself to wallow through the mire of RH, I found it necessary to take a fresh look at Tink's theories. The Bug has nothing but praise for them, which can only cause one to wonder how much of a non-threat he considers them to be....

[Josiah Thompson]

Professor Fetzer,

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it. Your objections and questions are simply non-sensical.

You address me now as "PI Thompson." I take it that you do that to demean me and how I've made my living for the last thirty years. Do you think that people won't pay any attention to what I say because you've pointed out I am a lowly PI and you are a retired professor? Is that the idea? Well, it just might boomerang. I hold not a scintilla of regret for trading in an academic career for the life of a private investigator. The job is difficult and taxing in ways the academic life was not. It also calls for a complexity of moral thinking unknown in the academic world. It is an honorable, sometimes dangerous, and always interesting profession. If you could look beyond your silly-ass academic glasses, you might see that Craig Lamson's career as a professional photographer has a similar integrity. Or even that persons whom you discard as unlettered or uncredentialed, have abilities that leave you and your pals in the ditch.

As I pointed out back in 1998, the one principle that has guided research in the Kennedy assassination from the beginning is that “there are no Ph.D.s in assassination research.”

[Fetzer’s] emphasis on credentials and the cult of expertise (or alleged expertise) is demeaning to the tradition of inquiry we all share as a community. When the final history of this case is written it will be based on the canons of acute historical research. These canons have nothing to do with how many initials you can hang after your name or how often you're called "distinguished."

They have to do with the evidence you put forward for your view and the reasonableness of the interpretations you hang on that evidence. That's what Sylvia Meagher and I believed when we started working together in the 60s. It was a long time ago in virtually another country. It was 1965... 66... 67, and here and there people were beginning to distrust what they'd been told.

There was Mary Ferrell in Dallas, Penn Jones just outside Dallas, Sylvia Meagher in New York City, Paul Hoch in Berkeley, Cyril Wecht in Pittsburgh, Vince Salandria in Philadelphia, Harold Weisberg in Maryland, Ray Marcus and David Lifton in Los Angeles... and many, many more. A housewife, a lawyer for the school board, the editor of a small paper, a graduate student, a young professor, a WHO official. We were little people. People who had only a few things in common -- inquiring minds, an unwillingness to be intimidated by public attitudes, more than a little tenacity, a bit of modesty and a willingness to laugh at oneself. None of us had any money or hoped to make any money out of this. We were doing it for its own sake. We formed a community... the closest thing to a true community of inquiry that I've ever known.

We shared information on a transcontinental basis. I still remember the excitement with which Vince Salandria and I received our copy of the Sibert-O'Neill Report from Paul Hoch! None of us gave a damn for credentials because - as we put it - "There are no Ph.Ds in assassination research."

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

Your obvious unwillingness to address crucial questions about your "micro-study" in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967) is becoming an embarrassment to everyone who has ever believed in you. You like to pose as a "stand-up guy", but this must be the eighth time I have asked for clarification about your early book and the seventh time you have "ducked and run"! That is not the image you have been trying to project for all these years. I guess when it comes down to the bottom line and your fakery has been exposed, you are not going to confront it for the world to see--not even in a protective environment like this one, where you can count on frauds and flakes like Lamson and Colby to rush to your defense whenever you get into trouble. Well, I dare say, you are in deep water now, and every member of this forum can tell that you are not willing to explain yourself. That I can understand, because your conduct in retrospect has been reprehensible and it is apparent why you do not want to confront it. Cute remarks won't cut it, Tink! Your continued evasion of these questions is a disgrace. So where do you stand on these issues today?

I and others here have now asked you a half-dozen or more times to clarify your position today in relation to your position in 1967, when SIX SECONDS was published. I have taken another look and not only is the only sketch of frame 313--which appears on page 107--indecipherable in relation to the "blob", which is the single most striking feature of the film--but I have searched in vain for sketches of frames 314, 315, and 316, which are the most important relative to portraying the wound. I have noticed one or two abstract sketches on page 87, which were used in relation to your analysis of the "doubt hit", but they are absent the kinds of details that one would expert of a "micro-study" of the Kennedy assassination. No only do you not focus on this sequence of frames--which one would have naively supposed held the key to the trajectory of the alleged "fatal shot"--but you do not even present them in sufficient detail that your readers could study them!

The "double hit" analysis on pages 86 to 95--which was the most scientific and impressive aspect of your book--along with your account of three gunmen murdering the president with four shots--all of which hit--on pages 115 to 140, which is summarized on pages 178 to 195, clearly implies the existence of a conspiracy to take him out. Yet, in the final paragraph of the text of your book, you observe, "What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor when the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald's innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. it also shows that the question of Oswald's guilt must remain--nearly four years after the event--still unanswered." This final paragraph, after all, seem to nullify the rest of your book, virtually in its entirety. Have you abandoned the "doubt hit" analysis and even the conclusion that this was a conspiracy?

