SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

[Jack White]

Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?

Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.

Again, the best to you,

Jerry

Jerry...since this is an OPEN FORUM, I will take the liberty of replying (instead of only one person, as you suggest).

In the photo you show, the "spiral nebula" effect is hidden behind the sun visor.

Jack

[Doug Weldon]

Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?

Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.

Again, the best to you,

Jerry

Jerry:

Dishonest was perhaps too strong of a word and for that I apologize and I appeciate your humility that you may have been confused, mistaken or wrong. I do think that Martin's analysis should have been placed on the sites where the article posted. I do not know you or Barb and the one time I met Josiah I made the mistake of mentioning Jim's name and I incurred his wrath for several minutes. I outlined my concerns in my prior post and I continue to have them. I am not aware of any witnesses viewing the hole from the rear of the limo. I am curious who the odd woman shown in your picture in front of the limo is .There are pictures of the parked limo showing MANY people in front of the limo. I asked Glanges about the limo being cordoned off. It wasn't "moments" but it was also not later in the day. The impression I got was it would have been about 20-30 minutes. However, the people who were there by the vehicle were not placed behind the cordoned off area. They may have been asked to step back but once the Secret Service moved away it was easy for people to step back next to the limo. Glanges would have been inconspicuous and would have had a right to be at the hospital entrance. She was with another person, who in 1999 was still a physician, but was afraid to speak. I have a 90 percent certainty who that person was. Dr Glanges was a no-nonsense person and well respected thus it troubled me that it was suggested that there was something sinister or suspect about her and that Thompson was going to investigate her. I had no problem with that but I had a problem with not reporting back and leaving this "cloud" about her integrity. One would have to ask, as with many of the witnesses, what would have been her motivation for fabricating a story. Did they capitalize it in any way? I thought Nigel Turner and myself were the only ones that had spoken to her but I recently learned that the authors of "Murder Within" may have also talked with her. She, like the others, never sought publicity. I communicated with her sister after her death. I hope you listen to my interview on Black Op radio. It is not a transcript but an audio response. I care deeply about the truth. I have changed my mind about some small details over the years but nothing of substance. The evidence has gotten stronger and I am grateful you brought the Charles Taylor evidence forward. I do believe you made the mistake of taking some evidence from some unreliable sites and used such to buttress your position.

My best,

Doug

[Josiah Thompson]

Professor,

In post after post, you evidence the fact that you have not even read the section from Don Thomas. You say that I "exploit" the work of Luis Alvarez when just opposite is true. Thomas explains the great importance of the impact and smear occuring in the same frame. He gives the numbers and the calculations. You continue to pay no attention to this important argument. Thomas also explains why Luis Alvarez's attempt to explain the simultuneity of the two is silly. Your response is to say that I "exploit" Luis Alvarez. This is even sillier.

Also silly is your emphasis on the unknown results soon to be forthcoming from Hollywood. You write:

"Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports that seven Hollywood film experts have viewed the 6k version and concluded that the film is a fake: the blow-out to the rear of the head was painted over in black and the "blob" and the blood spray were painted in, precisely as Roderick Ryan had explained to Noel Twyman, BLOODY REASON (1998), which you continued to obscure and obfuscate."

First off, we don't know what these experts are going to say. Second, we do know that they are not even looking at the best copy of the Zapruder film available for such a study (see my thread, "Where can you see the best copies of Zapruder frames?")

You continue to prattle on claiming that I don't answer your questions when it's clear you don't either read or understand an answer when it's given.

Josiah Thompso

Well, Josiah, if you are not misleading us, then why aren't you answering my questions about your book? Why didn't you confront the blatant contradiction between the medical and witness evidence, which support a blow-out to the left-rear, and the Zapruder film, which shows a massive bulging out to the right-front? You do not even include sketches of the "blob", which is very revealing. You have a sketch of 313 that obfuscates rather than clarifies the contents of the frame. You do not show any details of frames 314, 315, and 316, much less the sequence of frames that display the blob so vividly from 313 to 340! That is quite a remarkable sequence to overlook -- and it provides powerful circumstantial proof that you were obfuscating the conflict between them to sustain the illusion of the authenticity of the film, which has served as the backbone of the cover-up from the beginning.

By removing events, adding others, and contracting the time line, it mislead generations of students into the false belief that the film was the touchstone of truth about the assassination -- an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs! Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports that seven Hollywood film experts have viewed the 6k version and concluded that the film is a fake: the blow-out to the rear of the head was painted over in black and the "blob" and the blood spray were painted in, precisely as Roderick Ryan had explained to Noel Twyman, BLOODY REASON (1998), which you continued to obscure and obfuscate. The time is long past for you to stand up and be counted, Josiah. You have abused your position in having had access to the best qualify versions of the film to distort and conceal their blatant conflict with the medical evidence. The time has come. The jig is up!

This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling. You are now trying to subvert every indication of conspiracy that you contributed in your book, even while you denied that your book offered proof of conspiracy! That, of course, was what infuriated Vincent Salandria. And this is not the first time I have made a point of these issues. See, for example, "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", which I published on OpEdNews (28 March 2009), yet you have evaded the question and not confronted it. How much evidence do we need that you are not the "stand up" guy you pose as being? You now appear to be undertaking the systemic undermining of the "doubt hit" theory, using an impossible explanation, denying the throat wound is a wound of entry or that it passed through the windshield, where we have ample proof of both, in an evident effort to prepare for your repudiation of conspiracy in time for the 50th observance! You appear to be disinfo to the bitter end!

You have been able to take in large numbers of students in the past, who do not know you as well as I do. Here, for example, is an earlier study of mine:

Six Seconds in Dallas

[Editor's note: The announcement on Rich DellaRosa's

JFKresearch Forum that Josiah Thompson's book, SIX

SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), was going to be reprinted

in collaboration with The 6th Floor Museum caused me

concern, for reasons explained in this post. While

more than 125 persons read it, no one took issue with

what I had to say here, including Josiah Thompson.]

The author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), Josiah Thompson, Ph.D.,

recently announced that his book is being reprinted by some (heretofore

unidentified) university press. "The book will be reprinted in its original

form by a university press", he explained. "All income from this reprinting

will go to a special fund set up by The 6th Floor Museum for the acquisition

and preservation of original materials."

Now university presses are not rare book dealers, so unless this

"reprinting" were to include new material, it is difficult to imagine why it

is being published. Who will buy it? If he were to address current issues of

film authenticity, of course, that might make a considerable difference. Yet

he assures us that "The claims of Zapruder film alteration will not be

discussed since they are spurious." Precisely how he knows that the claims

of Zapruder film alteration are spurious is beyond me, since, to the best of

my knowledge, he has never addressed the vast majority, and those he has

addressed in his DISINFORMATION SERIES have displayed his ignorance of recent

work.

But there are even more general aspects of this situation that I find

puzzling. He has made much of the claim that three spent shell casings were

found in the alleged "assassin's lair", which evidence photographs published

by Gary Shaw, by Noel Twyman, and by Jesse Curry tend to undermine. Yet his

own book claims that just two shots were actually fired from the assassin's

lair, where the third--crimped--cartridge was a plant. So when Todd Vaughan

attacked me for having this all wrong--citing, for example, that Curry had

added the notation, "Three were found in all", where the third was kept by

the DPD until the FBI demanded it-Thompson's own account of the matter

(pp. 143-146) supports the conclusion that it was a fake. So even though his

own position was essentially in agreement with mine--that this third cartridge

casing was "of dubious origin"--he remained silent and said nothing. That is

interesting all on its own, but not as much as that, if three shots had been

fired from there, his own account of the killing would be false.

In particular, it is the thesis of SIX SECOND IN DALLAS that four shots

were fired by three shooters, only two of which were fired from "the assassin's

lair". A third, he claims, was fired from the Dallas County Records Building,

and a fourth from the grassy knoll. One hit JKF in the back, another hit Connally,

and the third and fourth hit the President in the head in very close

temporal proximity. (See Chapter VIII, which includes a diagram of this

scenario.) Since all four shots hit, he accounts for the injury to James

Tague as having been caused by a fragment from the bullet that hit JFK in

the back of the head (pp. 230-233).

Precisely where this fragment exited his cranuim on its trajectory he does

not explain, but that is his take. As I previously observed, the evidence has

long since carried us beyond his position of 1967. In fact, by 1970, the studies

of Richard Sprague, COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970), had already superceded

those of Josiah Thompson. As I observed in response to an inquiry from Todd

Vaughan, Sprague's analysis was not only better founded--based as it was on more

than 500 photographic records, where the Z-film, for example, counted as only

one--but it employed a vastly more sophisticated technology through the use

of computerized photoanalysis and arrived at very different conclusions about

the shot sequence itself.

Sprague has two shots from the knoll (different locations), two from the

Book Depository (but none from the "assassin's lair"), and two from the Dal-Tex

Building. So if Sprague is right, then Thompson is wrong. Since Thompson has

assured us, "There will be no changes in the original text and photos though

some minor corrections or clarifications may be added", apparently he will not

discuss the work of Richard Sprague. But it may also explain his aversion to

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. We had discovered by 1998 that

JFK had been hit by at least four shots--one to the back from behind, one to the

throat from in front, and two to the head, one from behind and one from in

front--with at least one(and probably more) hit to Connally and a complete miss

that injured Tague. So if ASSASSINATION SCIENCE is right, then SIX SECONDS must

be wrong.

And similarly for MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, where evidence for perhaps as

many as ten or more shots may be found. So perhaps there is a simple explanation

for Thompson's otherwise seemingly irrational aversion to both of these books.

If ASSASSINATION SCIENCE or MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA are right, then SIX SECONDS

must be wrong. So perhaps this is all about an author protectingg his "investment"

in the for of his own book. He is not going to discuss Sprague's studies or more

recent work, no matter how well supported they may be, because it severely undermines

the position he adopted in 1967! That is remarkable in itself, but I am still puzzled

why a serious university press would even consider publishing a book in 2001 whose

principal conclusions had already been superceded by 1970! I speculate that this

may be an elaborate public relations gimmick intended to dupe the unwary into

mistakenly supposing that this is the latest research reflecting current work

on the subject.

If anyone has a more plausible hypothesis, I would like to hear it. We have

been reassured by Thompson, however, that he is not making "a dime" off this project,

whose proceeds are going to support The Sixth Floor Museum: "All income from this

reprinting will go to a special fund set up by The 6th Floor Museum for the

acquisition and preservation of original materials." Preservation may be the

operative word, at least in the case of his own work. Yet, for reasons I cannot

quite identify, there still seems to be something peculiar about all this: an old

book not updated, a university press, and now The 6th Floor Museum.

Apparently he knows who he is dealing with there, since he tells us, "I

have known and respected Gary Mack for nearly twenty years. We are friends."

Perhaps what bothers me is that The 6th Floor Museum has been criticized

for years for its bias against research and evidence that point in directions

other than that the crime was committed by a lone, demented gunman. Not only

are ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA not carried there, but virtually

none of the books discussed in them are carried there either. Len Osanic, who

maintains a web site on behalf of Fletcher Prouty, who served as a liaison between

the Pentago, the CIA, and The White House during the Kennedy administration, even

maintains a file of complaints about the operation there.

Anyone who would like to review these reactions for themselves is welcome

to visit the file at http://www.prouty.org/boycott.html. The web site itself

holds many attractions, not least of all because Prouty was the basis for the

character "Colonel X" in Oliver's Stone's film "JFK". I find it odd that an

author ostensibly committed to the existence of conspiracy in the death of JFK

would be on such cordial terms with The 6th Floor. Osanic has observed, "That

the book MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is not carried by The 6th Floor only

underscores the fact that this is not a museum but a 'front'". If that is true,

then I guess that would explain it. Consider the evidence and judge for

yourself.

I wrote:

“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.”

