SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

[Pamela Brown]

Pamela,

You may be unaware, but Doug is not in good health. Your remark, under the circumstances, alas, is really not appropriate.

Jim

I am sorry to hear that. I apologize for being uncomfortable with Doug's not posting on his own, that being the case. Just the same, if Doug is able to communicate information to someone else, such as Bernice, wouldn't it be valuable to know what he is thinking today as opposed to some time in the past?

Pamela,

You write: "You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield."

Thank you for pointing out that the Altgens photo in a NARA copy made from the negative "shows no defect in the windshield." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Weldon and Fetzer were misled by relying on a newswire copy instead of getting a copy from the original negative. That seems about right to me.

Josiah Thompson

quote Dr Thompson from post 107....''(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

Doug Weldon has responded to this and article on http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

show #451.

b..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

This is ridiculous. Newswire copies were not used to examine the hole. I encourage people to listen to my interview on Black Ops. In addition there appears to be a deliberate attempt to obscure that defect as shown in the slides of my presentation in Minnesota in 1999, http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

Doug Weldon

Is Doug Weldon expecting everyone else to do his homework for him? He is unable to post for himself, and he refers us to an old interview where we have to search to find out what he said.

Why not speak plainly and tell us today exactly what you want us to know? With your own login, like all the other responsible researchers here.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Yes. It is my understanding that he has been trying to join the forum. Why he has not shown up yet I am unable to explain. Jim

Pamela,

You may be unaware, but Doug is not in good health. Your remark, under the circumstances, alas, is really not appropriate.

Jim

I am sorry to hear that. I apologize for being uncomfortable with Doug's not posting on his own, that being the case. Just the same, if Doug is able to communicate information to someone else, such as Bernice, wouldn't it be valuable to know what he is thinking today as opposed to some time in the past?

Pamela,

You write: "You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield."

Thank you for pointing out that the Altgens photo in a NARA copy made from the negative "shows no defect in the windshield." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Weldon and Fetzer were misled by relying on a newswire copy instead of getting a copy from the original negative. That seems about right to me.

Josiah Thompson

quote Dr Thompson from post 107....''(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

Doug Weldon has responded to this and article on http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

show #451.

b..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

This is ridiculous. Newswire copies were not used to examine the hole. I encourage people to listen to my interview on Black Ops. In addition there appears to be a deliberate attempt to obscure that defect as shown in the slides of my presentation in Minnesota in 1999, http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

Doug Weldon

Is Doug Weldon expecting everyone else to do his homework for him? He is unable to post for himself, and he refers us to an old interview where we have to search to find out what he said.

Why not speak plainly and tell us today exactly what you want us to know? With your own login, like all the other responsible researchers here.

Edited January 5, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pamela,

I have just received this note from Doug Weldon. Could you tell me how to contact John Simkin about this? Thanks a lot.

Jim

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:25:46 -0500 [01:25:46 PM CST]

From: "Doug Weldon" <dougweldon@comcast.net>

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: The Education Forum

Jim:

I have been following the forum and saw Pamela's comment and your response. My health is fine and does not inhibit me. I have simply not been allowed to register on the forum. I sent an e-mail to an Andy Walker about it but never received a reply. The "old" interview Pamela is referring to was three weeks ago. Bernice has been kind enough to post some of my replies.

Best,

Doug

Pamela,

You may be unaware, but Doug is not in good health. Your remark, under the circumstances, alas, is really not appropriate.

Jim

I am sorry to hear that. I apologize for being uncomfortable with Doug's not posting on his own, that being the case. Just the same, if Doug is able to communicate information to someone else, such as Bernice, wouldn't it be valuable to know what he is thinking today as opposed to some time in the past?

Pamela,

You write: "You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield."

Thank you for pointing out that the Altgens photo in a NARA copy made from the negative "shows no defect in the windshield." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Weldon and Fetzer were misled by relying on a newswire copy instead of getting a copy from the original negative. That seems about right to me.