Following the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who consulted Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in, Doug Horne has consulted additional experts on special effects and reported that, "When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork."" It was their professional judgment that the wound to the back of the head had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in. No matter how much you may have resisted the inference, the weight of the evidence has made it abundantly clear that the extant film is a fabrication, which should have been apparent to you already when you published SIX SECONDS in 1967!

Thus, more than forty years after the event, the specifics of your position about the assassination are still unanswered. As I have observed, it cannot have escaped your notice that the McClelland diagram, which appears on page 107 of your book, shows a blow out to the rear of the head, while the crucial frames of the film--313 through 316--show a blow out to the right-front. Surely, as the author of a "micro study" of the assassination based upon your study of the film, it had to capture your attention. After all, it provides prima facie proof that the film is a fabrication. Yet for all these intervening years, when the authenticity of the film has been in doubt, you have relentlessly attacked research that tends to show it. Well, the time has come for you to address the question and explain how it is possible that you did not relentlessly pursue this question. Because, in the absence of an adequate explanation, there are grounds to infer that your objective in writing this book was not to build a case for conspiracy or even illuminate the evidence but to obfuscate its significance, not only for the film but for the assassination itself.

Jim

QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Dec 31 2009, 01:23 AM)

"My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?"

Where do I stand today? I stand convinced that you are a ninny!!

What on earth does the McClelland quote and diagram have to do with "full frame left interpenetration?" It was part of the discussion in a chapter that showed profound differences between what the Parkland personnel observed and the published autopsy report. Back in those days before the autopsy photos were known and before any investigation of Bethesda by HSCA, this was a real advance in our knowledge of the case. There is no "inconsistency" and no "lapse."

Once again, you are simply blowing smoke trying to get me or others involved in an irrelevant debate. Just once why don't you try and limit yourself to what others want to talk about.

Josiah Thompson

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Dec 30 2009, 02:23 AM)

PI Thompson,

The limitations of publishing color photos in black and white on ordinary paper cannot have escaped you, since there are many such photographs in your own book. When I tilt the page in relation to the light, I can see the outline of the back part of the panel truck in the second (or bottom-most) of the two images. It is neither a moral or a mental lapse to not observe what was not observable due to the transition from color to black-and-white.

But your lapse appears to be of a different character altogether. The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head on page 328 was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? You didn't notice the difference?

I also find it just the least bit curious that the closest you come to sketching the blow-out to the right-front appears to be a sketch of Z313 that occurs on page 102, which seems to me to be very opaque in not indicating that the "blob", which is so conspicuous in the film, was bulging out to the right-front. Since you could be thought to have been obfuscating crucial evidence, where do you come to grips with this inconsistency--then or now?

On pages 99 and 100, you talk about the distribution of brain matter and how some was blown to the front and over Connally, but you also discuss the more substantial distribution to the left-rear, even quoting Officer Hargis, who was hit so hard by the debris that he thought he himself had been shot. Insofar as this was a crucial question that raises significant doubts about the film, why did you not pursue this with determination?

As a matter of logic and evidence, the McClelland diagram by itself appears to be sufficient to impugn the integrity of the film. As I have explained, the film shows the brains bulging out to the right-front, while we know that his brains were blown out to the left-rear. Why have you not climbed aboard the alterationist "band wagon" with this disproof of its authenticity, which is corroborated by the reports of the other Parkland physicians?

In case you harbor any doubts, the only chapter that you have ever praised in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is by your friend, Gary Aguilar, M.D., which makes this very point. So I take it you are not going to repudiate the only chapter of the book you have endorsed. Unfortunately, it makes your reluctance to concede Zapruder film fakery all the more aberrant. I invite you to clarify and correct this rather bizarre lapse in your reasoning.

My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?

James H. Fetzer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it.

Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Unbelievable! You played that card years and years ago, Tink. I could care less that you make your living as a PI. That's fine with me. You began addressing me as "Professor", so I addressed you as "PI". I was not denigrating you and to use that as an excuse--or as a partial excuse--for not responding to these questions is simply not credible. No one else in the world can explain why you did not address the stunning inconsistency between the physicians' reports from Parkland Hospital (epitomized here by the McClelland diagram) which showed the blow out to the rear--and because you even quote Officer Hargis, you knew it went to the left--and the blow out to the right-front shown in the Zapruder film. You used detailed sketches of many frames, but you didn't provide them for the most important frames, 313, 314, 315, and 316! You had to know that there was a major contradiction here between the Parkland doctors' observations and the events that were portrayed in the film--and yet you did nothing to resolve it! That is simply astounding! No question could be more appropriate than to ask you to explain it. And for you to cop out and pass the buck to someone else--obviously, anyone else!--is a revealing act of moral disgrace and mental desperation. If you can't do better than that, then legions of students of the assassination who have admired you in the past--which, as you well know, once included me!--will justifiably reappraise their opinions about you, because they, like me, will have come to the agonizing realization that your book appears to have been designed to obfuscate, rather than clarify, this very contradiction! NO ONE ELSE CAN ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT THEM. YOU OWE IT TO YOUR FOLLOWERS AND TO YOUR OWN REPUTATION TO SEIZE IT. The time is now, Josiah. Tell us what happened then and explain where you stand today!

Professor Fetzer,

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it. Your objections and questions are simply non-sensical.

You address me now as "PI Thompson." I take it that you do that to demean me and how I've made my living for the last thirty years. Do you think that people won't pay any attention to what I say because you've pointed out I am a lowly PI and you are a retired professor? Is that the idea? Well, it just might boomerang. I hold not a scintilla of regret for trading in an academic career for the life of a private investigator. The job is difficult and taxing in ways the academic life was not. It also calls for a complexity of moral thinking unknown in the academic world. It is an honorable, sometimes dangerous, and always interesting profession. If you could look beyond your silly-ass academic glasses, you might see that Craig Lamson's career as a professional photographer has a similar integrity. Or even that persons whom you discard as unlettered or uncredentialed, have abilities that leave you and your pals in the ditch.

As I pointed out back in 1998, the one principle that has guided research in the Kennedy assassination from the beginning is that “there are no Ph.D.s in assassination research.”

[Fetzer’s] emphasis on credentials and the cult of expertise (or alleged expertise) is demeaning to the tradition of inquiry we all share as a community. When the final history of this case is written it will be based on the canons of acute historical research. These canons have nothing to do with how many initials you can hang after your name or how often you're called "distinguished."

They have to do with the evidence you put forward for your view and the reasonableness of the interpretations you hang on that evidence. That's what Sylvia Meagher and I believed when we started working together in the 60s. It was a long time ago in virtually another country. It was 1965... 66... 67, and here and there people were beginning to distrust what they'd been told.

There was Mary Ferrell in Dallas, Penn Jones just outside Dallas, Sylvia Meagher in New York City, Paul Hoch in Berkeley, Cyril Wecht in Pittsburgh, Vince Salandria in Philadelphia, Harold Weisberg in Maryland, Ray Marcus and David Lifton in Los Angeles... and many, many more. A housewife, a lawyer for the school board, the editor of a small paper, a graduate student, a young professor, a WHO official. We were little people. People who had only a few things in common -- inquiring minds, an unwillingness to be intimidated by public attitudes, more than a little tenacity, a bit of modesty and a willingness to laugh at oneself. None of us had any money or hoped to make any money out of this. We were doing it for its own sake. We formed a community... the closest thing to a true community of inquiry that I've ever known.

We shared information on a transcontinental basis. I still remember the excitement with which Vince Salandria and I received our copy of the Sibert-O'Neill Report from Paul Hoch! None of us gave a damn for credentials because - as we put it - "There are no Ph.Ds in assassination research."

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

Your obvious unwillingness to address crucial questions about your "micro-study" in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967) is becoming an embarrassment to everyone who has ever believed in you. You like to pose as a "stand-up guy", but this must be the eighth time I have asked for clarification about your early book and the seventh time you have "ducked and run"! That is not the image you have been trying to project for all these years. I guess when it comes down to the bottom line and your fakery has been exposed, you are not going to confront it for the world to see--not even in a protective environment like this one, where you can count on frauds and flakes like Lamson and Colby to rush to your defense whenever you get into trouble. Well, I dare say, you are in deep water now, and every member of this forum can tell that you are not willing to explain yourself. That I can understand, because your conduct in retrospect has been reprehensible and it is apparent why you do not want to confront it. Cute remarks won't cut it, Tink! Your continued evasion of these questions is a disgrace. So where do you stand on these issues today?

I and others here have now asked you a half-dozen or more times to clarify your position today in relation to your position in 1967, when SIX SECONDS was published. I have taken another look and not only is the only sketch of frame 313--which appears on page 107--indecipherable in relation to the "blob", which is the single most striking feature of the film--but I have searched in vain for sketches of frames 314, 315, and 316, which are the most important relative to portraying the wound. I have noticed one or two abstract sketches on page 87, which were used in relation to your analysis of the "doubt hit", but they are absent the kinds of details that one would expert of a "micro-study" of the Kennedy assassination. No only do you not focus on this sequence of frames--which one would have naively supposed held the key to the trajectory of the alleged "fatal shot"--but you do not even present them in sufficient detail that your readers could study them!