You replied:

“But there appears to be no basis for the purported "smear". In particular, you appeal to the occurrence of a "startle response" by Abraham Zapruder that caused the alleged "smear", when even Luis Alvarez did not find any instance in which a "startle response" and a bullet hit took place at the same time. Your suggestion that the shooter was closer to Zapruder is unpersuasive. The bullet was traveling much faster than sound, even if that had been the case. The neurological response itself would have taken time. The hit and the response cannot have happened at the same time. Your argument is clearly based upon a false premise.”

Don Thomas’ chart shows why and how you are wrong:

There is a large horizontal smear in Z 313 that has all the indicia of being the result of a startle reaction on Zapruder’s part. It looks exactly like other smears due to startle reaction. The only difference is that this smear occurs in the same frame that we see impact. Don Thomas has explained how this can only be due to the shot having been fired from less than one hundred feet from Zapruder. Luis Alvarez, a clear exponent of the single gunman view, tried to explain this oddity as due to a shock wave from a bullet fired from the TSBD moving Zapruder’s camera. As Thomas has demonstrated, this is silly. What Thomas has discovered is a fascinating argument that the presence of startle reaction smear and impact in the same frame means that the shot could not have come from the TSBD. I find this a persuasive argument and would be interested in other folks’ views of it. I am totally disinterested in more bombast from you, Professor.

But there is another “smear” in your post, Professor, and it is coming from you. As I pointed out earlier, you have put great energy into getting other folks to see me as “suspect.” This has been your standard response to many other people whom you disagree with. You affirm in your post that you “fingered” me as a “disinformation agent” a decade ago. As I recollect, one of the reasons you used for claiming I was such a “disinformation agent” was that Six Seconds published drawings of frames not photos. I think we all know how silly that is. What you didn’t tell your readers was what happened to you after making that charge. First, David Mantik , Cyril Wecht and Gary Aguilar publicly rebuked you. Then a “Public Statement” was circulated and then signed by Peter Dale Scott, Doug DeSalles, William Turner, Paul Hoch and others. That “Public Statement” reads as follows:

“To David Mantik, Cyril Wecht and Gary Aguilar’s public rebuke of our colleague Jim Fetzer’s behavior, we must regretfully add our own. We agree with David Mantik, when he points out “that public attacks on motives of others.. are biased, prejudicial, counterproductive, and, finally, useless.” We agree with Cyril Wecht when he asks Jim Fetzer to apologize to Tink Thompson and points out that “you do not help our cause.. by publicly attacking one of the most experienced, knowledgeable and respected critics of the Warren Commission Report.” We agree with Gary Aguilar when he states that Jim Fetzer’s “slanderous piece about Tink Thompson has no place on the web site of any credible Warren skeptic” and points out that “Jim has seriously undermined his own credibility with collateral damage that will.. harm me, David Mantik and others who have worked with him.”

“By choosing to insinuate what he dare not say, Jim Fetzer chooses a low road. In so choosing, he hurts not only himself but all of us.”

In the years that have followed the issuance of these public statements in 2000, Fetzer has kept up his toxic refrain that I am some sort of “disinformation agent.” His posts on this site are witness to a repeated effort to make me suspect. However, he has reached a new low in claiming that “Vincent Salandria had already nailed you for that role some thirty years before me!”

The best... and as far as I know the only place... to look for an account of this sad little episode in the history of the critics is John Kelin’s excellent book, Praise from a Future Generation. Kelin wrote the book because Vince Salandria offered to let him go through all Salandria’s correspondence for this period. Given this fact one would expect Kelin to back Salandria’s side of things if there was any conflict. But Kelin didn’t. As in the rest of his book, he took a genuinely scholarly approach and printed all the correspondence about the conflict. Kelin’s account can be found in the Chapters 28 and 20 (“Fatal Ruptures” and “Single-Spaced Letters”) dealing with the internecine battles that developed among the critics in 1967 and 1968. It was in the midst of these battles that Salandria began making claims against me.

Salandria had written the key articles in Liberation Magazine and M.S. Arnoni’s Minority of One exposing the key failures in the Warren Commission’s treatment of the evidence. These early articles are as true today as they were on the day they were written. Salandria and I started working together in the spring of 1966 and made several trips to the Archives together in the summer of that year. We decided to put together an article for publication in a magazine such as Harper’s or The Atlantic Monthly. But Vince didn’t like to write and I did. Hence, by August of that year I had put together a draft that ran 80 to 100 pages. Then we started to disagree about the interpretation of evidence. There were several points of disagreement. The only one I remember is that I was simply not convinced that JFK was hit in the throat from the front. So we abandoned our joint effort and I went forward on my own. Shortly after Six Seconds was published, I began hearing rumors that Salandria was saying I was a government agent. From the correspondence of several people, John Kelin was able to put together a background story that I learned of when I read his book.

Salandria’s suspicions made their way to M.S. Arnoni, the man who had published Salandria in The Minority of One. According the Kelin, “When M.S. Arnoni heard the case against Thompson, he said it was nonsense.” Kelin then goes on to quote Arnoni:

“In my considered judgment, the whole structure of the ‘evidence’ involved is classically psychological, bespeaking Thompson’s pursuits in no way whatsoever, but rather reflecting the frame of mind of whomever begot the suspicion and proceeded to add ‘convincing’ details and deductions.”

In January 1968, Sylvia Meagher wrote, “I cannot take seriously the suggestion that Tink is a CIA plant.” Later that year, Salandria wrote Sylvia claiming that another individual (unnamed by Kelin) was a government agent. Sylvia wrote back: “Epstein, Thompson, Jacob Cohen, William Gurvitch... not unnaturally, then, the cry wolf may not raise any hackles even if a real one is finally in the chicken coop.”

This was a rough time for the critical community. The Garrison disaster was looming and Sylvia

and I stood together against the tide of general endorsement of the New Orleans District Attorney. We drew a lot of flack from other critics. Kelin closes these chapters with the following two paragraphs:

In March 1968, Salandria had written him [Thompson] a letter. ‘I feel that you should know that I consider the data on whether you are a United States government agent or not incomplete, but that I entertain a suspicion at this time that you are,’ he told him [Thompson]. ‘It will be a pleasure to admit to you later, should you do work to rectify the damage which you have done by failing to confront the truth in the assassination, that I have been egregiously wrong about you.’

Thompson wrote back an even shorter reply: he told Salandria he was out of his goddam mind. But that was all right, he [Thompson] said; at times he wondered about his own sanity. ‘But a government agent? Jesus!’”

What do I think of all this? I think Salandria was doing the same thing that Fetzer now is doing... using a profound disagreement as to how to approach the Kennedy assassination to claim someone is a government agent.

What you are trying to do, Professor Fetzer, is transparent. It is also dishonorable and vicious. It has no place in any community of scholarship. In rebutting these charges that are meant to destroy my credibility, I waste not only my time but the time of everyone who has to read this. I hope someone whose opinion you trust will explain to you just how ignoble what you are trying to do appears.

Josiah Thompson

This is very curious. Josiah Thompson is responding to my observation that it would have been physically impossible for the blur and the startle response to have occurred at the same time with a post that affirms that the blur and the startle response could not have occurred at the same time:

On the contrary, it is not possible for the sound to have reached Zapruder's position prior to frame 313 or 314 unless one posits some sort of cartridge anomaly. Moreover, because of the latency in reaction time, the sound has to arrive well before the exposure of frame 313 in order to account for the blur in that frame. In his published analysis, Alvarez acknowledged that it was not possible for the sound of the gunshot to arrive before the end of frame 313. Alvarez offered a different solution. Alvarez conjectured that the sound pressure from the shock wave of the passing bullet could have moved the camera body! Indeed, the sound pressure of the shock wave would have been significant; around 110 deciBels. But, as was the case with the HSCA panel, Alvarez failed to provide calculations in support of his supposition that the shock wave could have arrived in time to account for the jiggle.

We know a lot about Alvarez, by the way. In his chapter in HOAX (2003), David Mantik reports that Alvarez was highly selecting in producing his support for a three-shot scenario, selecting evidence that agreed with a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest. That is not sound science, Josiah!

You observe that, over a decade ago, I fingered you as an agent of disinformation. My statement about you can still be found on assassinationscience.com. That hardly qualifies as discerning on my part, since Vincent Salandria had already nailed you for that role some thirty years before me! I was right then and I am right now.

Consider the following:

(1) in composing SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), you, Josiah Thompson, had unprecedented access to the highest quality versions of the Zapruder film;

(2) that film, as you must know for yourself, displays a massive bulging out of brains to the right-front, which has long since come to be known as "the blob";

(3) the "blob" is not an incidental feature of the representation of the blow-out, but extends from frames 313-316 for more than thirty frames through 338-339;

(4) this massive bulging-out to the right front is inconsistent with the medical evidence, typified by the McClelland drawing and by the testimony of Officer Bobby Hargis;

(5) Gary Aguilar, M.D., collated the testimony of the Parkland physicians, who were consistent about cerebellar and cerebral tissue extruding from the right-rear;

(6) it follows that, even from consideration of the most elementary evidence in this case, that there is a stunning and inescapable conflict between the medical evidence and the film;

(7) SIX SECONDS would have created a sensation and blown the cover-up out of the water had you used your knowledge to expose the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film;

(8) however, in your book, you only provides an opaque sketch of frame 313 and none but the most abstract outline of any of the frames 314, 315, and 316, which meant they were inaccessible for study;

(9) since you published the McClelland diargram and even quote Officer Hargis, you have to have been aware of the conflict, yet you tacitly, implicity, and by omitting discussion minimize it;

(10) this meant that, no matter how blatant the contradiction, the existence of this conflict--in spite of its immense importance--was very difficult to discern based upon your book;

(11) you also introduced your "doubt hit" theory, where JFK was hit in the back of the head 1/9th of a second before he was hit in the right temple by a fangile (or exploding) bullet;

(12) you now maintain that you were wrong, claiming Zapruder experienced a "startle response" that caused a smear on the film at exactly the same moment that the bullet hit;

(13) that, however, is a neurological impossibility, because the bullet travels far faster than sound and it would have taken time for any such "startle response" to occur;

(14) you are now offering an excuse for having been mistaken about your "double hit" hypothesis--which was one of the most striking features of his book--by invoking a phony explanation;

(15) the phoniness of your explanation has now been confirmed by the very sources you cite in attempting to justify your false reasons for repudiating own your previous work;

(16) your pseudo-explanation of why your were wrong does not affect the independent discovery of the same "double hit" by Richard Feynman, a world-famous physicist at CalTech;

(17) there is overwhelming proof that the film is a fabrication, including HOAX (2003), "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery" (2008) and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid" (2009);

(18) film restoration experts have now viewed a 6k version of the film and expressed astonishment at the amateurish quality of the fakery, which includes painting over the massive defect at the back of the head in black and painting in the "blob" and the blood spray;

(19) today at least seven film experts have concurred in this opinion, thereby agreeing with Roderick Ryan, an expect on special effects, who received the academic award in 2000, who explained these things to Noel Twyam, BLOODY TREASON (1998); and,

(20) the chain of custody argument that you have long advanced to defend his claim that the film cannot have been faked--in spite of massive evidence to the contrary--has been shattered by Doug Horne's discover of another copy have been developed in Rochester.

No one likes being played for a sucker, yet you have been playing the world for saps since your book appeared in 1967. Your conduct is utterly disgusting and completely reprehensible. You are now extending your efforts by disavowing or minimizing indications of conspiracy that were included in SIX SECONDS, while you continue your attempts to perpetrate the fraud that the film is authentic.

Your new mission now appears to be to raise concerns about every indication of conspiracy you can reach, including the through-and-through hole in the windshield, the entry wound in the throat, and the "double hit" theory you yourself had previously championed! Your technique is divide-and-conquer, which involves separating different aspects of the case and raising doubts about them.