Josiah Thompson

quote Dr Thompson from post 107....''(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

Doug Weldon has responded to this and article on http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

show #451.

b..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

This is ridiculous. Newswire copies were not used to examine the hole. I encourage people to listen to my interview on Black Ops. In addition there appears to be a deliberate attempt to obscure that defect as shown in the slides of my presentation in Minnesota in 1999, http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

Doug Weldon

Is Doug Weldon expecting everyone else to do his homework for him? He is unable to post for himself, and he refers us to an old interview where we have to search to find out what he said.

Why not speak plainly and tell us today exactly what you want us to know? With your own login, like all the other responsible researchers here.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:43:59 -0500 [02:43:59 PM CST]

From: "Doug Weldon" <dougweldon@comcast.net>

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: forum

Jim:

This is the message I get: The board administrator is no longer accepting any new registrations at the moment.

Doug

Pamela,

I have just received this note from Doug Weldon. Could you tell me how to contact John Simkin about this? Thanks a lot.

Jim

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:25:46 -0500 [01:25:46 PM CST]

From: "Doug Weldon" <dougweldon@comcast.net>

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: The Education Forum

Jim:

I have been following the forum and saw Pamela's comment and your response. My health is fine and does not inhibit me. I have simply not been allowed to register on the forum. I sent an e-mail to an Andy Walker about it but never received a reply. The "old" interview Pamela is referring to was three weeks ago. Bernice has been kind enough to post some of my replies.

Best,

Doug

Pamela,

You may be unaware, but Doug is not in good health. Your remark, under the circumstances, alas, is really not appropriate.

Jim

I am sorry to hear that. I apologize for being uncomfortable with Doug's not posting on his own, that being the case. Just the same, if Doug is able to communicate information to someone else, such as Bernice, wouldn't it be valuable to know what he is thinking today as opposed to some time in the past?

Pamela,

You write: "You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield."

Thank you for pointing out that the Altgens photo in a NARA copy made from the negative "shows no defect in the windshield." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Weldon and Fetzer were misled by relying on a newswire copy instead of getting a copy from the original negative. That seems about right to me.

Josiah Thompson

quote Dr Thompson from post 107....''(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

Doug Weldon has responded to this and article on http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

show #451.

b..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

This is ridiculous. Newswire copies were not used to examine the hole. I encourage people to listen to my interview on Black Ops. In addition there appears to be a deliberate attempt to obscure that defect as shown in the slides of my presentation in Minnesota in 1999, http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

Doug Weldon

Is Doug Weldon expecting everyone else to do his homework for him? He is unable to post for himself, and he refers us to an old interview where we have to search to find out what he said.

Why not speak plainly and tell us today exactly what you want us to know? With your own login, like all the other responsible researchers here.

[Pat Speer]

I've received a number of complaints about this in the last few months, so Doug is not the only one currently on hold. I wrote John an email to ask him why this is.

Pat

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:43:59 -0500 [02:43:59 PM CST]

From: "Doug Weldon" <dougweldon@comcast.net>

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: forum

Jim:

This is the message I get: The board administrator is no longer accepting any new registrations at the moment.

Doug

[Bernice Moore]

Pamela,

You write: "You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield."

Thank you for pointing out that the Altgens photo in a NARA copy made from the negative "shows no defect in the windshield." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Weldon and Fetzer were misled by relying on a newswire copy instead of getting a copy from the original negative. That seems about right to me.

Josiah Thompson

quote Dr Thompson from post 107....''(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

Doug Weldon has responded to this and article on http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

show #451.

b..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

This is ridiculous. Newswire copies were not used to examine the hole. I encourage people to listen to my interview on Black Ops. In addition there appears to be a deliberate attempt to obscure that defect as shown in the slides of my presentation in Minnesota in 1999, http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

Doug Weldon

Is Doug Weldon expecting everyone else to do his homework for him? He is unable to post for himself, and he refers us to an old interview where we have to search to find out what he said.

Why not speak plainly and tell us today exactly what you want us to know? With your own login, like all the other responsible researchers here.