The "double hit" analysis on pages 86 to 95--which was the most scientific and impressive aspect of your book--along with your account of three gunmen murdering the president with four shots--all of which hit--on pages 115 to 140, which is summarized on pages 178 to 195, clearly implies the existence of a conspiracy to take him out. Yet, in the final paragraph of the text of your book, you observe, "What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor when the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald's innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. it also shows that the question of Oswald's guilt must remain--nearly four years after the event--still unanswered." This final paragraph, after all, seem to nullify the rest of your book, virtually in its entirety. Have you abandoned the "doubt hit" analysis and even the conclusion that this was a conspiracy?

Following the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who consulted Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in, Doug Horne has consulted additional experts on special effects and reported that, "When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork."" It was their professional judgment that the wound to the back of the head had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in. No matter how much you may have resisted the inference, the weight of the evidence has made it abundantly clear that the extant film is a fabrication, which should have been apparent to you already when you published SIX SECONDS in 1967!

Thus, more than forty years after the event, the specifics of your position about the assassination are still unanswered. As I have observed, it cannot have escaped your notice that the McClelland diagram, which appears on page 107 of your book, shows a blow out to the rear of the head, while the crucial frames of the film--313 through 316--show a blow out to the right-front. Surely, as the author of a "micro study" of the assassination based upon your study of the film, it had to capture your attention. After all, it provides prima facie proof that the film is a fabrication. Yet for all these intervening years, when the authenticity of the film has been in doubt, you have relentlessly attacked research that tends to show it. Well, the time has come for you to address the question and explain how it is possible that you did not relentlessly pursue this question. Because, in the absence of an adequate explanation, there are grounds to infer that your objective in writing this book was not to build a case for conspiracy or even illuminate the evidence but to obfuscate its significance, not only for the film but for the assassination itself.

Jim

QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Dec 31 2009, 01:23 AM)

"My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?"

Where do I stand today? I stand convinced that you are a ninny!!

What on earth does the McClelland quote and diagram have to do with "full frame left interpenetration?" It was part of the discussion in a chapter that showed profound differences between what the Parkland personnel observed and the published autopsy report. Back in those days before the autopsy photos were known and before any investigation of Bethesda by HSCA, this was a real advance in our knowledge of the case. There is no "inconsistency" and no "lapse."

Once again, you are simply blowing smoke trying to get me or others involved in an irrelevant debate. Just once why don't you try and limit yourself to what others want to talk about.

Josiah Thompson

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Dec 30 2009, 02:23 AM)

PI Thompson,

The limitations of publishing color photos in black and white on ordinary paper cannot have escaped you, since there are many such photographs in your own book. When I tilt the page in relation to the light, I can see the outline of the back part of the panel truck in the second (or bottom-most) of the two images. It is neither a moral or a mental lapse to not observe what was not observable due to the transition from color to black-and-white.

But your lapse appears to be of a different character altogether. The McClelland-approved sketch of the massive blow-out to the back of the head on page 328 was published on page 107 of SIX SECONDS. Given your intimate knowledge of the film, how could it possibly have escaped your notice that the blow-out to the right-front in the film is contradicted by this diagram of the wound he sustained? You didn't notice the difference?

I also find it just the least bit curious that the closest you come to sketching the blow-out to the right-front appears to be a sketch of Z313 that occurs on page 102, which seems to me to be very opaque in not indicating that the "blob", which is so conspicuous in the film, was bulging out to the right-front. Since you could be thought to have been obfuscating crucial evidence, where do you come to grips with this inconsistency--then or now?

On pages 99 and 100, you talk about the distribution of brain matter and how some was blown to the front and over Connally, but you also discuss the more substantial distribution to the left-rear, even quoting Officer Hargis, who was hit so hard by the debris that he thought he himself had been shot. Insofar as this was a crucial question that raises significant doubts about the film, why did you not pursue this with determination?

As a matter of logic and evidence, the McClelland diagram by itself appears to be sufficient to impugn the integrity of the film. As I have explained, the film shows the brains bulging out to the right-front, while we know that his brains were blown out to the left-rear. Why have you not climbed aboard the alterationist "band wagon" with this disproof of its authenticity, which is corroborated by the reports of the other Parkland physicians?