It will be fascinating to see how you will disavow the back-and-to-the-left motion in the film, which you take to be "unambiguous evidence of a shot from the front". My best guess is that you will admit that, "There was an additional shot from in front, but that--as for the rest--we will never know!” And you will do this with fanfare shortly before the 50th observance of the assassination.

I think we have your number, Tink. It's about time that you came clean and cease your bizarre and malevolent practices.

Jim

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The explanation you have offered for rejecting the double-hit is not even physically possible. I don't quite understand why you don't appreciate that it is acoustically and neurologically impossible for the "startle response" and the hit to have occurred at the same time. If you misdescribed your position and they did not happen at the same time, then there may be more to it. But on its face, it is no explanation at all.

Perhaps the fault lies in reliance upon a fabricated film, but it is not possible that they should have occurred together at the same instant of time. As for other issues, I am dumbfounded that you are unwilling to accept Doug Horne's report in Vol. IV about the observations made by a group of Hollywood film experts. As many as seven -- eight, actually, if we count Roderick Ryan -- have concluded the film is an amateurish fake.

Would you concede that if Doug's report is accurate -- and they found that the blow-out to the back of head has been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray have been painted in -- then you have been wrong and the film is a fabrication, after all? There is no reason to think Doug -- whose background is in history -- has not told us exactly what they found. But would you make this concession at least conditionally?

Would you agree that, if what Doug has reported to have been their professional opinions -- the expert judgments -- of the shabby and amateurish alteration of the film by painting over the massive defect to the back of the head and painting in the "blob" and the blood spray, then -- in spite of all of your protestations to the contrary in the past -- would you then finally concede that the case has been proven by simple and direct evidence?

Professor,

In post after post, you evidence the fact that you have not even read the section from Don Thomas. You say that I "exploit" the work of Luis Alvarez when just opposite is true. Thomas explains the great importance of the impact and smear occuring in the same frame. He gives the numbers and the calculations. You continue to pay no attention to this important argument. Thomas also explains why Luis Alvarez's attempt to explain the simultuneity of the two is silly. Your response is to say that I "exploit" Luis Alvarez. This is even sillier.

Also silly is your emphasis on the unknown results soon to be forthcoming from Hollywood. You write:

"Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports that seven Hollywood film experts have viewed the 6k version and concluded that the film is a fake: the blow-out to the rear of the head was painted over in black and the "blob" and the blood spray were painted in, precisely as Roderick Ryan had explained to Noel Twyman, BLOODY REASON (1998), which you continued to obscure and obfuscate."

First off, we don't know what these experts are going to say. Second, we do know that they are not even looking at the best copy of the Zapruder film available for such a study (see my thread, "Where can you see the best copies of Zapruder frames?")

You continue to prattle on claiming that I don't answer your questions when it's clear you don't either read or understand an answer when it's given.

Josiah Thompso

Well, Josiah, if you are not misleading us, then why aren't you answering my questions about your book? Why didn't you confront the blatant contradiction between the medical and witness evidence, which support a blow-out to the left-rear, and the Zapruder film, which shows a massive bulging out to the right-front? You do not even include sketches of the "blob", which is very revealing. You have a sketch of 313 that obfuscates rather than clarifies the contents of the frame. You do not show any details of frames 314, 315, and 316, much less the sequence of frames that display the blob so vividly from 313 to 340! That is quite a remarkable sequence to overlook -- and it provides powerful circumstantial proof that you were obfuscating the conflict between them to sustain the illusion of the authenticity of the film, which has served as the backbone of the cover-up from the beginning.

By removing events, adding others, and contracting the time line, it mislead generations of students into the false belief that the film was the touchstone of truth about the assassination -- an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs! Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports that seven Hollywood film experts have viewed the 6k version and concluded that the film is a fake: the blow-out to the rear of the head was painted over in black and the "blob" and the blood spray were painted in, precisely as Roderick Ryan had explained to Noel Twyman, BLOODY REASON (1998), which you continued to obscure and obfuscate. The time is long past for you to stand up and be counted, Josiah. You have abused your position in having had access to the best qualify versions of the film to distort and conceal their blatant conflict with the medical evidence. The time has come. The jig is up!

This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling. You are now trying to subvert every indication of conspiracy that you contributed in your book, even while you denied that your book offered proof of conspiracy! That, of course, was what infuriated Vincent Salandria. And this is not the first time I have made a point of these issues. See, for example, "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", which I published on OpEdNews (28 March 2009), yet you have evaded the question and not confronted it. How much evidence do we need that you are not the "stand up" guy you pose as being? You now appear to be undertaking the systemic undermining of the "doubt hit" theory, using an impossible explanation, denying the throat wound is a wound of entry or that it passed through the windshield, where we have ample proof of both, in an evident effort to prepare for your repudiation of conspiracy in time for the 50th observance! You appear to be disinfo to the bitter end!

You have been able to take in large numbers of students in the past, who do not know you as well as I do. Here, for example, is an earlier study of mine:

Six Seconds in Dallas

[Editor's note: The announcement on Rich DellaRosa's

JFKresearch Forum that Josiah Thompson's book, SIX

SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), was going to be reprinted

in collaboration with The 6th Floor Museum caused me

concern, for reasons explained in this post. While

more than 125 persons read it, no one took issue with

what I had to say here, including Josiah Thompson.]

The author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), Josiah Thompson, Ph.D.,

recently announced that his book is being reprinted by some (heretofore

unidentified) university press. "The book will be reprinted in its original

form by a university press", he explained. "All income from this reprinting

will go to a special fund set up by The 6th Floor Museum for the acquisition

and preservation of original materials."

Now university presses are not rare book dealers, so unless this

"reprinting" were to include new material, it is difficult to imagine why it

is being published. Who will buy it? If he were to address current issues of

film authenticity, of course, that might make a considerable difference. Yet

he assures us that "The claims of Zapruder film alteration will not be

discussed since they are spurious." Precisely how he knows that the claims

of Zapruder film alteration are spurious is beyond me, since, to the best of

my knowledge, he has never addressed the vast majority, and those he has

addressed in his DISINFORMATION SERIES have displayed his ignorance of recent

work.

But there are even more general aspects of this situation that I find

puzzling. He has made much of the claim that three spent shell casings were

found in the alleged "assassin's lair", which evidence photographs published

by Gary Shaw, by Noel Twyman, and by Jesse Curry tend to undermine. Yet his

own book claims that just two shots were actually fired from the assassin's

lair, where the third--crimped--cartridge was a plant. So when Todd Vaughan

attacked me for having this all wrong--citing, for example, that Curry had

added the notation, "Three were found in all", where the third was kept by

the DPD until the FBI demanded it-Thompson's own account of the matter

(pp. 143-146) supports the conclusion that it was a fake. So even though his

own position was essentially in agreement with mine--that this third cartridge

casing was "of dubious origin"--he remained silent and said nothing. That is

interesting all on its own, but not as much as that, if three shots had been

fired from there, his own account of the killing would be false.

In particular, it is the thesis of SIX SECOND IN DALLAS that four shots

were fired by three shooters, only two of which were fired from "the assassin's

lair". A third, he claims, was fired from the Dallas County Records Building,

and a fourth from the grassy knoll. One hit JKF in the back, another hit Connally,

and the third and fourth hit the President in the head in very close

temporal proximity. (See Chapter VIII, which includes a diagram of this

scenario.) Since all four shots hit, he accounts for the injury to James

Tague as having been caused by a fragment from the bullet that hit JFK in

the back of the head (pp. 230-233).

Precisely where this fragment exited his cranuim on its trajectory he does

not explain, but that is his take. As I previously observed, the evidence has

long since carried us beyond his position of 1967. In fact, by 1970, the studies

of Richard Sprague, COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970), had already superceded

those of Josiah Thompson. As I observed in response to an inquiry from Todd

Vaughan, Sprague's analysis was not only better founded--based as it was on more

than 500 photographic records, where the Z-film, for example, counted as only

one--but it employed a vastly more sophisticated technology through the use

of computerized photoanalysis and arrived at very different conclusions about

the shot sequence itself.

Sprague has two shots from the knoll (different locations), two from the

Book Depository (but none from the "assassin's lair"), and two from the Dal-Tex

Building. So if Sprague is right, then Thompson is wrong. Since Thompson has

assured us, "There will be no changes in the original text and photos though

some minor corrections or clarifications may be added", apparently he will not

discuss the work of Richard Sprague. But it may also explain his aversion to

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. We had discovered by 1998 that

JFK had been hit by at least four shots--one to the back from behind, one to the

throat from in front, and two to the head, one from behind and one from in

front--with at least one(and probably more) hit to Connally and a complete miss

that injured Tague. So if ASSASSINATION SCIENCE is right, then SIX SECONDS must

be wrong.

And similarly for MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, where evidence for perhaps as

many as ten or more shots may be found. So perhaps there is a simple explanation

for Thompson's otherwise seemingly irrational aversion to both of these books.

If ASSASSINATION SCIENCE or MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA are right, then SIX SECONDS

must be wrong. So perhaps this is all about an author protectingg his "investment"

in the for of his own book. He is not going to discuss Sprague's studies or more

recent work, no matter how well supported they may be, because it severely undermines

the position he adopted in 1967! That is remarkable in itself, but I am still puzzled

why a serious university press would even consider publishing a book in 2001 whose

principal conclusions had already been superceded by 1970! I speculate that this

may be an elaborate public relations gimmick intended to dupe the unwary into

mistakenly supposing that this is the latest research reflecting current work

on the subject.

If anyone has a more plausible hypothesis, I would like to hear it. We have

been reassured by Thompson, however, that he is not making "a dime" off this project,

whose proceeds are going to support The Sixth Floor Museum: "All income from this

reprinting will go to a special fund set up by The 6th Floor Museum for the

acquisition and preservation of original materials." Preservation may be the

operative word, at least in the case of his own work. Yet, for reasons I cannot

quite identify, there still seems to be something peculiar about all this: an old

book not updated, a university press, and now The 6th Floor Museum.

Apparently he knows who he is dealing with there, since he tells us, "I

have known and respected Gary Mack for nearly twenty years. We are friends."

Perhaps what bothers me is that The 6th Floor Museum has been criticized

for years for its bias against research and evidence that point in directions

other than that the crime was committed by a lone, demented gunman. Not only

are ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA not carried there, but virtually

none of the books discussed in them are carried there either. Len Osanic, who

maintains a web site on behalf of Fletcher Prouty, who served as a liaison between

the Pentago, the CIA, and The White House during the Kennedy administration, even

maintains a file of complaints about the operation there.

Anyone who would like to review these reactions for themselves is welcome

to visit the file at http://www.prouty.org/boycott.html. The web site itself

holds many attractions, not least of all because Prouty was the basis for the

character "Colonel X" in Oliver's Stone's film "JFK". I find it odd that an

author ostensibly committed to the existence of conspiracy in the death of JFK

would be on such cordial terms with The 6th Floor. Osanic has observed, "That

the book MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is not carried by The 6th Floor only

underscores the fact that this is not a museum but a 'front'". If that is true,

then I guess that would explain it. Consider the evidence and judge for

yourself.

I wrote:

“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.”

You replied:

“But there appears to be no basis for the purported "smear". In particular, you appeal to the occurrence of a "startle response" by Abraham Zapruder that caused the alleged "smear", when even Luis Alvarez did not find any instance in which a "startle response" and a bullet hit took place at the same time. Your suggestion that the shooter was closer to Zapruder is unpersuasive. The bullet was traveling much faster than sound, even if that had been the case. The neurological response itself would have taken time. The hit and the response cannot have happened at the same time. Your argument is clearly based upon a false premise.”