PAMELA DID YOU NOT CHECK FOR YOURSELF AND OPEN THE LINK TO SEE THE BLACK OP 2009 ARCHIVES LINK I POSTED PREVIOUSLY, DOUGS SHOW WAS TAPED IN DECEMBER 2009 IT IS NOT OLD...HE CANNOT POST AS YET BUT BE ASSURED HE WILL SOON TO YOU DIRECTLY WHEN HIS MEMBERSHIP IS ENABLED...HE WILL UNDOUBTABLY SPEAK VERY PLAINLY TO YOU AND THE WHOMEVER YOUR US IS ..PLEASE EXCUSE THE CAPITOLS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED THE REASON WHY AT TIMES I MUST..SEVERAL TIMES..THANK YOU..B

PLEASE CHECK FOR YOURSELF AND THE WHOMEVERS READ.AND HEAR.... http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

SHOW 451..........

show #451.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

In response to Pamela's post above EVERYTHING I want people to know TODAY is in my Black Op interview done on December 3, 2009. It is almost two hours long. I would be grateful if one of you could post this. Unfortunately, I can only respond to questions via one of you. I have tried to join the forum for several months and while I can read posts as a non-member I am unable to open attachments. I understand it is frustrating for me and inconvenient to you.

Doug Weldon

.... http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

SHOW 451..........

I SINCERELY HOPE THAT SOME PEOPLE WILL READ THIS AND COMPREHEND FINALLY...IF AND WHEN HIS MEMBERSHIP IS ENABLED HE WILL MOST CERTAINLY RESPOND DIRECTLY TO YOU..AND THE WHOMEVERS ..THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND FOR NOW FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE ENOUGH .. B

Edited January 6, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:08:48 -0000 [02:08:48 AM CST]

From: "John Simkin" <john.simkin@ntlworld.com>

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: RE: Forum access for Doug Weldon . . .

Jim,

I have been in contact with Doug. All he needs to do is to send me a

photograph and biography and I will register him.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=37

John Simkin

-----Original Message-----

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu [mailto:jfetzer@d.umn.edu]

Sent: 06 January 2010 01:39

To: John Simkin; Doug Weldon

Cc: bmoore1242@rogers.com; jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Forum access for Doug Weldon . . .

John,

For reasons I do not profess to understand, Doug Weldon has not been allowed

to register at the forum. Could you please set this right?

Many thanks! It was visionary of you to foresee a forum's potential.

Jim

Quoting "Doug Weldon" <dougweldon@comcast.net>:

[Hide Quoted Text]

Is Doug Weldon expecting everyone else to do his homework for him?

He is unable to post for himself, and he refers us to an old interview

where we have to search to find out what he said.

Why not speak plainly and tell us today exactly what you want us to

know? With your own login, like all the other responsible researchers

here.

Jim and Bernice:

In response to Pamela's post above EVERYTHING I want people to

know TODAY is in my Black Op interview done on December 3, 2009. It

is almost two hours long. I would be grateful if one of you could

post this. Unfortunately, I can only respond to questions via one of

you. I have tried to join the forum for several months and while I

can read posts as a non-member I am unable to open attachments. I

understand it is frustrating for me and inconvenient to you.

Best,

Doug Weldon

In response to Pamela's post above EVERYTHING I want people to know TODAY is in my Black Op interview done on December 3, 2009. It is almost two hours long. I would be grateful if one of you could post this. Unfortunately, I can only respond to questions via one of you. I have tried to join the forum for several months and while I can read posts as a non-member I am unable to open attachments. I understand it is frustrating for me and inconvenient to you.

Doug Weldon

.... http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

SHOW 451..........

I SINCERELY HOPE THAT SOME PEOPLE WILL READ THIS AND COMPREHEND FINALLY...IF AND WHEN HIS MEMBERSHIP IS ENABLED HE WILL MOST CERTAINLY RESPOND DIRECTLY TO YOU..AND THE WHOMEVERS ..THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND FOR NOW FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE ENOUGH .. B

[Dean Hagerman]

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:08:48 -0000 [02:08:48 AM CST]

From: "John Simkin" <john.simkin@ntlworld.com>

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: RE: Forum access for Doug Weldon . . .