In case you harbor any doubts, the only chapter that you have ever praised in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is by your friend, Gary Aguilar, M.D., which makes this very point. So I take it you are not going to repudiate the only chapter of the book you have endorsed. Unfortunately, it makes your reluctance to concede Zapruder film fakery all the more aberrant. I invite you to clarify and correct this rather bizarre lapse in your reasoning.

My point, PI, is that you cannot evade responsibility for a major inconsistency in your work which was not simply a matter of not noticing a difference due to the transition from color to black-and-white. On the contrary, your "lapse" is inconceivable in a work of the kind you were authoring. You want to dismiss it as an old issue, but it remains completely current in relation to the film's authenticity. So where do you stand today?

James H. Fetzer

Edited December 31, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

Thanks Ray. I'm only too aware of its shortcomings. As we've seen in another thread, the double-hit at Z312-Z314 was based on a misreading of Zapruder's startle reaction.

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it.

Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired.

[Guest John Gillespie]

If adding posts on less significant matters is meant to push this one down, it won't work. This one is NOT going to go away!

________________________________________

There are a number of techniques in play on most sites with any gravitas. The above reference would be known as forum sliding or topic dilution. One must remember that these techniques, as most disinformation, only work if people aren't aware of them and you certainly have raised that flag. Salute. There is a lot at stake.

JG

[Guest John Gillespie]

Professor Fetzer,

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it. Your objections and questions are simply non-sensical.

You address me now as "PI Thompson." I take it that you do that to demean me and how I've made my living for the last thirty years. Do you think that people won't pay any attention to what I say because you've pointed out I am a lowly PI and you are a retired professor? Is that the idea? Well, it just might boomerang. I hold not a scintilla of regret for trading in an academic career for the life of a private investigator. The job is difficult and taxing in ways the academic life was not. It also calls for a complexity of moral thinking unknown in the academic world. It is an honorable, sometimes dangerous, and always interesting profession. If you could look beyond your silly-ass academic glasses, you might see that Craig Lamson's career as a professional photographer has a similar integrity. Or even that persons whom you discard as unlettered or uncredentialed, have abilities that leave you and your pals in the ditch.

_________________________________________-

I'm a P.I., too, and a former Special Agent in Military Intelligence. I admire you and your work. At this point I would have to support Mr. Fetzer's position. Incidentally, the recent posting by Paul Rigby is, flat out, excellent investigative work.

JG

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The difference between Josiah's performance on this thread and his performance on the "double hit" thread is that he actually had the XXXX to show up there! And I am quite certain it was for very good reasons! The problem is not that his book is flawed, but that it appears to have been intended to obfuscate the significance of the medical evidence and perpetuate the deception that the Zapruder is authentic, when he had to have known better. He won't defend it because it is completely indefensible.

James H. Fetzer

Rating: 1

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

post Today, 04:39 AM

Post #14

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 344

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

Well, they talk about lies, damn lies, and statistics--and then we have Josiah Thompson,

who is in category by himself! My argument is (1) that Josiah has no foundation in

statistics or probability for his purported quandary, (2) that the convergence between his

original finding and that of Richard Feynman makes it improbable they were both wrong,

(3) that he has no basis to claim a simultaneous "startle reaction" at the time of the hit,

(4) that his alleged "explanation" implies that the limo was not brought to a halt and

that the film is genuine; and (5) that his position contradicts the conclusion of his

book.

(1) The Statistical Argument:

Let me start out by saying that an obvious fact has bothered me from the beginning with

respect to the double-shot (Z312-Z314) scenario. Whether you have two or three people

shooting at the limousine, the likelihood of two shots arriving on target within

one-ninth of a second of each other is very slim. This is simply a statistical fact and

it has bothered me from the beginning.

As it happens, the interpretation of probability is one of my areas of philosophical

specialization. There are two conceptions of probability that might apply here, the

propensity and the frequency. On the propensity view, probabilities are measures of the

strength of a causal tendency. On the frequency view, probabilities are measures of the

relative frequency with which events happen to occur.

In order to be dealing with "statistical facts", as Josiah claims, we would need to know

the relative frequencies with which one shooter fires relative to another. Indeed, since

it would appear to make a difference, since they are participating in an assassination of

the President of the United States, we would need to know how often one shooter fires at

a President of the United States in relation to another.

It should already be apparent that Josiah has no basis to claim the chance of two shots

hitting JFK within one-ninth of a second of each other was "very slim". Suppose they had

both been instructed to fire when the limousine was opposite the concrete steps leading

up to the pergola, but their perspectives were slightly different. Then a one-ninth

second difference could have had a high propensity to occur.

Since there is no evidential basis for drawing the inference that two shots hitting their

target nearly simultaneously was at all improbable--where, in fact, on some scenarios, it

would have been probable and, within some intervals of time, even highly probable--Josiah

is making a claim that he cannot justify. He has in the past had an inclination to use a

phrase that fits here: this is pure bloviation!