Don Thomas’ chart shows why and how you are wrong:

There is a large horizontal smear in Z 313 that has all the indicia of being the result of a startle reaction on Zapruder’s part. It looks exactly like other smears due to startle reaction. The only difference is that this smear occurs in the same frame that we see impact. Don Thomas has explained how this can only be due to the shot having been fired from less than one hundred feet from Zapruder. Luis Alvarez, a clear exponent of the single gunman view, tried to explain this oddity as due to a shock wave from a bullet fired from the TSBD moving Zapruder’s camera. As Thomas has demonstrated, this is silly. What Thomas has discovered is a fascinating argument that the presence of startle reaction smear and impact in the same frame means that the shot could not have come from the TSBD. I find this a persuasive argument and would be interested in other folks’ views of it. I am totally disinterested in more bombast from you, Professor.

But there is another “smear” in your post, Professor, and it is coming from you. As I pointed out earlier, you have put great energy into getting other folks to see me as “suspect.” This has been your standard response to many other people whom you disagree with. You affirm in your post that you “fingered” me as a “disinformation agent” a decade ago. As I recollect, one of the reasons you used for claiming I was such a “disinformation agent” was that Six Seconds published drawings of frames not photos. I think we all know how silly that is. What you didn’t tell your readers was what happened to you after making that charge. First, David Mantik , Cyril Wecht and Gary Aguilar publicly rebuked you. Then a “Public Statement” was circulated and then signed by Peter Dale Scott, Doug DeSalles, William Turner, Paul Hoch and others. That “Public Statement” reads as follows:

“To David Mantik, Cyril Wecht and Gary Aguilar’s public rebuke of our colleague Jim Fetzer’s behavior, we must regretfully add our own. We agree with David Mantik, when he points out “that public attacks on motives of others.. are biased, prejudicial, counterproductive, and, finally, useless.” We agree with Cyril Wecht when he asks Jim Fetzer to apologize to Tink Thompson and points out that “you do not help our cause.. by publicly attacking one of the most experienced, knowledgeable and respected critics of the Warren Commission Report.” We agree with Gary Aguilar when he states that Jim Fetzer’s “slanderous piece about Tink Thompson has no place on the web site of any credible Warren skeptic” and points out that “Jim has seriously undermined his own credibility with collateral damage that will.. harm me, David Mantik and others who have worked with him.”

“By choosing to insinuate what he dare not say, Jim Fetzer chooses a low road. In so choosing, he hurts not only himself but all of us.”

In the years that have followed the issuance of these public statements in 2000, Fetzer has kept up his toxic refrain that I am some sort of “disinformation agent.” His posts on this site are witness to a repeated effort to make me suspect. However, he has reached a new low in claiming that “Vincent Salandria had already nailed you for that role some thirty years before me!”

The best... and as far as I know the only place... to look for an account of this sad little episode in the history of the critics is John Kelin’s excellent book, Praise from a Future Generation. Kelin wrote the book because Vince Salandria offered to let him go through all Salandria’s correspondence for this period. Given this fact one would expect Kelin to back Salandria’s side of things if there was any conflict. But Kelin didn’t. As in the rest of his book, he took a genuinely scholarly approach and printed all the correspondence about the conflict. Kelin’s account can be found in the Chapters 28 and 20 (“Fatal Ruptures” and “Single-Spaced Letters”) dealing with the internecine battles that developed among the critics in 1967 and 1968. It was in the midst of these battles that Salandria began making claims against me.

Salandria had written the key articles in Liberation Magazine and M.S. Arnoni’s Minority of One exposing the key failures in the Warren Commission’s treatment of the evidence. These early articles are as true today as they were on the day they were written. Salandria and I started working together in the spring of 1966 and made several trips to the Archives together in the summer of that year. We decided to put together an article for publication in a magazine such as Harper’s or The Atlantic Monthly. But Vince didn’t like to write and I did. Hence, by August of that year I had put together a draft that ran 80 to 100 pages. Then we started to disagree about the interpretation of evidence. There were several points of disagreement. The only one I remember is that I was simply not convinced that JFK was hit in the throat from the front. So we abandoned our joint effort and I went forward on my own. Shortly after Six Seconds was published, I began hearing rumors that Salandria was saying I was a government agent. From the correspondence of several people, John Kelin was able to put together a background story that I learned of when I read his book.

Salandria’s suspicions made their way to M.S. Arnoni, the man who had published Salandria in The Minority of One. According the Kelin, “When M.S. Arnoni heard the case against Thompson, he said it was nonsense.” Kelin then goes on to quote Arnoni:

“In my considered judgment, the whole structure of the ‘evidence’ involved is classically psychological, bespeaking Thompson’s pursuits in no way whatsoever, but rather reflecting the frame of mind of whomever begot the suspicion and proceeded to add ‘convincing’ details and deductions.”

In January 1968, Sylvia Meagher wrote, “I cannot take seriously the suggestion that Tink is a CIA plant.” Later that year, Salandria wrote Sylvia claiming that another individual (unnamed by Kelin) was a government agent. Sylvia wrote back: “Epstein, Thompson, Jacob Cohen, William Gurvitch... not unnaturally, then, the cry wolf may not raise any hackles even if a real one is finally in the chicken coop.”

This was a rough time for the critical community. The Garrison disaster was looming and Sylvia

and I stood together against the tide of general endorsement of the New Orleans District Attorney. We drew a lot of flack from other critics. Kelin closes these chapters with the following two paragraphs:

In March 1968, Salandria had written him [Thompson] a letter. ‘I feel that you should know that I consider the data on whether you are a United States government agent or not incomplete, but that I entertain a suspicion at this time that you are,’ he told him [Thompson]. ‘It will be a pleasure to admit to you later, should you do work to rectify the damage which you have done by failing to confront the truth in the assassination, that I have been egregiously wrong about you.’

Thompson wrote back an even shorter reply: he told Salandria he was out of his goddam mind. But that was all right, he [Thompson] said; at times he wondered about his own sanity. ‘But a government agent? Jesus!’”

What do I think of all this? I think Salandria was doing the same thing that Fetzer now is doing... using a profound disagreement as to how to approach the Kennedy assassination to claim someone is a government agent.

What you are trying to do, Professor Fetzer, is transparent. It is also dishonorable and vicious. It has no place in any community of scholarship. In rebutting these charges that are meant to destroy my credibility, I waste not only my time but the time of everyone who has to read this. I hope someone whose opinion you trust will explain to you just how ignoble what you are trying to do appears.

Josiah Thompson

This is very curious. Josiah Thompson is responding to my observation that it would have been physically impossible for the blur and the startle response to have occurred at the same time with a post that affirms that the blur and the startle response could not have occurred at the same time:

On the contrary, it is not possible for the sound to have reached Zapruder's position prior to frame 313 or 314 unless one posits some sort of cartridge anomaly. Moreover, because of the latency in reaction time, the sound has to arrive well before the exposure of frame 313 in order to account for the blur in that frame. In his published analysis, Alvarez acknowledged that it was not possible for the sound of the gunshot to arrive before the end of frame 313. Alvarez offered a different solution. Alvarez conjectured that the sound pressure from the shock wave of the passing bullet could have moved the camera body! Indeed, the sound pressure of the shock wave would have been significant; around 110 deciBels. But, as was the case with the HSCA panel, Alvarez failed to provide calculations in support of his supposition that the shock wave could have arrived in time to account for the jiggle.

We know a lot about Alvarez, by the way. In his chapter in HOAX (2003), David Mantik reports that Alvarez was highly selecting in producing his support for a three-shot scenario, selecting evidence that agreed with a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest. That is not sound science, Josiah!

You observe that, over a decade ago, I fingered you as an agent of disinformation. My statement about you can still be found on assassinationscience.com. That hardly qualifies as discerning on my part, since Vincent Salandria had already nailed you for that role some thirty years before me! I was right then and I am right now.

Consider the following:

(1) in composing SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), you, Josiah Thompson, had unprecedented access to the highest quality versions of the Zapruder film;

(2) that film, as you must know for yourself, displays a massive bulging out of brains to the right-front, which has long since come to be known as "the blob";

(3) the "blob" is not an incidental feature of the representation of the blow-out, but extends from frames 313-316 for more than thirty frames through 338-339;

(4) this massive bulging-out to the right front is inconsistent with the medical evidence, typified by the McClelland drawing and by the testimony of Officer Bobby Hargis;

(5) Gary Aguilar, M.D., collated the testimony of the Parkland physicians, who were consistent about cerebellar and cerebral tissue extruding from the right-rear;

(6) it follows that, even from consideration of the most elementary evidence in this case, that there is a stunning and inescapable conflict between the medical evidence and the film;

(7) SIX SECONDS would have created a sensation and blown the cover-up out of the water had you used your knowledge to expose the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film;

(8) however, in your book, you only provides an opaque sketch of frame 313 and none but the most abstract outline of any of the frames 314, 315, and 316, which meant they were inaccessible for study;

(9) since you published the McClelland diargram and even quote Officer Hargis, you have to have been aware of the conflict, yet you tacitly, implicity, and by omitting discussion minimize it;

(10) this meant that, no matter how blatant the contradiction, the existence of this conflict--in spite of its immense importance--was very difficult to discern based upon your book;

(11) you also introduced your "doubt hit" theory, where JFK was hit in the back of the head 1/9th of a second before he was hit in the right temple by a fangile (or exploding) bullet;

(12) you now maintain that you were wrong, claiming Zapruder experienced a "startle response" that caused a smear on the film at exactly the same moment that the bullet hit;

(13) that, however, is a neurological impossibility, because the bullet travels far faster than sound and it would have taken time for any such "startle response" to occur;

(14) you are now offering an excuse for having been mistaken about your "double hit" hypothesis--which was one of the most striking features of his book--by invoking a phony explanation;

(15) the phoniness of your explanation has now been confirmed by the very sources you cite in attempting to justify your false reasons for repudiating own your previous work;

(16) your pseudo-explanation of why your were wrong does not affect the independent discovery of the same "double hit" by Richard Feynman, a world-famous physicist at CalTech;

(17) there is overwhelming proof that the film is a fabrication, including HOAX (2003), "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery" (2008) and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid" (2009);

(18) film restoration experts have now viewed a 6k version of the film and expressed astonishment at the amateurish quality of the fakery, which includes painting over the massive defect at the back of the head in black and painting in the "blob" and the blood spray;

(19) today at least seven film experts have concurred in this opinion, thereby agreeing with Roderick Ryan, an expect on special effects, who received the academic award in 2000, who explained these things to Noel Twyam, BLOODY TREASON (1998); and,

(20) the chain of custody argument that you have long advanced to defend his claim that the film cannot have been faked--in spite of massive evidence to the contrary--has been shattered by Doug Horne's discover of another copy have been developed in Rochester.

No one likes being played for a sucker, yet you have been playing the world for saps since your book appeared in 1967. Your conduct is utterly disgusting and completely reprehensible. You are now extending your efforts by disavowing or minimizing indications of conspiracy that were included in SIX SECONDS, while you continue your attempts to perpetrate the fraud that the film is authentic.

Your new mission now appears to be to raise concerns about every indication of conspiracy you can reach, including the through-and-through hole in the windshield, the entry wound in the throat, and the "double hit" theory you yourself had previously championed! Your technique is divide-and-conquer, which involves separating different aspects of the case and raising doubts about them.

It will be fascinating to see how you will disavow the back-and-to-the-left motion in the film, which you take to be "unambiguous evidence of a shot from the front". My best guess is that you will admit that, "There was an additional shot from in front, but that--as for the rest--we will never know!” And you will do this with fanfare shortly before the 50th observance of the assassination.

I think we have your number, Tink. It's about time that you came clean and cease your bizarre and malevolent practices.

Jim

Edited January 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

Only a really short reply is required:

(1) I not only gave you the citation to Don Thomas' argument that is at issue her, I copied it out and presented the summary diagram. You simply ignore it. Since his argument is what is in question, why do you continue to just ignore it?

(2) Why is it that you also ignore the other point I raised... specifically that there is no present report from the socalled "Hollywood experts" and it is clear in advance that they are not even studying the best copies available of Zapruder frames. These are available for viewing at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas (see my thread "Where can you see the best copies of Zapruder frames?").