Jim,

I have been in contact with Doug. All he needs to do is to send me a

photograph and biography and I will register him.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=37

John Simkin

-----Original Message-----

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu [mailto:jfetzer@d.umn.edu]

Sent: 06 January 2010 01:39

To: John Simkin; Doug Weldon

Cc: bmoore1242@rogers.com; jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Forum access for Doug Weldon . . .

John,

For reasons I do not profess to understand, Doug Weldon has not been allowed

to register at the forum. Could you please set this right?

Many thanks! It was visionary of you to foresee a forum's potential.

Jim

Quoting "Doug Weldon" <dougweldon@comcast.net>:

[Hide Quoted Text]

Is Doug Weldon expecting everyone else to do his homework for him?

He is unable to post for himself, and he refers us to an old interview

where we have to search to find out what he said.

Why not speak plainly and tell us today exactly what you want us to

know? With your own login, like all the other responsible researchers

here.

Jim and Bernice:

In response to Pamela's post above EVERYTHING I want people to

know TODAY is in my Black Op interview done on December 3, 2009. It

is almost two hours long. I would be grateful if one of you could

post this. Unfortunately, I can only respond to questions via one of

you. I have tried to join the forum for several months and while I

can read posts as a non-member I am unable to open attachments. I

understand it is frustrating for me and inconvenient to you.

Best,

Doug Weldon

In response to Pamela's post above EVERYTHING I want people to know TODAY is in my Black Op interview done on December 3, 2009. It is almost two hours long. I would be grateful if one of you could post this. Unfortunately, I can only respond to questions via one of you. I have tried to join the forum for several months and while I can read posts as a non-member I am unable to open attachments. I understand it is frustrating for me and inconvenient to you.

Doug Weldon

.... http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

SHOW 451..........

I SINCERELY HOPE THAT SOME PEOPLE WILL READ THIS AND COMPREHEND FINALLY...IF AND WHEN HIS MEMBERSHIP IS ENABLED HE WILL MOST CERTAINLY RESPOND DIRECTLY TO YOU..AND THE WHOMEVERS ..THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND FOR NOW FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE ENOUGH .. B

Good News! Here is Doug's bio, in the meantime.... http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKweldonD.htm Now we can hear more about another bullet right through the windshield and how that piece of vital evidence was faked....what wasn't?!?! (fellow serfs in our captive Nation)

Im very happy that Doug will join the forum

I look forward to hearing more about his oustanding work on the bullet hole in the windshield in MIDP

[Pamela Brown]

Pamela,

You write: "You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield."

Thank you for pointing out that the Altgens photo in a NARA copy made from the negative "shows no defect in the windshield." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Weldon and Fetzer were misled by relying on a newswire copy instead of getting a copy from the original negative. That seems about right to me.

Josiah Thompson

quote Dr Thompson from post 107....''(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

Doug Weldon has responded to this and article on http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

show #451.

b..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

This is ridiculous. Newswire copies were not used to examine the hole. I encourage people to listen to my interview on Black Ops. In addition there appears to be a deliberate attempt to obscure that defect as shown in the slides of my presentation in Minnesota in 1999, http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

Doug Weldon

Is Doug Weldon expecting everyone else to do his homework for him? He is unable to post for himself, and he refers us to an old interview where we have to search to find out what he said.

Why not speak plainly and tell us today exactly what you want us to know? With your own login, like all the other responsible researchers here.

PAMELA DID YOU NOT CHECK FOR YOURSELF AND OPEN THE LINK TO SEE THE BLACK OP 2009 ARCHIVES LINK I POSTED PREVIOUSLY, DOUGS SHOW WAS TAPED IN DECEMBER 2009 IT IS NOT OLD...HE CANNOT POST AS YET BUT BE ASSURED HE WILL SOON TO YOU DIRECTLY WHEN HIS MEMBERSHIP IS ENABLED...HE WILL UNDOUBTABLY SPEAK VERY PLAINLY TO YOU AND THE WHOMEVER YOUR US IS ..PLEASE EXCUSE THE CAPITOLS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED THE REASON WHY AT TIMES I MUST..SEVERAL TIMES..THANK YOU..B

PLEASE CHECK FOR YOURSELF AND THE WHOMEVERS READ.AND HEAR.... http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

SHOW 451..........

show #451.

I did not. I figured it was just the same old, same old. I do apoligize and am pleased to have been mistaken. Just the same, it makes more sense for posters to post a few simple words than ask everyone to search through a radio show, don't you think?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David, Not only is he playing games with you, he is doing this all over the forum. Here's a post everyone should read. I am glad you are here. Jim

Peter,

You are spot-on! My frustration has been exacerbated by Josiah Thompson's continued bobbing and weaving, ducking and running. Here's a guy who has basked in the glory of his past, but who appears to have been betraying the search for truth from the beginning--and he isn't willing to stand up and be counted! In this post, for example, I respond to his absurd explanation of why he is retracting his "doubt hit" theory, which was the most precise and detailed aspect of his book. He claims it is the only case where the hit and the "startle response" occurred at the same time. Since that would entail that the speed of sound and the speed of the bullet coincide AND that the neurophysiological response take no time at all, it is a preposterous claim! We can't find better proofs of dishonesty and deception than for Tink to be adopting physically impossible premises like these to defend his position!

Laws of nature, including the speed of sound, of bullets and of responses, cannot be violated and cannot be changed. So here you have a Yale Ph.D., a former professor of philosophy and a one-time Navy frogman offering a physically impossible explanation for now denying the--for most of us--important proof of conspiracy his book had to offer. Not only is his excuse for abandoning it preposterous, but Richard Feynman, the world famous physicist, had arrived at the same conclusion independently! And, in case anyone hasn't noticed, not only has he not responded to my argument, which reveals the depths of his desire to disentangle himself from "proofs of conspiracy", he is now on other threads in the process of denying the throat wound! In the thread, "A Few Thoughts on the Zapruder Film", which he (Thompson) no doubt created to distract others from this thread and the other devoted to SIX SECONDS, he has raised questions about the throat wound! But we know quite a lot about it.

I include a post about it below. In fact, Charles Crenshaw, M.D., even drew its appearance before and after the tracheotomy, which I published as Appendix A to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). It was a small, clean puncture wound that was easily identifiable as a wound of entry and, indeed, that afternoon and evening, as news poured in about the assassination, two wounds were repeatedly described on radio and television: the wound to the throat and the wound to the right temple, both of which were fired from in front. You can watch these reports as they were broadcast live by Chet Huntley and others on NBC, for example. Later, when the report comes in that the alleged assassin was above and behind his target, Frank McGee states, "This is incongruous! How can the man have been shot from in front from behind?"

So Josiah Thompson's mission now appears to be to raise concerns about every indication of conspiracy he can reach, including the through-and-through hole in the windshield, the entry wound in the throat, and the "double hit" theory he himself had previously championed! His 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 he will disavow the back-and-to-the-left motion in the film, which he takes to be "unambiguous evidence of a shot from the front". Probably he will admit that there was an additional shot from in front, but that--as for the rest--we will never know!

His purpose is not to convince anyone that Lee Oswald was the only shooter or that THE WARREN REPORT (1964) was correct, but that there is enough controversy ON BOTH SIDES that it is simply impossible to sort out! As Martin Schotz, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996), observed, the objective of the disinformation movement is not to defend the fantasies of the official account but to create the impression that, in relation to the assassination of JFK, everything is believable and nothing is knowable! We have long known that CASE CLOSED (1992), RECLAIMING HISTORY (2007) and many lesser works are never going to convince serious students of the case. But they can have the effect of creating uncertainly in the mind of the public!