(2) The Improbable Convergence:

Like most students of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), I was impressed by the mathematical

sophistication of Josiah's demonstration of the near-simultaneous hits to the head, one

of which drove him forward, the other--one-ninth of a second later--driving him backward

with great force. The precision and detail with which it is laid out in the book between

pages 86 and 98, still impresses me to this very day.

When David Lifton consulted with the world famous physicist, Richard Feynman, at CalTech,

Feynman made the same discovery. He told Lifton that the head goes forward. At first, he

(Lifton) thought it was because frames 314 and 315 had been published in the wrong order.

But Feyman corrected him and explained that the frame he was studying was 312! See BEST

EVIDENCE (1980), pages 48 to 51.

What I find fascinating about this convergence in inference to the occurrence of a

near-simultaneous "double hit" is that one of the students of this case, Josiah Thompson,

displayed admirable pecision and detail in his analysis, while the other, Richard Feyman,

a world famous physicist, concurred in arriving at the same conclusion. This is a matter

of reasoning, where one was meticulous, the other brilliant.

Now this finding was not incidental to SIX SECONDS but one of its most important

contributions to understanding the assassination of our 35th president. Can anyone doubt

that Josiah was highly motivated to make sure that he was right before it would be

published and the world had the opportunity to consider it? Surely, he would have taken

every measure to insure that a major argument like this one did not blow up in his face.

Under these conditions, the propensity for Josiah Thompson to have published a faulty

argument would have been quite small. Similarly, the propensity for Richard Feynman to

make a mistake in an argument involving physics would have been miniscule. So the

probability that these students of this case could come to independent but convergent

conclusions about this event and both be wrong is a miniscule faction of a small number.

(3) The Appeal to the Blur:

Frame 313 is unique among the various Zapruder frames since it demonstrably shows the

impact of a bullet at the same time the camera is being moved by the startle reaction of

Zapruder. In all other instances, where we believe we can see the effects of a bullet

strike, the horizontal smear introduced by Zapruder’s startle reaction follows two or

three frames later.

The fact that 313 shows large horizontal smearing is critical. The effect can be seen by

noting the horizontal smearing of the light reflections from the chrome strut over the

passenger compartment. Measurements of the position of JFK’s head were made against the

background of the light-colored south curb of Elm Street. The effect of the smear was to

elongate this horizontal light-colored area.

These passages strike me as very odd and highly misleading. From SIX SECONDS, we read

about plots of the president's head from the rear handhold and of the distance of the

president's head from the top of the back seat. I do not believe the explanation we are

being given here. The original study appears to have been done with great precision,

where virtually no element of subjective judgment was involved.

There are at least three problems with Josiah's argument. The first problem is that

the speed of sound is considerably slower than the speed of a bullet. It is therefore

highly unlikely that Zapruder would display a startle reaction at the same time the

bullet hit the body. The second is that, in fact, it did not happen in the other cases.

The third is that Josiah's claim that they occurred at the same time contradicts the

analysis of Luis Alvarez.

David Mantik pointed that out to me. In his chapter in HOAX (2003), Mantik also

demonstrated that Alvarez' analysis is seriously flawed and is not consistent with

results from David's study of the Muchmore film. Mantik concludes that the Zapruder and

the Muchmore cannot both be authentic but could both be faked. If Josiah wants to

discredit Alvarez, who contradicts his claim, he always has the option of acknowledging

that the film is a fake.

(4) The Explanation:

The explanation: When Greer turned to look in the back seat at circa Z302 his foot tapped

the brake, decelerating the limousine and throwing forward all the limousine's occupants.

There is no longer any clear evidence in the Zapruder film of Kennedy being hit in the

back of the head. (I say "clear" because there may be some evidence of a hit from the

rear at Z327/328) The Z312-Z317 sequence... the bowling over of JFK to the left rear....

is the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front.

Careful study of the Zapruder film shows that Bill Greer turned around at about Z 302

(again from memory). In doing so, he either took his foot off the accelerator or tapped

the brake. The result is that at about Z 308 all the occupants of the limousine (JFK,

Jackie, Connally, Mrs. Connally, Gov. Connally, Roy Kellerman and William Greer) begin

sliding forward. This forward movement continues to about Z 317 or Z 318 (again from

memory) for all the occupants of the limousine except JFK who is bowled backwards and to

the left. The result of this analysis is that it is impossible to label any part of JFK’s

forward movement as due to the action of a bullet striking his skull rather than due to

the deceleration of the limousine.