Josiah Thompson

The explanation you have offered for rejecting the double-hit is not even physically possible. I don't quite understand why you don't appreciate that it is acoustically and neurologically impossible for the "startle response" and the hit to have occurred at the same time. If you misdescribed your position and they did not happen at the same time, then there may be more to it. But on its face, it is no explanation at all.

Perhaps the fault lies in reliance upon a fabricated film, but it is not possible that they should have occurred together at the same instant of time. As for other issues, I am dumbfounded that you are unwilling to accept Doug Horne's report in Vol. IV about the observations made by a group of Hollywood film experts. As many as seven -- eight, actually, if we count Roderick Ryan -- have concluded the film is an amateurish fake.

Would you concede that if Doug's report is accurate -- and they found that the blow-out to the back of head has been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray have been painted in -- then you have been wrong and the film is a fabrication, after all? There is no reason to think Doug -- whose background is in history -- has not told us exactly what they found. But would you make this concession at least conditionally?

Would you agree that, if what Doug has reported to have been their professional opinions -- the expert judgments -- of the shabby and amateurish alteration of the film by painting over the massive defect to the back of the head and painting in the "blob" and the blood spray, then -- in spite of all of your protestations to the contrary in the past -- would you then finally concede that the case has been proven by simple and direct evidence?

Professor,

In post after post, you evidence the fact that you have not even read the section from Don Thomas. You say that I "exploit" the work of Luis Alvarez when just opposite is true. Thomas explains the great importance of the impact and smear occuring in the same frame. He gives the numbers and the calculations. You continue to pay no attention to this important argument. Thomas also explains why Luis Alvarez's attempt to explain the simultuneity of the two is silly. Your response is to say that I "exploit" Luis Alvarez. This is even sillier.

Also silly is your emphasis on the unknown results soon to be forthcoming from Hollywood. You write:

"Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports that seven Hollywood film experts have viewed the 6k version and concluded that the film is a fake: the blow-out to the rear of the head was painted over in black and the "blob" and the blood spray were painted in, precisely as Roderick Ryan had explained to Noel Twyman, BLOODY REASON (1998), which you continued to obscure and obfuscate."

First off, we don't know what these experts are going to say. Second, we do know that they are not even looking at the best copy of the Zapruder film available for such a study (see my thread, "Where can you see the best copies of Zapruder frames?")

You continue to prattle on claiming that I don't answer your questions when it's clear you don't either read or understand an answer when it's given.

Josiah Thompso

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Stop ducking and weaving, running and hiding! All we want to know is (1) where do you stand on the medical evidence in relation to the Zapruder film today (the issue you did not confront in your book) and (2) if Doug Horne's summary of the eight Hollywood experts is accurate, then would you concede that the film is a fake and that you were mistaken all along? Do you have the guts?

For reasons I do not profess to understand, Evan Burton closed the thread about whether Josiah Thompson had ripped off David Lifton at precisely the point where it became most interesting. In a post that Evan put up for him, Lifton has made three very important points about his position, which afford an excellent opportunity to distinguish between Lifton's, Josiah's and my positions in relation to these three very important points. Lifton's comments are given in italics:

1. I never subscribed to the double-head hit theory, so obviously i never made the charge that Josiah Thompson ripped me off or did anything wrong in that regards. FYI: from the outset, I had a different explanation for the small forward motion between Z- 312 and Z-313 (I postulated a forward high angle shot, and you will find that elaborated in Best Evidence); and I also wrote a paper about it that was published in the Paul Hoch anthology.

I know that David Lifton does not subscribe to the double-head hit theory because he does not believe that shots were fired from behind. This is as fascinating as Robert Livingston's observation to James Humes that, because there was an entry wound to the throat, the neck had to be dissected very carefully, because, if there were evidence of shots from behind, then there had to have been at least two shooters and therefore a conspiracy, which took place before the body arrived at Andrews Air Force Base (ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, pages 170 to 182).

I did not cite Richard Feynman's discovery of the double-hit because I thought (a) that David Lifton accepted it or ( because I thought Josiah Thompson had stolen it. I did not intend to convey that impression. My point was that it is very odd that Josiah should be disavowing what most of us considered to be the most scientific argument in his book, which he has done by appealing to false premises. He disavows it on the basis of the argument that the "startle response" and the hit took place at the same time, which is a physical impossibility.

Lifton's visit to Feynman at CalTech is described on pages 48 to 51 of BEST EVIDENCE (1980). That Josiah Thompson should have made such a thorough and precise study of this double-hit, when Feyman had made the same discovery independently, was entirely convincing to me that the double-hit is present in the film. Because of his commitment to authenticity of the film, therefore, it strains credulity to suppose that both Feynman and Thompson should be mistaken about this, which I do not accept. Yet today Josiah wants to disavow it.

2. More about the 312-313 motion: After I came to realize that the car stop had been removed and the Z film had been edited, I had (that is, "subscribed to") an entirely different explanation for the 312-313 motion: that it was nothing more than an artifact of the editing process. In other words, 312 and 313 was not contiguous on the original (i.e. unedited) film. That was my position then, and it continues to be my belief today.

David Mantik has concluded that both the double-hit and the back-and-to-the-left motion of the body are artifacts of the editing of the film, which, of course, are further reasons for doubting its authenticity. David Lifton, too, has long since concluded that the film is a fabrication and that, as he observes here, frames 312 and 313 were not continuous in time. It is my inference that the frame represents a merge between two shots, which were combined to create the impression of only one shot to the head, but where the fakery involved was highly amateurish.

Indeed, as I suppose we all know by now, Doug Horne enlisted the abilities of technical experts on film restoration from Hollywood, where they viewed a 6k version of the film -- a digitalized copy at 6,000 pixels per frame -- and they were stunned by the feeble quality of the alteration, where the massive blow-out to the back of the head was painted over in black and the bulging brains to the right-front -- the "blob" -- and the blood spray were painted in, precisely as Roderick Ryan had explained to Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), pages 159 to 160.

Since Twyman, Lifton, and Mantik are convinced that the film is a fabrication -- based upon extensive independent investigation -- they have ample grounds to suspect that the double-hit is only an artifact of the alternation of the film. But that option is unavailable to Josiah Thompson, who persists in his defense of the film's authenticity. That is what makes me so perplexed by his present attempt to deny the double-hit, which Feynman had discovered in 1966 and Thompson had -- presumably, independently -- established in SIX SECONDS (1967).

3. Yes, I was irritated when the Saturday Evening Post ran that headline, in the December, 1967 issue, about "three assassin", but so what? I did not consider that a ripoff. Subsequently, Josiah Thompson was very helpful in providing me transcripts of his interviews with Sitzman etc., and certain films. He was very helpful. I want to emphasize again that I never subscribed to the double head-hit theory.So allegations that someone stole it from me is inappropriate and unfair to Thompson.

On pages 86 through 90, Josiah explains that he traveled to the National Archives to test Vincent Salandria's observation that the President's head was driven backward and to the left under the impact of a bullet fired from the right front. He describes setting up parallel projectors in order to superimpose one frame upon another. And that, with the assistance of a young physics student, Bill Hoffman, he was able to measure the motions -- both forward and backward -- with great precision. And on pages 90 through 95, he defends his double-hit analysis from alternative explanations.

In particular, he considers alternative (A1) that the President's head perhaps struck some fixed surface in the car, thus reversing its direction in travel. But the film reveals no such fixed surface. He considers alternative (A2) that Jackie had pulled the president into her arms after the impact, thus accounting for the left-backward snap. But the film shows no movement on her part to grab him and, as he observes, her failure to pull him down was a source of torment to her for the rest of her life. So that alternative can be excluded, too.

That left alternative (A3) that the car suddenly accelerated or decelerated during this time, thus throwing the President either forward or backward. But this he rules out on the basis that witnesses did not report the limousine accelerating until after the head shot. "The combined testimony of all these witnesses indicates that the car did not accelerate until some 3 seconds after the President was struck in the head. And the Zapruder film sows conclusively that no acceleration or deceleration occurred in this critical period" (SIX SECONDS, page 92).

Now if Josiah would accept the massive evidence that impugns the authenticity of the film, I would have no problem with his recent attempts to disavow it. But -- given Feynman's discovery of the double-hit, Josiah's meticulous study (with graphs) of its occurrence, and his elimination of alternative explanations -- so long as he maintains the authenticity of the film, he has no basis to reject it. Indeed, it appears to be the strongest indication of conspiracy presented in his book -- and his attempt to reject it has no foundation. So what is going on here?

I would be very glad if this thread will draw him out to explain where he stands today on the conflict between the medical evidence and the Zapruder film (as I have explained in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"), which he did not address in SIX SECONDS; and where he stands given the very simple and direct proof of fabrication by seven or eight -- including Roderick Ryan -- film experts. Since he has recently denied that he is an expert on film, would he at least concede that, if Doug's reports are accurate, then the film is a fake, after all?

Only a really short reply is required:

(1) I not only gave you the citation to Don Thomas' argument that is at issue her, I copied it out and presented the summary diagram. You simply ignore it. Since his argument is what is in question, why do you continue to just ignore it?

(2) Why is it that you also ignore the other point I raised... specifically that there is no present report from the socalled "Hollywood experts" and it is clear in advance that they are not even studying the best copies available of Zapruder frames. These are available for viewing at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas (see my thread "Where can you see the best copies of Zapruder frames?").

Josiah Thompson

The explanation you have offered for rejecting the double-hit is not even physically possible. I don't quite understand why you don't appreciate that it is acoustically and neurologically impossible for the "startle response" and the hit to have occurred at the same time. If you misdescribed your position and they did not happen at the same time, then there may be more to it. But on its face, it is no explanation at all.

Perhaps the fault lies in reliance upon a fabricated film, but it is not possible that they should have occurred together at the same instant of time. As for other issues, I am dumbfounded that you are unwilling to accept Doug Horne's report in Vol. IV about the observations made by a group of Hollywood film experts. As many as seven -- eight, actually, if we count Roderick Ryan -- have concluded the film is an amateurish fake.

Would you concede that if Doug's report is accurate -- and they found that the blow-out to the back of head has been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray have been painted in -- then you have been wrong and the film is a fabrication, after all? There is no reason to think Doug -- whose background is in history -- has not told us exactly what they found. But would you make this concession at least conditionally?

Would you agree that, if what Doug has reported to have been their professional opinions -- the expert judgments -- of the shabby and amateurish alteration of the film by painting over the massive defect to the back of the head and painting in the "blob" and the blood spray, then -- in spite of all of your protestations to the contrary in the past -- would you then finally concede that the case has been proven by simple and direct evidence?

Professor,

In post after post, you evidence the fact that you have not even read the section from Don Thomas. You say that I "exploit" the work of Luis Alvarez when just opposite is true. Thomas explains the great importance of the impact and smear occuring in the same frame. He gives the numbers and the calculations. You continue to pay no attention to this important argument. Thomas also explains why Luis Alvarez's attempt to explain the simultuneity of the two is silly. Your response is to say that I "exploit" Luis Alvarez. This is even sillier.

Also silly is your emphasis on the unknown results soon to be forthcoming from Hollywood. You write:

"Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports that seven Hollywood film experts have viewed the 6k version and concluded that the film is a fake: the blow-out to the rear of the head was painted over in black and the "blob" and the blood spray were painted in, precisely as Roderick Ryan had explained to Noel Twyman, BLOODY REASON (1998), which you continued to obscure and obfuscate."

First off, we don't know what these experts are going to say. Second, we do know that they are not even looking at the best copy of the Zapruder film available for such a study (see my thread, "Where can you see the best copies of Zapruder frames?")

You continue to prattle on claiming that I don't answer your questions when it's clear you don't either read or understand an answer when it's given.