And this, I now perceive, is the rationale for his relentless attacks upon me and the books I have edited. Because if you study ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), you will see that students with appropriate background, training, and skills are able to differentiated between genuine and fabricated evidence, which means that WE ACTUALLY CAN FIND THE TRUTH about the death of JFK, where his mission is to obfuscate and obscure that that objective can be attained. So OF COURSE these books represent the greatest threat to preserving the status quo. As long as the truth cannot be know, the CIA, the Join Chiefs, and others who were complicit in the crime can rest assured that their tranquility will not be disturbed! And Tink is on the job!

James H. Fetzer

Yesterday, 08:24 PM

Post #36

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 398

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

NEVER AGAIN! (1995), page 239:

Dulles made the mistake of asking Carrico what Specter avoided, where the neck wound was. From Post Mortem:

pages 357-58:

Carrico showed by placing his hand on his own throat while speaking his rejoinder ending, 'this was a small wound

here'. To this demonstration of 'here', Dulles responded. 'I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie

is?" (Emhasis added). Carrico confirmed with a "Yes, sir.'

Continuing on page 240:

Specter questioned Margaret M. Henchcliffe (6H139)ff.) She was the first medical person to see the President:

. . . Well, actually I went in ahead of the cart with him and I was the first one in with him, and just in a minute,

or seconds, D.r Carrico came in.

She followed this (6H141), after describing long experience with gunshot wounds in her emergency-room duties,

by identifying this front neck wound as one of "entrance".

Which, of course, corroborates Malcolm Perry's reports during the Parkland press conference, where three times

he described the wound as one of entry: the bullet was coming at him, it was a wound of entry, and all that. If

anyone wants to read his remarks, a transcript appears as Appendix C to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). And

of course Tom Wicker's report of the throat wound as a wound of entrance was published in The New York Times

(23 November 1963), where you can find the relevant portion reprinted on page 15: "Mr. Kennedy was hit by a

bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple, they [Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark] said. This wound had the

appearance of a bullet's entry." And of course there are the statements by Robert Livingston, M.D., and Richard

Dudman, which are published on pages 161 though 175, which bear upon this issue, too. And of course there is

the chapter by Doug Weldon, J.D., "The Kennedy Limousine", in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pp. 129-158.

James H. Fetzer

Jan 4 2010, 05:28 AM

Post #63

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 398

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

This is a ridiculous response. You are claiming that Donald Thomas "discovered" something that is not even neurophysiologically possible. The bullet was traveling much faster than sound, even if, in this case, the shooter had been closer to Zapruder. The occurrence of the neurological "startle" 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. You have no basis for your repudiation of the "double hit" hypothesis and nothing you have said could possibly explain how Richard Feynman could have arrived at the very same conclusion. No one is buying this drivel. You are only further discrediting yourself. Come clean, Tink. Tell us why you were then and continue to this day to obfuscate evidence about the death of JFK! And while you are at it, answer my simple question about which paragraph so infuriated Vincent Salandria that he accused you of being a government agent? That should be easier than trying to defend violations of laws of nature!

QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Jan 3 2010, 11:59 PM)

You write: "The hit and the response cannot have happened at the same time. Your argument is clearly based upon a false premise."

I didn't discover this. Don Thomas did. He worked out the details and published them in various lectures. In my opinion, it's a very compelling argument. Without taking the trouble to look up all the figures of muzzle velocity, speed of sound in Dealey Plaza, etc. here's what Thomas came up with.

Assume that the bullet striking JFK's head at 313 came from the rifle found in the Depository and that it was fired from the 6th Floor sniper's nest. Knowing when it hit, one can infer back when the muzzle blast was initiated. That sound had to get by line-of-sight to Zapruder. Zapruder had react involuntarily to the sound to produce a smear. The math indicates that the smear would occur (if memory serves) in Z 315.

Now do the same thing for a shot fired from the stockade fence. The math indicates that the smear would occur in Z 313.

Since the smear occurs in Z 313, this would appear to be evidence that this shot was fired from a position much closer to Zapruder than the other shots.

It certainly looks to me like a sound argument. You reject it without even knowing how it's put. Fine. But perhaps someone else would care to look at this argument and say what they think.

Josiah Thompson

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Jan 3 2010, 07:08 AM)

The bullet was traveling much faster than sound, even if, in this case, the shooter had been closer to Zapruder. The occurrence of the neurological "startle" 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. You have no basis for your repudiation of the "double hit" hypothesis and nothing you have said could possibly explain how Richard Feynman could have arrived at the same conclusion. No one is buying this drivel. Come clean, Tink. Tell us why you were then and continue to this day to obfuscate evidence about the death of JFK! <Removed by Moderator>

QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Jan 3 2010, 02:56 AM)

Luis Alvarez could not find any instance where a startle "smear" occurred in the same frame as the obvious impact of a bullet. This is because Alvarez was convinced that shots came only from the Depository. Hence, there had to be a gap between the shot and Zapruder's reaction. Don Thomas has worked out the math in detail. Because the Z313 shot was fired so close to him, the impact of the bullet upon JFK and Zapruder's startle reaction occur simultaneously. You can find all this explained in various published works by Don Thomas. Obviously, this work is unknown to Professor Fetzer or he wouldn't have gone so far out on a limb only to have it chopped off.

Now you should ask: "Okay, how does Alvarez explain the this simultaneity of impact and startle reaction."

He opines that the shock wave from the bullet moved Zapruder's camera. Why this is silly doesn't even require explanation.

I really admire your loyalty to your tribe. Only if it didn't lead you astray everything would be just peachy keen!

Josiah Thompson

QUOTE (Dean Hagerman @ Jan 2 2010, 04:00 PM)

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Jan 2 2010, 01:32 PM)

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.

Perfect statement Prof Fetzer, you took the words right out of my mouth

Dean

Removed personal attack on member

Dr Fetzer,

You have been previously warned about using banned words and cautioned about personal attacks on members. There have been multiple complaints about your conduct.

I don't have the time to continually edit out all the violations promptly, so any further posts that contain infractions of the Forum rules (available here) will be made invisible until such time as the offensive material can be removed, and a recommendation made for you to be placed on moderation.

I have not followed recent events closely enough to know what you are referring to; nor do I have the time to do so.

But I will say that Dr. Fetzer has been one of the few posters on either side of the "argument" who has made any meaningful contributions of late.

If he is losing his patience, I can not blame him. This forum has several "sheep in wolves clothing" and other so called believers in the conspiracy who keep re-hashing the same old stuff.

There has been no advancement on this forum for over a year, and, with the exeption of a few posters, only since Professor Fetzer has given his time, has anything meaningful been done.

As I said, I'm not informed enough about this tangle of evidence to say anything. I look forward to reading Doug Horne's four volumes on this to learn. If I finish that in the next few weeks or months I'll get back to you. You know it's not required of any of us that we know everything about everything. I hope you'll find my modesty here refreshing.

Tink

DSL REPLY:

I know you don’t care for Professor Fetzer. All very well. That’s your choice. But you’re now engaging in the same kind of behavior with me. Confronted with clear evidence of body interception and body alteration, you’re skittering away, telling me that its all such a mess, and gee, what can we make of it—and golly, Dr. Wecht disagrees, and he’s the expert. And what about rigor mortis, etc etc ad nauseum.

None of this matters, Tink.

All that counts is that in the case of the neck wound, and the head wound—the evidence of change is pretty obvious, pretty damned obvious. Any high school student can see that.

And as for the intercept evidence, there were three separate recorded entries into Bethesda Naval hospital. Let’s count ‘em: 6:35—the shipping casket, according to the Marine security detail; 7:17pm, the FBI accompanying the Dallas casket; and 8pm, the casket team, now carrying the same casket, only now with the body.

Three separate casket entries; three separate paper trails. Its all spelled out in Best Evidence, with time lines and all. I’m boiling it down to the size of an email—but any high school student could write a good term paper about it.

I don’t want to hear that none of this could have happened because its oh so complicated and there wasn’t enough time to figure any of this out that day. Ergo, it couldn’t have happened. To me, that’s almost like saying Kennedy couldn’t have been shot by a conspiracy in Dallas, because, well, my Gosh, that’s against the Ten Commandments.