Now Josiah observes that his abandonment of his argument does not mean that JFK was

only hit in the head from the right front. "In fact," he remarks, "the dispersion of

brain matter and the hit on the interior of the windshield and the chrome strip certainly

indicate a strike on the skull from the rear. All this means is that the Z313 effect was

solely from a bullet striking his skull and fired from the right front." The problem is not

only that he assumes the film is authentic but that, as Dean Hagerman shows, it does

not support him.

We have multiple witnesses to the limo stop and corroborating evidence, including that

Officer Chaney motored forward to inform Chief Curry that the president had been hit and

that Jean Hill and Mary Moorman had stepped into the street. Moreover, the "blob" bulges

out to the right front, which is not only inconsistent with the McClelland drawing but

with new proofs by Hollywood film experts. So is having it both ways: trying to deny the

double-hit and to explain away forward motion by the passengers while insisting that the

film is authentic.

(5) No proof of conspiracy:

This is wonderful progress by careful research. Because of it, I am delighted to admit...

even proclaim... that I made a mistake in 1967. This kind of research requires more than

the National Enquirer method of research espoused by Professor Fetzer. In fact, such

research would never have have been undertaken had anyone paid any attention to Fetzer's

now bankrupt obsession with proving the Zapruder film a hoax.

Well, as we now know, Doug Horne, following Noel Twyman's lead, consulted with Hollywood

experts who viewed a 6k version of the film, where each frame was translated into 6,000

pixels. They were astonished by the amateurish quality of the fabrication, where the

massive blow-out to the back of the head was covered over by being painted over in black

and the "blob" and the blood spray were painted in, just as Roderick Ryan had told Noel.

When he wrote SIX SECONDS, Josiah was obviously aware that the brains bulge out to the

right-front. He was also aware that the physicians at Parkland had reported a massive

blow-out to the back of the head and that his brains were blow out to the left-rear. Here

he concedes that the motion of the body back-and-to-the-left was "the unambiguous result

of a shot from the right front". But then why are the brains bulging out to the

right-front?

He had to know there was a profound inconsistency between the film and the medical

evidence, which he never addresses but instead finesses--not only by not confronting it,

even though its existence had to be apparent, but by obfuscating the evidence by not even

including sketches of frames 314, 315, and 316, where even the sketch of frame 313 he

does use is opaque and does not even show the way in which the brains were bulging out.

We know when he published his book he was convinced of a near simultaneous double-hit to

the head, which could only have occurred by shots fired from at least two gunmen. He also

describes the back-and-to-the-left motion of the body as "the unambiguous result of a

shot from the right front". Since Oswald was above and behind, how could he possibly

conclude his book by asserting, "It does not prove that the assassination was a

conspiracy"? I think Tink owes us an explanation.

QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Jan 1 2010, 12:01 AM) *

Sure. I’ll be delighted to tell you what I know on this topic. Perhaps others will be

able to refine the issue.

I went to the URL [http://server3002.freeyellos.com/rhepler/Motion%20Blur.htm] carrying

David Wimp’s detailed analysis of blurs and his measurements on the Zapruder film. This

is perhaps the most relevant source of information on this subject. I was going to

reference it but, alas, found that it has disappeared. If anyone has downloaded the

material, it would be a service to make it available to us. Back in 2004, I made

arrangements with Jim Lesar for Wimp to give a talk at the AARC Conference in Washington,

D.C. His talk is on the DVD of that conference. See

[http://www.aarclibrary.org/Catalog/About2004Conf.htm].

Let me start out by saying that an obvious fact has bothered me from the beginning with

respect to the double-shot (Z312-Z314) scenario. Whether you have two or three people

shooting at the limousine, the likelihood of two shots arriving on target within

one-ninth of a second of each other is very slim. This is simply a statistical fact and

it has bothered me from the beginning.

The measurements published in Six Seconds were made on 8" by 10" black and white prints

made by copying the 4" by 5" transparencies LIFE copied from the original film. I still

have the prints and they show how primitive were our measurements. I simply took a pin

and pricked the point on the photo where I thought the back of JFK’s head was. I did the

same with the leading edge of the back seat and the leading edge of the handhold on the

trunk. Then these distances were measured with a micrometer and Bill Hoffman, an

undergraduate major in physics, did the proper mathematics. There could have been errors

all over the place. For example, the enlarger that made 8" by 10" prints might have

varied a bit from frame to frame. My own eye could have been off from time to time in

picking just where the back of Jack Kennedy’s head was. I think we determined that

between frame 312 and 313 JFK’s head moved forward by about 2.2 inches. I was amazed when

ITEK later carried out similar measurements and came up with a forward movement of 2.3

inches.

Frame 313 is unique among the various Zapruder frames since it demonstrably shows the

impact of a bullet at the same time the camera is being moved by the startle reaction of

Zapruder. In all other instances, where we believe we can see the effects of a bullet

strike, the horizontal smear introduced by Zapruder’s startle reaction follows two or

three frames later. Don Thomas has developed this point in a rigorous manner. He explains

the difference by the fact that the shot from the stockade fence was fired so close to

Zapruder that the sound from the shot hit Zapruder’s ears fast enough to produce the

unusually fast startle reaction. The other shots from the north end of Elm Street

naturally produced a delay in startle reaction.

The fact that 313 shows large horizontal smearing is critical. The effect can be seen by

noting the horizontal smearing of the light reflections from the chrome strut over the

passenger compartment. Measurements of the position of JFK’s head were made against the

background of the light-colored south curb of Elm Street. The effect of the smear was to

elongate this horizontal light-colored area. What I took to be movement of JFK’s head was

at least partially due to the horizontal elongation of the curb introduced by the smear.

David Wimp has produced both a study of how you measure smearing and also a study of the

movement of JFK’s head. From memory, I think he found that the movement of JFK’s head

between 312 and 313 was either an inch or less than an inch. What makes this reduction in

movement so important is another discovery Wimp made. Careful study of the Zapruder film

shows that Bill Greer turned around at about Z 302 (again from memory). In doing so, he

either took his foot off the accelerator or tapped the brake. The result is that at about

Z 308 all the occupants of the limousine (JFK, Jackie, Connally, Mrs. Connally, Gov.

Connally, Roy Kellerman and William Greer) begin sliding forward. This forward movement

continues to about Z 317 or Z 318 (again from memory) for all the occupants of the

limousine except JFK who is bowled backwards and to the left. The result of this analysis

is that it is impossible to label any part of JFK’s forward movement as due to the action

of a bullet striking his skull rather than due to the deceleration of the limousine.

I would point out that this in no way requires that JFK was only hit from the right front

in the head. In fact, the dispersion of brain matter and the hit on the interior of the

windshield and the chrome strip certainly indicate a strike on the skull from the rear.

All this means is that the Z 313 effect was solely from a bullet striking his skull and

fired from the right front.

I should point out that before reading David Wimp’s studies my friend Art Snyder had

already alerted me to the unlikelihood that my measurements were measuring solely

movement of the head.

Finally, I look forward to carrying out new measurement of JFK’s head movement using the

35 mm. prints available from the archives. High resolution scans of these frames using

“pixel-counting” techniques pioneered by Joe Durnavich and others should make possible

extremely accurate measurements of movement.

Josiah Thompson

Thanks Ray. I'm only too aware of its shortcomings. As we've seen in another thread, the double-hit at Z312-Z314 was based on a misreading of Zapruder's startle reaction.

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it.

Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Kathy Beckett

[David G. Healy]

name='John Gillespie' date='Jan 1 2010, 01:41 AM' post='177103']

If adding posts on less significant matters is meant to push this one down, it won't work. This one is NOT going to go away!

________________________________________

There are a number of techniques in play on most sites with any gravitas. The above reference would be known as forum sliding or topic dilution. One must remember that these techniques, as most disinformation, only work if people aren't aware of them and you certainly have raised that flag. Salute. There is a lot at stake.

JG

To believe that folks here are posting on threads to keep this one down is ridiculous.

And who defines which thread is less significant than the other?

All you have to do is bump this thread, every once in a while.

Kathy

Kathy-- you keep coming back ya hear....and what you term ridiculous is in fact, reality, on many boards (how many do you monitor daily? 5-10?)... unless Bill Miller has told you otherwise ya might want to do a little deep research....

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks for both posts, John. I could not agree more: there is a lot at stake, which appears to be why he is ducking these issues.

If adding posts on less significant matters is meant to push this one down, it won't work. This one is NOT going to go away!

________________________________________

There are a number of techniques in play on most sites with any gravitas. The above reference would be known as forum sliding or topic dilution. One must remember that these techniques, as most disinformation, only work if people aren't aware of them and you certainly have raised that flag. Salute. There is a lot at stake.

JG

[Jack White]

So Ms. Beckett is offended by BALLS? I watched footBALLS all day yesterday in bowl games.

Tomorrow I will be going to a game where the players will be shooting basketBALLS into

hoops. I guess the word BALLS is now off limits, huh?

I better self-edit:

So Ms. Beckett is offended by XXXXX? I watched footXXXXX all day yesterday in bowl games.

Tomorrow I will be going to a game where the players will be shooting basketXXXXX into

hoops. I guess the word XXXXX is now off limits, huh?

Former Marines like Fetzer take notice!

Jack