Josiah Thompso

Edited January 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Karl Kinaski]

Hello Doug!

It's nice to meet you even if it is only electronic -

I appreciate your taking the effort to point out that you didn't mean anything personal in your analysis of the article and I truly appreciate the fact that you didn't need to know what we were all doing in 1967 before you could look at the evidence we presented. But wouldn't you say that "dishonest" is just a little extreme? It implies that you had access to our states of mind and we set out to foist untruth on an unknowing public. Maybe we were "hopelessly confused", "profoundly mistaken", and "blindly wrong" like Pamela, but dishonest? That's kind of harsh, isn't it?

Seriously, I do appreciate your comments. I'm going to check your transcript so I'm sure there'll be more. I just wanted to address your main example here - the question of a police cordon at Parkland.

As you know, the situation evolved at Parkland. The photo record shows that early on there was confusion as officers moved some, but not all civilians away from limousine. Eventually however, there was a perimeter. And what was particularly important for us was that at the time of the perimeter Glanges said she was standing with her arm/hand? resting on the automobile. For us at least, that called her credibility into question.

Really, honestly - no deception. That's what I believe. So if I'm mistaken it's because I'm simple minded, like Pamela. Not because I'm dishonest.

Best to you,

Jerry

Parkland Hospital 22.11.1963, 1.26 p.m

quote Crenshaw "Trauma Room One", p. 80

When I (Crenshaw) walked into the hall, Evalea Glanges, a medical student, was standing by the nurses station. She told me a most peculiar story. While we had been working on President Kennedy, she was outside in the emergency parking lot. Standing beside the President`s Limousine, she pointed out to another medical student that there was a bullet hole in the windshield."

Close Quote.

Now, Mr. Logan: Evalea Glanges a xxxx, Crenshaw M.D a xxxx too? Conspirators? Forgers of "the whole in the windshield?"

KK

Edited January 9, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[Karl Kinaski]

Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?

Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.

Again, the best to you,

Jerry

Within the emergency parking lot, prior to the washing of the limo(sic) and the rebuilding of the limo-top, the limo was driven from one spot to another. Maybe Ms Glanges saw the whole at the first spot, not the (guarded) one shown in the picture?

KK

[Jerry Logan]

Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?

Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.

Again, the best to you,

Jerry

Jerry:

Dishonest was perhaps too strong of a word and for that I apologize and I appeciate your humility that you may have been confused, mistaken or wrong. I do think that Martin's analysis should have been placed on the sites where the article posted. I do not know you or Barb and the one time I met Josiah I made the mistake of mentioning Jim's name and I incurred his wrath for several minutes. I outlined my concerns in my prior post and I continue to have them. I am not aware of any witnesses viewing the hole from the rear of the limo. I am curious who the odd woman shown in your picture in front of the limo is .There are pictures of the parked limo showing MANY people in front of the limo. I asked Glanges about the limo being cordoned off. It wasn't "moments" but it was also not later in the day. The impression I got was it would have been about 20-30 minutes. However, the people who were there by the vehicle were not placed behind the cordoned off area. They may have been asked to step back but once the Secret Service moved away it was easy for people to step back next to the limo. Glanges would have been inconspicuous and would have had a right to be at the hospital entrance. She was with another person, who in 1999 was still a physician, but was afraid to speak. I have a 90 percent certainty who that person was. Dr Glanges was a no-nonsense person and well respected thus it troubled me that it was suggested that there was something sinister or suspect about her and that Thompson was going to investigate her. I had no problem with that but I had a problem with not reporting back and leaving this "cloud" about her integrity. One would have to ask, as with many of the witnesses, what would have been her motivation for fabricating a story. Did they capitalize it in any way? I thought Nigel Turner and myself were the only ones that had spoken to her but I recently learned that the authors of "Murder Within" may have also talked with her. She, like the others, never sought publicity. I communicated with her sister after her death. I hope you listen to my interview on Black Op radio. It is not a transcript but an audio response. I care deeply about the truth. I have changed my mind about some small details over the years but nothing of substance. The evidence has gotten stronger and I am grateful you brought the Charles Taylor evidence forward. I do believe you made the mistake of taking some evidence from some unreliable sites and used such to buttress your position.

My best,

Doug

Doug,

No problem about the language. The rhetoric gets rough here at times and goes a little further than most people intend or at least would say face-to-face.

You're one up on me re: Barb and Josiah. I've never actually seen either of them. It's amazing what the internet lets us do!

First, about Martin Hinrichs on the windshield. I solicited Martin's comments after the article was posted here and at Lancer. Several people had doubts about John Hunt's analysis of the windshield cracks and I knew Martin to be a graphics professional with a conspiracy inclination. In my experience Martin has a very sharp eye and gives straight answers even when they're not convenient for him. Since you've read the thread you know that he doesn't think the windshield cracks match. However, in the course of our discussions it also became clear that there were many complications related to camera orientation and the fact that the FBI photos were from the front while the other photos were taken from the rear. It also became clear that the cracks and shadows of the cracks appeared differently depending on what material was behind them at the time of the photo and particularly when the photo exposure settings were changed. John Hunt was also kind enough to send me some additional high resolution scans which appeared to match the FBI photos and two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction. So our (or at least my) intent is to go to the NARA and try to get negative scans of all the materials and give it another try. At that time, whatever the outcome, I'll certainly make the results known. Until then, Martin's thread at Duncan MacRae's excellent jfkassassination forum has been discussed here and at Lancer and I think everyone who cares is aware of it. h**p://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,813.0.html

Second, Dr. Glanges. I appreciate that you've had an opportunity to observe here demeanor and that is an important piece of information. Even with that, I still doubt the accuracy of her account. Basically, I find it highly implausible in light of what we know to be true of Parkland at that time. The key is the group photo I posted. As Jim and Jack White have pointed out, the photo portrays the scene at the hospital relatively late in the game. Earlier, the police and Secret Service cordon was not well established and lots of people may have gotten close to the limousine.

However, Dr. Glanges was quite clear that her encounter with the limousine must have occurred after this photo because she says the limousine violently pulled away while she was touching the car. Of course, the limousine is still there in the photo - therefore her account must be that she observed and physically touched the limousine after this photo was taken. That is extremely hard to believe. As Jim noted, there is no one in front of the car at this point and the the final police and Secret Service guards are falling into place. Additionally, you'll notice that the medical personal are not in the emergency bay but segregated into two distinct clumps well away from the limousine. And, while it would certainly be usual for medical personnel to have access to the emergency bay, the emergency entrance to Parkland was closed shortly after the President's arrival and therefore no legitimate excuse existed for any hospital personnel to occupy that position.

Now, according to Dr. Glanges, not one but two people walk up to the limousine and at least one of them actually puts her hand on the car. No one tries to stop them and no one warns them away. Instead of saying something like "step back" or "get away from the car " security waits until she starts talking about a hole in the windshield and then a security man jumps in the car and drives off so violently that her hand is almost injured. Jim posted a very apt description of what the police and Secret Service were actually doing. He quoted Livingstone about Dudman, "... When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle..."

The short version is this:

1) It's highly unlikely that she or any one else could have gotten close to the limousine at the time she says she did

2) It's hard to believe that two people strolled up to the vehicle and laid hands on it and no one said a word about it

3) It's hard to accept that security responded to her by leaping in the car and racing off instead of just telling her to get lost or physically moving her away

4) It must have been very hard on the people standing behind the limousine when it suddenly and unexpectedly lurched toward them

5) I would have thought that someone getting in the car, starting the engine and shifting into reverse would have given her enough time to move her hand

Do I think that Dr. Glanges is lying? No. But to me, based on my experience with witnesses, her account shows all the signs of dramatic enhancement. I'm sure she saw the limousine and I'm sure she thought she saw a bullet hole. But it's so much more interesting to remember she got close and touched the car and caused a dramatic escape from the scene. Also, Her association with Dr. Creshaw may have influenced her memory. As you know, the first public account of her encounter was in the 1992 Crenshaw book JFK:Conspiracy of Silence. Dr. Glanges had followed Dr. Crenshaw to John Peter Smith Hospital where he was chairman of the Surgery Department. The same year that Conspiracy was published, Dr. Glanges succeeded Crenshaw as Department Chair. To be clear, I'm not suggesting a quid pro quo or any type of wrong doing. Simply that an enhanced, dramatic version often results when two old friends are hashing over their shared past.

Also, in terms of the dramatic, I have reservations about the second person who is afraid to speak. That does sound very dramatic, but when Dr. Glanges spoke with you seven years had passed since her public declaration of what transpired at Parkland on November 22, 1963. Yet, from all outward indications, she had prospered. She was a respected professional and a well-known and well-liked community leader. She was a department head at her hospital. What, exactly, does this second person fear? Dr. Glanges told her story and seemed to do all right after she told it. No mystery death, no professional disappointments and social prominence in her city. That doesn't seem like a heavy price to pay for speaking truth to power.

There you have it. I'm sure you'll find many flaws but I hope you'll agree that it's a reasoned position and not just a "smear at any cost" approach.

Also - a heads up. As you can tell from the Taylor information, I like digging. There's a lot of really interesting information in plain sight. In any case, I believe there's news footage of the limousine leaving Parkland!

(And no, it's not from Gary Mack.) With any luck it will show the departure from the emergency bay and we'll know for sure if Dr. Glanges was there. So far I've only seen an index that lists "JFK limousine leaving Parkland Hospital". I'm hoping to get into the actual archives before March. I'll keep you updated and let you know one way or the other.

Best to you,

Jerry

[Karl Kinaski]

Doug,

No problem about the language. The rhetoric gets rough here at times and goes a little further than most people intend or at least would say face-to-face.

You're one up on me re: Barb and Josiah. I've never actually seen either of them. It's amazing what the internet lets us do!

First, about Martin Hinrichs on the windshield. I solicited Martin's comments after the article was posted here and at Lancer. Several people had doubts about John Hunt's analysis of the windshield cracks and I knew Martin to be a graphics professional with a conspiracy inclination. In my experience Martin has a very sharp eye and gives straight answers even when they're not convenient for him. Since you've read the thread you know that he doesn't think the windshield cracks match. However, in the course of our discussions it also became clear that there were many complications related to camera orientation and the fact that the FBI photos were from the front while the other photos were taken from the rear. It also became clear that the cracks and shadows of the cracks appeared differently depending on what material was behind them at the time of the photo and particularly when the photo exposure settings were changed. John Hunt was also kind enough to send me some additional high resolution scans which appeared to match the FBI photos and two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction. So our (or at least my) intent is to go to the NARA and try to get negative scans of all the materials and give it another try. At that time, whatever the outcome, I'll certainly make the results known. Until then, Martin's thread at Duncan MacRae's excellent jfkassassination forum has been discussed here and at Lancer and I think everyone who cares is aware of it. h**p://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,813.0.html

Second, Dr. Glanges. I appreciate that you've had an opportunity to observe here demeanor and that is an important piece of information. Even with that, I still doubt the accuracy of her account. Basically, I find it highly implausible in light of what we know to be true of Parkland at that time. The key is the group photo I posted. As Jim and Jack White have pointed out, the photo portrays the scene at the hospital relatively late in the game. Earlier, the police and Secret Service cordon was not well established and lots of people may have gotten close to the limousine.

However, Dr. Glanges was quite clear that her encounter with the limousine must have occurred after this photo because she says the limousine violently pulled away while she was touching the car. Of course, the limousine is still there in the photo - therefore her account must be that she observed and physically touched the limousine after this photo was taken. That is extremely hard to believe. As Jim noted, there is no one in front of the car at this point and the the final police and Secret Service guards are falling into place. Additionally, you'll notice that the medical personal are not in the emergency bay but segregated into two distinct clumps well away from the limousine. And, while it would certainly be usual for medical personnel to have access to the emergency bay, the emergency entrance to Parkland was closed shortly after the President's arrival and therefore no legitimate excuse existed for any hospital personnel to occupy that position.