At some point, you really ought to face what’s going on here, and stop playing these “we can’t know” games.

You’re in a privileged position, Tink, because you once had access to the Zapruder film at Time Life, and then made the decision to surreptitiously copy the frames so your readers could see just what it was you were talking about. The same month you were doing that, I was involved, in Los Angeles, in making the basic discovery of evidence that the body was altered, and Liebeler was involved in sending his memo announcing my discovery to the other members of the Warren Commission, President Johnson, and Robert Kennedy.

This was the beginning of a major paradigm shift that critical evidence in this case is phony.

Remember what Lee Oswald told his brother, when he visited him in jail: “Do not believe the so-called ‘evidence’.”

Where do you stand on all this today? Apparently (and most unfortunately) still hunting for further data that there was a “second gunman” on the knoll.

Edited January 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

Tink,

It seems like a possibility. There appear to be defects in the newspaper copies that may have been caused by its being hastily uploaded on 11.22.63. Here is a link to one: http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/car1.jpg that shows the 'spiral nebulae' defect.

Here is a link to a close-up that is more clear:http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif. There is no defect in this version.

Which copy of the A1-6 are you using? Am I correct in thinking it is either one from the NARA negative or maybe even one from the AP original negative?

Pamela,

You write: "You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield."

Thank you for pointing out that the Altgens photo in a NARA copy made from the negative "shows no defect in the windshield." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Weldon and Fetzer were misled by relying on a newswire copy instead of getting a copy from the original negative. That seems about right to me.

Josiah Thompson

quote Dr Thompson from post 107....''(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

Doug Weldon has responded to this and article on http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

show #451.

b..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

Edited January 6, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is quite absurd and more than slightly disturbing. Even Richard Trask, PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994), publishes a very clear Altgens in which the bullet hole is visible. We know so much about this that I am troubled that Pamela would make a post like this. The through-and-through hole is discussed in multiple statements and letters by Robert Livingston, M.D., and in an article published by Richard Dudman in The New Republic. They can be found between pages 161 and 175 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which includes Livingston's analysis of cerebellum extruding from the wound. So what is Pamela doing raising this very misleading possibility?

In additon, we have Doug Weldon's brilliant chapter on the limousine in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and photos of the windshields involved on several pages, including 149, 157, and 158. Plus I added page 436 about it in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), with three more photographs, one of which is of the windshield of a junked car, where Jim Lewis has been firing high-velocity bullets through it and finding it makes the sound of a firecracker. So spare us any more nonsense about the hole in the windshield. We have multiple witnesses and substantiating photographs. It was there, it was real--and denial is simply more obfuscation!

Tink,

It seems like a possibility. There appear to be defects in the newspaper copies that may have been caused by its being hastily uploaded on 11.22.63. Here is a link to one: http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/car1.jpg

Here is a link to a close-up that is more clear:http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

Pamela,

You write: "You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield."

Thank you for pointing out that the Altgens photo in a NARA copy made from the negative "shows no defect in the windshield." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Weldon and Fetzer were misled by relying on a newswire copy instead of getting a copy from the original negative. That seems about right to me.

Josiah Thompson

quote Dr Thompson from post 107....''(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

Doug Weldon has responded to this and article on http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

show #451.

b..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

Edited January 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I've received a number of complaints about this in the last few months, so Doug is not the only one currently on hold. I wrote John an email to ask him why this is.

Pat

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:43:59 -0500 [02:43:59 PM CST]

From: "Doug Weldon" <dougweldon@comcast.net>

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: forum

Jim:

This is the message I get: The board administrator is no longer accepting any new registrations at the moment.

Doug

__________

I have heard similar comments from others who wanted to join the forum. I know recall there being a reason of some sort for making it more difficult to become a member, but perhaps some middle ground might be found?

[John Simkin]

I have heard similar comments from others who wanted to join the forum. I know recall there being a reason of some sort for making it more difficult to become a member, but perhaps some middle ground might be found?

Just tell your friends to send me a biography and photograph I will register them. See the following for examples:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=37