Now, according to Dr. Glanges, not one but two people walk up to the limousine and at least one of them actually puts her hand on the car. No one tries to stop them and no one warns them away. Instead of saying something like "step back" or "get away from the car " security waits until she starts talking about a hole in the windshield and then a security man jumps in the car and drives off so violently that her hand is almost injured. Jim posted a very apt description of what the police and Secret Service were actually doing. He quoted Livingstone about Dudman, "... When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle..."

The short version is this:

1) It's highly unlikely that she or any one else could have gotten close to the limousine at the time she says she did

2) It's hard to believe that two people strolled up to the vehicle and laid hands on it and no one said a word about it

3) It's hard to accept that security responded to her by leaping in the car and racing off instead of just telling her to get lost or physically moving her away

4) It must have been very hard on the people standing behind the limousine when it suddenly and unexpectedly lurched toward them

5) I would have thought that someone getting in the car, starting the engine and shifting into reverse would have given her enough time to move her hand

Do I think that Dr. Glanges is lying? No. But to me, based on my experience with witnesses, her account shows all the signs of dramatic enhancement. I'm sure she saw the limousine and I'm sure she thought she saw a bullet hole. But it's so much more interesting to remember she got close and touched the car and caused a dramatic escape from the scene. Also, Her association with Dr. Creshaw may have influenced her memory. As you know, the first public account of her encounter was in the 1992 Crenshaw book JFK:Conspiracy of Silence. Dr. Glanges had followed Dr. Crenshaw to John Peter Smith Hospital where he was chairman of the Surgery Department. The same year that Conspiracy was published, Dr. Glanges succeeded Crenshaw as Department Chair. To be clear, I'm not suggesting a quid pro quo or any type of wrong doing. Simply that an enhanced, dramatic version often results when two old friends are hashing over their shared past.

Also, in terms of the dramatic, I have reservations about the second person who is afraid to speak. That does sound very dramatic, but when Dr. Glanges spoke with you seven years had passed since her public declaration of what transpired at Parkland on November 22, 1963. Yet, from all outward indications, she had prospered. She was a respected professional and a well-known and well-liked community leader. She was a department head at her hospital. What, exactly, does this second person fear? Dr. Glanges told her story and seemed to do all right after she told it. No mystery death, no professional disappointments and social prominence in her city. That doesn't seem like a heavy price to pay for speaking truth to power.

There you have it. I'm sure you'll find many flaws but I hope you'll agree that it's a reasoned position and not just a "smear at any cost" approach.

Also - a heads up. As you can tell from the Taylor information, I like digging. There's a lot of really interesting information in plain sight. In any case, I believe there's news footage of the limousine leaving Parkland!

(And no, it's not from Gary Mack.) With any luck it will show the departure from the emergency bay and we'll know for sure if Dr. Glanges was there. So far I've only seen an index that lists "JFK limousine leaving Parkland Hospital". I'm hoping to get into the actual archives before March. I'll keep you updated and let you know one way or the other.

Best to you,

Jerry

For J. Logan the bullet hole in the windshield is a product of Evalea Glanges fantasy... this reasoning is rabulistic quibble...

Parkland Hospital 22.11.1963, 1.26 p.m

quote Crenshaw "Trauma Room One", p. 80

When I (Crenshaw) walked into the hall, Evalea Glanges, a medical student, was standing by the nurses station. She told me a most peculiar story. While we had been working on President Kennedy, she was outside in the emergency parking lot. Standing beside the President`s Limousine, she pointed out to another medical student that there was a bullet hole in the windshield."

Close Quote.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[Jerry Logan]

Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?

Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.

Again, the best to you,

Jerry

Jerry...since this is an OPEN FORUM, I will take the liberty of replying (instead of only one person, as you suggest).

In the photo you show, the "spiral nebula" effect is hidden behind the sun visor.

Jack

Thank you Mr. White. You may have missed my point which was that from the rear there may appear to be a bullet hole just above the metal near the bottom of the glass.

However, that does raise an interesting point.

1) You and Jim are deeply committed to the "spiral nebula" and its location is well known.

2) You and Jim often rely on eyewitness testimony to impeach the photographic record - particularly the Zapruder film.

Yet, two of the eyewitness repeatedly cited for a bullet hole in the windshield don't place the bullet hole anywhere near the "spiral nebula"

From Jim Fetzer citing Livingstone on Dudman ..."there was a through-and-through hole in the upper left margin of the windshield."

From Larry Sneed on Officer Stavis Ellis...."To the right of where the driver was, just above the metal near the bottom of the glass there appeared to be a bullet hole."

So I'm wondering how the "spiral nebula" managed to find its way to "just above the metal near the bottom of the glass."

Why are you telling us where the bullet hole is when Officer Ellis, who was there, has already told us it wasn't anywhere near the "spiral nebula"?

And if the bullet hole is where the eyewitness places it, doesn't that mean that whatever the "spiral nebula" is, it isn't a bullet hole prior to Zapruder 255?

Jerry

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jerry, I'll bite. Let me begin by observing that Doug Weldon's appearance on blackopradio.com is available in the show's archives at http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html show #451, where we can draw from it. I expect it will be invaluable. For my edification, do you have ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)? Because I will be citing references from all three, especially pages 161 to 175 of the first, pages 129 to 158 of the second, and page 436 of the third.

Are we in agreement that three windshields are involved: (1) the one on the car in the plaza, which was photographed by Altgens; (2) the new windshield that was installed by Ford when it dismantled and rebuilt the limousine; and (3) another windshield produced by the Secret Service, which it claimed was on the limousine in the plaza? If that claim were true, then (1) and (3) would have to be the same windshield. You can find photos of (1) and (3) on pages 149 and 157 of MURDER and on page 436 of HOAX, but (2) is not shown. OK?

Moreover, I take it that differences in some of the descriptions of the precise location of the windshield in by Bob Livingston or Richard Dudman, for example, do not show that there was no through-and-through hole in the windshield and that we are going to employ inference to the best explanation, where the hypothesis which, if true, confers the highest probability on the evidence is more likely to be true than its alternatives, where we are entitled to adopt the most likely explanation as true when sufficient evidence becomes available. OK?

Accepting an hypothesis as true in the sense of science, however, is always tentative and fallible, insofar as as the acquisition of new evidence or new hypotheses may lead us to reject previously accepted hypotheses, accept previously rejected ones, and leave in suspense others we previously accepted or rejected. And I also assume that the convergence of multiple lines of proof involving testimonial, photographic, medical and even acoustical evidence will be among the strongest indications of truth in a matter of this kind. Are we in agreement?

Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?

Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.

Again, the best to you,

Jerry

Jerry...since this is an OPEN FORUM, I will take the liberty of replying (instead of only one person, as you suggest).

In the photo you show, the "spiral nebula" effect is hidden behind the sun visor.

Jack

Thank you Mr. White. You may have missed my point which was that from the rear there may appear to be a bullet hole just above the metal near the bottom of the glass.

However, that does raise an interesting point.

1) You and Jim are deeply committed to the "spiral nebula" and its location is well known.

2) You and Jim often rely on eyewitness testimony to impeach the photographic record - particularly the Zapruder film.

Yet, two of the eyewitness repeatedly cited for a bullet hole in the windshield don't place the bullet hole anywhere near the "spiral nebula"

From Jim Fetzer citing Livingstone on Dudman ..."there was a through-and-through hole in the upper left margin of the windshield."

From Larry Sneed on Officer Stavis Ellis...."To the right of where the driver was, just above the metal near the bottom of the glass there appeared to be a bullet hole."

So I'm wondering how the "spiral nebula" managed to find its way to "just above the metal near the bottom of the glass."

Why are you telling us where the bullet hole is when Officer Ellis, who was there, has already told us it wasn't anywhere near the "spiral nebula"?

And if the bullet hole is where the eyewitness places it, doesn't that mean that whatever the "spiral nebula" is, it isn't a bullet hole prior to Zapruder 255?

Jerry

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Doug Weldon]

Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?

Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.

Again, the best to you,

Jerry

Jerry:

Dishonest was perhaps too strong of a word and for that I apologize and I appeciate your humility that you may have been confused, mistaken or wrong. I do think that Martin's analysis should have been placed on the sites where the article posted. I do not know you or Barb and the one time I met Josiah I made the mistake of mentioning Jim's name and I incurred his wrath for several minutes. I outlined my concerns in my prior post and I continue to have them. I am not aware of any witnesses viewing the hole from the rear of the limo. I am curious who the odd woman shown in your picture in front of the limo is .There are pictures of the parked limo showing MANY people in front of the limo. I asked Glanges about the limo being cordoned off. It wasn't "moments" but it was also not later in the day. The impression I got was it would have been about 20-30 minutes. However, the people who were there by the vehicle were not placed behind the cordoned off area. They may have been asked to step back but once the Secret Service moved away it was easy for people to step back next to the limo. Glanges would have been inconspicuous and would have had a right to be at the hospital entrance. She was with another person, who in 1999 was still a physician, but was afraid to speak. I have a 90 percent certainty who that person was. Dr Glanges was a no-nonsense person and well respected thus it troubled me that it was suggested that there was something sinister or suspect about her and that Thompson was going to investigate her. I had no problem with that but I had a problem with not reporting back and leaving this "cloud" about her integrity. One would have to ask, as with many of the witnesses, what would have been her motivation for fabricating a story. Did they capitalize it in any way? I thought Nigel Turner and myself were the only ones that had spoken to her but I recently learned that the authors of "Murder Within" may have also talked with her. She, like the others, never sought publicity. I communicated with her sister after her death. I hope you listen to my interview on Black Op radio. It is not a transcript but an audio response. I care deeply about the truth. I have changed my mind about some small details over the years but nothing of substance. The evidence has gotten stronger and I am grateful you brought the Charles Taylor evidence forward. I do believe you made the mistake of taking some evidence from some unreliable sites and used such to buttress your position.

My best,

Doug

Doug,

No problem about the language. The rhetoric gets rough here at times and goes a little further than most people intend or at least would say face-to-face.

You're one up on me re: Barb and Josiah. I've never actually seen either of them. It's amazing what the internet lets us do!

First, about Martin Hinrichs on the windshield. I solicited Martin's comments after the article was posted here and at Lancer. Several people had doubts about John Hunt's analysis of the windshield cracks and I knew Martin to be a graphics professional with a conspiracy inclination. In my experience Martin has a very sharp eye and gives straight answers even when they're not convenient for him. Since you've read the thread you know that he doesn't think the windshield cracks match. However, in the course of our discussions it also became clear that there were many complications related to camera orientation and the fact that the FBI photos were from the front while the other photos were taken from the rear. It also became clear that the cracks and shadows of the cracks appeared differently depending on what material was behind them at the time of the photo and particularly when the photo exposure settings were changed. John Hunt was also kind enough to send me some additional high resolution scans which appeared to match the FBI photos and two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction. So our (or at least my) intent is to go to the NARA and try to get negative scans of all the materials and give it another try. At that time, whatever the outcome, I'll certainly make the results known. Until then, Martin's thread at Duncan MacRae's excellent jfkassassination forum has been discussed here and at Lancer and I think everyone who cares is aware of it. h**p://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,813.0.html

Second, Dr. Glanges. I appreciate that you've had an opportunity to observe here demeanor and that is an important piece of information. Even with that, I still doubt the accuracy of her account. Basically, I find it highly implausible in light of what we know to be true of Parkland at that time. The key is the group photo I posted. As Jim and Jack White have pointed out, the photo portrays the scene at the hospital relatively late in the game. Earlier, the police and Secret Service cordon was not well established and lots of people may have gotten close to the limousine.

However, Dr. Glanges was quite clear that her encounter with the limousine must have occurred after this photo because she says the limousine violently pulled away while she was touching the car. Of course, the limousine is still there in the photo - therefore her account must be that she observed and physically touched the limousine after this photo was taken. That is extremely hard to believe. As Jim noted, there is no one in front of the car at this point and the the final police and Secret Service guards are falling into place. Additionally, you'll notice that the medical personal are not in the emergency bay but segregated into two distinct clumps well away from the limousine. And, while it would certainly be usual for medical personnel to have access to the emergency bay, the emergency entrance to Parkland was closed shortly after the President's arrival and therefore no legitimate excuse existed for any hospital personnel to occupy that position.

Now, according to Dr. Glanges, not one but two people walk up to the limousine and at least one of them actually puts her hand on the car. No one tries to stop them and no one warns them away. Instead of saying something like "step back" or "get away from the car " security waits until she starts talking about a hole in the windshield and then a security man jumps in the car and drives off so violently that her hand is almost injured. Jim posted a very apt description of what the police and Secret Service were actually doing. He quoted Livingstone about Dudman, "... When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle..."

The short version is this:

1) It's highly unlikely that she or any one else could have gotten close to the limousine at the time she says she did

2) It's hard to believe that two people strolled up to the vehicle and laid hands on it and no one said a word about it

3) It's hard to accept that security responded to her by leaping in the car and racing off instead of just telling her to get lost or physically moving her away

4) It must have been very hard on the people standing behind the limousine when it suddenly and unexpectedly lurched toward them

5) I would have thought that someone getting in the car, starting the engine and shifting into reverse would have given her enough time to move her hand

Do I think that Dr. Glanges is lying? No. But to me, based on my experience with witnesses, her account shows all the signs of dramatic enhancement. I'm sure she saw the limousine and I'm sure she thought she saw a bullet hole. But it's so much more interesting to remember she got close and touched the car and caused a dramatic escape from the scene. Also, Her association with Dr. Creshaw may have influenced her memory. As you know, the first public account of her encounter was in the 1992 Crenshaw book JFK:Conspiracy of Silence. Dr. Glanges had followed Dr. Crenshaw to John Peter Smith Hospital where he was chairman of the Surgery Department. The same year that Conspiracy was published, Dr. Glanges succeeded Crenshaw as Department Chair. To be clear, I'm not suggesting a quid pro quo or any type of wrong doing. Simply that an enhanced, dramatic version often results when two old friends are hashing over their shared past.

Also, in terms of the dramatic, I have reservations about the second person who is afraid to speak. That does sound very dramatic, but when Dr. Glanges spoke with you seven years had passed since her public declaration of what transpired at Parkland on November 22, 1963. Yet, from all outward indications, she had prospered. She was a respected professional and a well-known and well-liked community leader. She was a department head at her hospital. What, exactly, does this second person fear? Dr. Glanges told her story and seemed to do all right after she told it. No mystery death, no professional disappointments and social prominence in her city. That doesn't seem like a heavy price to pay for speaking truth to power.

There you have it. I'm sure you'll find many flaws but I hope you'll agree that it's a reasoned position and not just a "smear at any cost" approach.

Also - a heads up. As you can tell from the Taylor information, I like digging. There's a lot of really interesting information in plain sight. In any case, I believe there's news footage of the limousine leaving Parkland!

(And no, it's not from Gary Mack.) With any luck it will show the departure from the emergency bay and we'll know for sure if Dr. Glanges was there. So far I've only seen an index that lists "JFK limousine leaving Parkland Hospital". I'm hoping to get into the actual archives before March. I'll keep you updated and let you know one way or the other.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry:

This is an intelligent and reasonable reply. If Dr. Glanges or anyone was the sole witness I might have reason to take exception. However, as I have noted before one of the the most important indicators of the reliability of eyewitness is independent corroboration. Here, a number of people, with not one knowing more than one of the other witnesses to the hole, all witnessed a hole in the windshield. Such observations extended from Dallas to Washington D.C. to Dearborn, Michigan. What a phenomena it would be if everyone just happened to fabricate the exact same observation. In Dallas, it was not such a secret. Michaeal Paine talks about it in his Warren Commission testimony. Mark Lane spoke about the limo being flown to Detroit three days after the assassination in opposition to the official report in a speech in 1966. I am not the only one who can observe Dr. Glange's demeanor. TMWKK segment with her was filmed years before I spoke with her. Watch her. does she seem believeable? You judge. She did not go out giving interviews or write books. What would have been the benefit to her to fabricate a story? The only reason she said she would talk with me was that she was going to retire soon. She died one month later at age 59. Why did the other person with her that day not speak? She said it was because of fear for his job. I don't understand the fears but I believe they are real. Why would Malcom Perry not talk with anyone? I encountered this many times. The first time I spoke with Stavis Ellis, though he thad talked with many other people and giveni nterviews. maybe it was because i was an attorney but his words to me were "I can't talk with you. I don't want a bullet in my head." I dont't know with Glanges or anyone exactly how things were at Parkland that day. Once, I informed Ellis that someone questioned his veracity in much the same way that you are questioning Glanges. His response was an angry "were they there?" It is amazing what remarkable people so many of these witnesses were. I had similar responses from Whitaker and even a worker at Hess and Eisenhardt in Ohio. It seemed very irrational at times to me but there was no question these people felt it. Crenshaw, who I also spoke with several times, talks about the conspiracy of silence. i am not going to attempt to enhance or explain the testimony of any witness. I have found, however, that an intelligent witness wanting to fabricate a story, is likely to give as few details as possible, in order to make it more difficult to catch them in a mistruth. Glanges is very detailed. Her account was always consistent. Often, over time, a witness fabricating a story will forget some of the details they recounted before. This is something that bothers me about Judyth Baker. Glanges did not. Ellis and other witnesses to the hole did not. Ellis, as I noted, thought the hole was lower in the windshield. He did not change. Some witnesses were less certain. Every witness said they saw one hole and all of those with any expertise described it as a bullet hole. Such discrepencies in location do not bother me and candidly I expect such. Small details will change with witnesses over time. it is part of the human condition. Look at your windshiled. Because of the slant of a windshield the difference from below the side of the rear view mirror and lower in the windshield can be only one to two inches. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time were Taylor and Whitaker, two people who never knew anything of each other. They both described the hole in the exact same spot consistent, curiously enough, with the spiral nebulae in the Altgen's photo As to different locations listen to my interview. Let's say two people come upon a body in the woods within a few minutes of each other. Years later, the first person testifies at a trial that the body was laying in a north-south position with a red shirt on. The second person testifies that he recalled the body laying in a more east-west position and recalls the shirt as being brown. Does that mean that there were two different bodies or that neither person saw a body at all?

I am not going to embellish Glange's account. Hopefully, a film would vindicate her. I wish I had the opportunity to show her the photos of the many people standing in front of the limo at Parkland and have asked her if she could have identified herself. She did tell me that the people who were inside the cordon were never escorted outside of it. If the cordon was so tight who is that odd woman in front of the limo in the photo you posted. Certainly not Secret Service or FBI or a physician. Karl Kinaski made an interesting point. "Within the emergency parking lot, prior to the washing of the limo(sic) and the rebuilding of the limo-top, the limo was driven from one spot to another. Maybe Ms Glanges saw the whole at the first spot, not the (guarded) one shown in the picture? "

I don't know. If you are not comfortable than feel free to discount Glanges. Then you are going to have to discount each of the other witnesses. If you believe one, then the point is proven and then was it some kind of cosmic ciincidence that all of the others witnessed the same phenomena? Did these people engage in some type of conspiracy to deceve the public? Why did George Whitaker ever mention it to anyone besides his family from that day uNovember 25, 1963 until he spoke with me in 1993. was he so clever that he gained access to the White House Garage logs and relaized noone could account for the limo on 11/25/1963 and did he know that the official documents and records of Hess and Eisenhardt would be in such conflict and did he know in 1963 that the HSCA would find conflicts in the limousine chronology?

I was unaware that Martin Hinrichs had conspiracy inclinations. I was told something different but as you noted it was an objective analysis by a person you chose and in your request to him you indicated quite strongly you were looking for a match. Also to your statement that "two professional photometric analysts I've worked with and trust told me Martin was wrong and for a few thousand dollars they'd prove it to everyone's satisfaction." If it is so complicated and they can look at a picture and tell they are the same and it would take a few thousand dollars to prove it it sounds somewhat contradictory. I would run, not walk, away from these people holding my wallet. i did not see your posts on Martin on the forum or Lancer on Martin. I saw a piece posted by Bernice on the forum but if you did, I apologize.

Also there was an obvious attempt to hide the defect in the Altgen's photo. It is easy to dissect Glanges or any witness and create doubt, if you desire in your own mind. Let's say someone drops a vase on the floor and it shatters into a hundred pieces. They pick up one piece and hold it up and say "look, this is not a vase." They set the piece down, pick up another piece, say the same and continue on and on. However, if you put all of the pieces together what do you have? Lo and behold you have a vase! This is analagous to the witnesses and their accounts. You seem reasonable. Why were the police officers dismissed as casual observers? Why was Prencipe dismissed by such irational logic. Were you suggesting thar evry minute of his time was accounted for at Bethesda that evening? If so, how and where did you get that verification. Do you know the distance from Bethesda to the Wh garage?

I believe the photos you showed in your article are different. The only person who can authenticate the first phot is Robert Frazier and you yourself indicated in a post to Pamela that he was not relible. You also indicated to her that it was clear that Taylor clearly was describing a hole in his account. Why the inconsistency and contradiction? You appear reasonable and sincere. If you send me a private message with your address I will send you a couple of things. My only agenda ever has been truth, nothing else. I never sought, nor desired, notierity. The reason I want to finish this book is simply as a promise to these wonderful people whio trusted me enough to share their accounts with me and that they, too, wanted only truth. Many have passed on but it is a promise to them I hope to keep. I sought truth for myself. I understand that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince some people. That is their problem. I have no intent to hide anything even if I suspect someone will attempt to use that information against me. I hope you had the opportunity to listen to my Black Op interview. I believe truth will prevail.

My best,

Doug Weldon

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Yes, Cyril Wecht and I are friends but I don't pass on opinions from friends just because they are friends. I pass them on because the person offering the opinion is in a position to know what he is talking about. Cyril is.

And if Cyril Wecht had performed the autopsy he WOULD be in a POSITION to offer an opinion.

But Cyril Wecht DID NOT PERFORM the autopsy -- and he is emphatic in telling us that those who did perform the autopsy were totally unqualified.

If Dr. Wecht's is qualified enough to tell us that the autopsy doctors were way out of their depth, then why should we assume that these incompetents would be able to notice that the strange back wound, with no lane of exit, (which was not noticed by anyone in Parkland) was actually made post-mortem?

Finck was not incompetent in his probing of the back wound. Humes and

Boswell were not qualified. Finck was.

Diana Bowron saw the back wound at Parkland.

Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?

Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?

Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?

Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.

Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?

Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Finck, who had performed autopsies on gunshot victims before, probed the wound with his finger. It was a shallow wound, about as deep as the second knuckle of your little finger, at a downward 45-60 degree angle. Sibert and O'Neill have it in their report.

Yes, Cyril Wecht and I are friends but I don't pass on opinions from friends just because they are friends. I pass them on because the person offering the opinion is in a position to know what he is talking about. Cyril is.

And if Cyril Wecht had performed the autopsy he WOULD be in a POSITION to offer an opinion.

But Cyril Wecht DID NOT PERFORM the autopsy -- and he is emphatic in telling us that those who did perform the autopsy were totally unqualified.

If Dr. Wecht's is qualified enough to tell us that the autopsy doctors were way out of their depth, then why should we assume that these incompetents would be able to notice that the strange back wound, with no lane of exit, (which was not noticed by anyone in Parkland) was actually made post-mortem?

Finck was not incompetent in his probing of the back wound. Humes and

Boswell were not qualified. Finck was.

Diana Bowron saw the back wound at Parkland.

Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?

Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?

Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?

Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.

Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?

Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer