SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

[Cliff Varnell]

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

John, I had a very difficult time logging in for quite a while. My old

password didn't work and for several months "password retrieval"

didn't work at all. I wrote 2 e-mails to Andy and received no reply.

I think there is a glitch in the system somewhere...fwiw...

[Pamela Brown]

There is a copy of the A1-6 in TDID as well as a close-up that do not show a 'spiral nebulae'. I have posted links to my site that show a newspaper version that has the defect and a blowup that does not carry the defect.

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/car1.jpg

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

While you may disagree with me, you can hardly dismiss the fact that different versions of the A1-6 exist, can you? It is my thinking that the haste with which the news upload was done on 11.22.63 may have resulted in that anomaly and others as well.

But the larger point, which I address in a post to Tink, is what he was viewing when he made the statement that he saw no defect. If he can produce that version and explain the provenance of it, there will be a level field for everyone else to examine.

Why not keep the subject of the A1-6 separate from the discussion of the PH witnesses? At least for now?

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 Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pamela,

Your first link, http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/car1.jpg, yields a photograph where the white spiral nebula with a

black hole at the center would be clearly visible just below the arrow shown -- except that the black hole has been

whited out. Compare with with other photos and you will see exactly what I mean. It is at a location slightly above

the end of the rear view mirror and below the arrow and is not difficult to discern.

Your second link, http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif, shows Jackie's hand on his left arm and is

too low to show the spiral nebula. It is interesting to me that a newspaper would have known to whiten out such a

minor detail in this photograph, when only those who knew what it indicated would have been in the position to have

it removed. I take this as yet another indication of the efficiency of the cover up.

Jim

There is a copy of the A1-6 in TDID as well as a close-up that do not show a 'spiral nebulae'. I have posted links to my site that show a newspaper version that has the defect and a blowup that does not carry the defect.

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/car1.jpg

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

While you may disagree with me, you can hardly dismiss the fact that different versions of the A1-6 exist, can you? It is my thinking that the haste with which the news upload was done on 11.22.63 may have resulted in that anomaly and others as well.

But the larger point, which I address in a post to Tink, is what he was viewing when he made the statement that he saw no defect. If he can produce that version and explain the provenance of it, there will be a level field for everyone else to examine.

Why not keep the subject of the A1-6 separate from the discussion of the PH witnesses? At least for now?

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

[Jack White]

Pamela,

Your first link, http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/car1.jpg, yields a photograph where the white spiral nebula with a

black hole at the center would be clearly visible just below the arrow shown -- except that the black hole has been

whited out. Compare with with other photos and you will see exactly what I mean. It is at a location slightly above

the end of the rear view mirror and below the arrow and is not difficult to discern.

Your second link, http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif, shows Jackie's hand on his left arm and is

too low to show the spiral nebula. It is interesting to me that a newspaper would have known to whiten out such a

minor detail in this photograph, when only those who knew what it indicated would have been in the position to have

it removed. I take this as yet another indication of the efficiency of the cover up.

Jim

Jim...for those who are not familiar with the "spiral nebula" hole, here is a graphic I produced

five or six years ago, with a circle. Another lower circle points out another curiosity.

Jack

There is a copy of the A1-6 in TDID as well as a close-up that do not show a 'spiral nebulae'. I have posted links to my site that show a newspaper version that has the defect and a blowup that does not carry the defect.

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/car1.jpg

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

While you may disagree with me, you can hardly dismiss the fact that different versions of the A1-6 exist, can you? It is my thinking that the haste with which the news upload was done on 11.22.63 may have resulted in that anomaly and others as well.

But the larger point, which I address in a post to Tink, is what he was viewing when he made the statement that he saw no defect. If he can produce that version and explain the provenance of it, there will be a level field for everyone else to examine.

Why not keep the subject of the A1-6 separate from the discussion of the PH witnesses? At least for now?

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

Jim...for those who are not familiar with the "spiral nebula" hole, here is a graphic I produced

five or six years ago, with a circle. Another lower circle points out another curiosity.

Jack

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Pamela's second link, http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif, is not "too low" at all, and in fact does show the supposed "spiral nebual" - it's directly above the white cuff of Presient Kennedy's left shirt sleeve.

Pamela,

Your first link, http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/car1.jpg, yields a photograph where the white spiral nebula with a

black hole at the center would be clearly visible just below the arrow shown -- except that the black hole has been

whited out. Compare with with other photos and you will see exactly what I mean. It is at a location slightly above

the end of the rear view mirror and below the arrow and is not difficult to discern.

Your second link, http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif, shows Jackie's hand on his left arm and is

too low to show the spiral nebula. It is interesting to me that a newspaper would have known to whiten out such a

minor detail in this photograph, when only those who knew what it indicated would have been in the position to have

it removed. I take this as yet another indication of the efficiency of the cover up.

Jim

There is a copy of the A1-6 in TDID as well as a close-up that do not show a 'spiral nebulae'. I have posted links to my site that show a newspaper version that has the defect and a blowup that does not carry the defect.

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/car1.jpg

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

While you may disagree with me, you can hardly dismiss the fact that different versions of the A1-6 exist, can you? It is my thinking that the haste with which the news upload was done on 11.22.63 may have resulted in that anomaly and others as well.

But the larger point, which I address in a post to Tink, is what he was viewing when he made the statement that he saw no defect. If he can produce that version and explain the provenance of it, there will be a level field for everyone else to examine.

Why not keep the subject of the A1-6 separate from the discussion of the PH witnesses? At least for now?

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

[Josiah Thompson]

Professor,

You write:

“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!"

"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!”

“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!”

This is classic Fetzer posturing and it says a lot about you, not me. As in other posts, here you are desperately trying to make me appear suspect. It is classic because your strategy for the last decade has been to impugn the motives and character of those who oppose you. It’s been over a decade since you declared on your web site that I and others were “agents of disinformation” – that is, employees of intelligence agencies spreading false information. Remember when you claimed on your web site that “Josiah Thompson is not the person he appears to be.” This sort of thing earned you a robust denunciation from the "heavies" of the research community. And now, a decade later, you keep trying the same thing.

And so you fulminate. You stoke your anger and raise yourself to even higher levels of high dudgeon. But isn’t the dirty little secret, Professor, that you are really angry at me because I keep showing up your errors? Errors like publishing a photo from Rollie Zavada’s study and saying it proves the opposite of what it in fact proves. So right now, once again, very quietly and definitively I am going to prove that your bluster hides great vacuity, that you do not argue, you bloviate.

You wrote: “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!”

As you will recall, I pointed out this was not my discovery but that of Don Thomas. He first offered this discovery at a Lancer conference in 2001. Apparently you missed it. I have had both the honor and the pleasure of reading the manuscript of Thomas’s new book Hear No Evil where this discovery is even more persuasively presented. Below is an excerpt from Don’s 2001 lecture at Lancer where this discovery is laid out. At that time, he simplified the discovery with a diagram that I am also including. All of this can be found on the Mary Ferrell site or at the URL offered below:

http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/hearnoevil.htm

“One can apply the same analysis to the unequivocal evidence of impact at frame 313 to reach a startling conclusion. The blur which is coincident with this frame, the largest blur episode in the Zapruder film, occurs much too soon to be caused by a gunshot from the Book Depository. Because nothing extraordinary is visible in frame 312, all analysts have concluded that the impact must have occurred during the 27 msec interval between the exposures of frames 312 and 313 when the shutter occluded the lens. But, inasmuch as the effects of bullet impact are so vivid in the latter frame, it is possible to be more precise in establishing the instant of impact. The frame shows fragments of bone egressing the President's skull at ballistic velocities. The ITEK Corporation analysts calculated the velocity of the fragments at approximately 100 ft/sec. The largest fragment appears as a 1.3 m long white streak creating a string of pearls effect. The effect results from the flat bone flipping end over end as it spins away from the cranium during the 27 msec exposure time of the frame. Importantly, the white streak begins about one ft away from the head, indicating that the exposure of the frame began a few msec after the bone separated from the skull. Studies of bullet impacts with fluid filled vessels using high speed photography show that the pressure wave which ruptures the skull occurs about 5-10 msec after passage of the bullet [Lindenberg 1971, Di Miao 1993]. Thus, impact time might have been as early as 15 msec prior to the exposure of frame 313, near the midpoint of the shutter closure between frames.”

“The initiation of the exposure of frame 313 can be used as an anchor point time, to, with earliest bullet impact estimated at to-15 msec. President Kennedy was 265 ft from the sixth floor window at the time of the fatal shot [6 HSCA 27]. The Army's weapons experts measured the velocity of the bullet from the alleged murder weapon at 90 yd to be 1600 ft/sec [1 HSCA 413-414]. Thus, the average velocity would have been 1880 ft/sec and the bullet flight time to cover 265 ft = 141 msec. Therefore, trigger time, assuming an origin in the Book Depository, would calculate to to-156 msec. As before, the sound would have taken 240 msec to reach Zapruder, arriving at time to+84 msec. Given the minimum of 25 msec for latency in induction of the startle reaction, the earliest that the camera body could have jiggled would be at 109 msec after the initiation of frame 313, producing a blur at frame 315. The relevant times are shown in a schematic (Fig. 22). It is perplexing then, that the report of the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel contains the unsupported and unqualified statement,”

"...it is possible to determine that the sound from that shot would have reached Zapruder at frame 313-314..."

“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.”

The shock wave emanates from the nose of the bullet as it rips through the air. The closest that the bullet ever came to Zapruder, if it did come from the Book Depository, was the instant before it struck the President. Zapruder was 73 ft from the President at the time of the fatal shot [6 HSCA 39]. The shock wave emanating from the bullet would have taken 65 msec to travel the distance from this point in its path to Zapruder. From earliest impact time at to-15 msec the shock wave would impinge on the camera body at 50 msec after the beginning of the exposure of frame 313, i.e., at about the beginning of the exposure of frame 314, much too late to account for the blur in frame 313."

What do you have to say for yourself, Professor?

Josiah Thompson

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

Edited January 6, 2010 by Josiah Thompson

[Josiah Thompson]

Pamela,

I apologize for not replying sooner.

You got it right. Back in 1967, I was interested in another question concerning the Altgens photo: Was it Oswald or Billy Lovelady in the doorway of the TSBD? Because of that we went to AP and got prints from the original negative. It was a pain in the neck but finally we succeeded. One dividend from that was that it was possible to see that the windshield was undamaged at the time of the Altgens photo (Z 255). Since it is damaged a few seconds later (as shown by Altgens' second photo) the damage occurred in the interval between the two photos. It's not even close. The windshield looks completely pristine and the soccalled "spiral nebula" is clearly a swirl in the clothes of a woman in the background.

I got my copies from the original AP negative. Many years later you got your copy from the original AP negative via NARA. What more is there to be said.

All my photos from Six Seconds are about to be returned to me by the 6th Floor Museum. Hence, I don't have photos here that can be scanned like yours was.

Josiah Thompson

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

[Jack White]

NO CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN FROM A FABRICATED FILM.

Citing frame references is an exercise in nothingness.

Jack

[David Lifton]

Re Pamela's assertion that the Zapruder film was projected at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the fall of 1964, and that "I've been sharing this event with the research community for a very long time."

No, I was unaware that you were doing so, but that fact does not change my opinion about this one iota. I don't know what film you saw at New York City's Bleeker Street Cinema "in the fall of 1964" (which would be just after the issuance of the Warren Report) but it couldn't possibly have been the Zapruder film.

On 11/25/63, Time-Life executed an "all rights" contract on the Zapruder film for $150,000-and took permanent legal possession of the original with the express purpose of never permitting it to be seen as a motion picture film. Using a multiplier of six (to bring us to "today's money"), Time-Life executed a contract for $900,000 (in today's money) to achieve that goal.

This is very serious money, and bespeaks a very serious intent at complete suppression--especially in the fall of 1964, with the LBJ-Goldwater election on the calendar.

As previously noted, I had these contracts--courtesy of Josiah thompson--by around 1969/70. I was in very heavy contact with the ARRB and sent them to Horne, Gunn, and Marwell on July 1, 1996--along with a detailed memorandum explaining the significance of the change in price between Saturday, 11/23, and Monday, 11/25/63. I received back direct commentary that Marwell, Gunn, and Laura Denk was delighted and fascinated by the receipt of this material.

As the contracts show, $25,000 (of $150,000, in today's money) was paid on 11/23/63; and another $25,000 (i.e., another $150,000, in today's money) was paid a few days after January 1, 1964. So by the fall of 1964, $300,000 (in today's money) had been expended.

By the fall of 1964, frames from the film had appeared in three issues of LIFE magazine: about 30 frames of the Zapruder film had been published in the 11/29/63 edition of Life; and about 9 frames in the Life Memorial Edition, the next week. In early October, 1964, in an issue about the Warren Report, 8 frames were published.

Outside of the FBI, the Secret Service and the Warren Commission, and certain staffers at Life, the only way for an ordinary civilian to see the Zapruder film was to travel to Washington, D.C. and make an appointment for a screening at the National Archives. Two such persons who did exactly that were Thomas Stamm, and Stewart Galanor. They both related vivid accounts describing what that was like--Stamm's account being circulated to a number of people in the nascent "research community."

Now back to this claim about the public projection of this film at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the fall of 1964:

I continue to maintain that the Zapruder film was not projected at the Bleeker Street Cinema in New York City--or any other New York theater, for that matter--and that Time-Life had executed a contract to the tune of $900,000 (in today's money) insure that no such thing would occur--and in fact it did not occur. I do not know what you saw screened at the Bleeker Street Cinema, but it is not just "highly unlikely" that it was the Zapruder film--that is as close to impossible as one can get.

I say this as someone who lived through the frustration of this period, someone who realized, from the poor black and white reproductions of the Z frames in Volume 18, that the film showed JFK being slammed backwards and to the left, and who, consequently, greatly admired the effort expended by a small number of first generation JFK researchers--Thomas Stamm and Stewart Galanor (and Vincent Salandria, etc.) --who traveled to the National Archives, made an appointment to screen this critical evidence, were shocked at what they saw, and then did what they could--in a world where there was no Internet--to "spread the word." I believe it demeans their effort and the historic role they played to repeatedly disseminate a story that during this period when the film was clearly quarantined from the American public, that it was screened at the Bleeker Street cinema.

In my opinion, spreading this story--whether the result of confusion or misunderstanding--is simply spreading an urban legend.

DSL

January 6, 2010; 4:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[David Lifton]

Very well put, jack.

Those who are opeating under the old paradigm are still looking for "hidden shooters on the knoll." But I am positive that this assassination was filmed, the same way a football team films its own play, and so we're looking for hidden cameras, and other paraphernalia and related techniques to understand not only how the shooting occurred, but how the subsequent "imagery" of this event was controlled.

DSL

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Of course it is too low! The spiral nebula is where his left ear would be visible were it not obscured by the white sprial.

Pamela's second link, http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif, is not "too low" at all, and in fact does show the supposed "spiral nebual" - it's directly above the white cuff of Presient Kennedy's left shirt sleeve.

Pamela,

Your first link, http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/car1.jpg, yields a photograph where the white spiral nebula with a

black hole at the center would be clearly visible just below the arrow shown -- except that the black hole has been

whited out. Compare with with other photos and you will see exactly what I mean. It is at a location slightly above

the end of the rear view mirror and below the arrow and is not difficult to discern.

Your second link, http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif, shows Jackie's hand on his left arm and is

too low to show the spiral nebula. It is interesting to me that a newspaper would have known to whiten out such a

minor detail in this photograph, when only those who knew what it indicated would have been in the position to have

it removed. I take this as yet another indication of the efficiency of the cover up.

Jim

There is a copy of the A1-6 in TDID as well as a close-up that do not show a 'spiral nebulae'. I have posted links to my site that show a newspaper version that has the defect and a blowup that does not carry the defect.

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/car1.jpg

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

While you may disagree with me, you can hardly dismiss the fact that different versions of the A1-6 exist, can you? It is my thinking that the haste with which the news upload was done on 11.22.63 may have resulted in that anomaly and others as well.

But the larger point, which I address in a post to Tink, is what he was viewing when he made the statement that he saw no defect. If he can produce that version and explain the provenance of it, there will be a level field for everyone else to examine.

Why not keep the subject of the A1-6 separate from the discussion of the PH witnesses? At least for now?

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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 selective 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

Professor,

You write:

“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!"

"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!”

“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!”

This is classic Fetzer posturing and it says a lot about you, not me. As in other posts, here you are desperately trying to make me appear suspect. It is classic because your strategy for the last decade has been to impugn the motives and character of those who oppose you. It’s been over a decade since you declared on your web site that I and others were “agents of disinformation” – that is, employees of intelligence agencies spreading false information. Remember when you claimed on your web site that “Josiah Thompson is not the person he appears to be.” This sort of thing earned you a robust denunciation from the "heavies" of the research community. And now, a decade later, you keep trying the same thing.

And so you fulminate. You stoke your anger and raise yourself to even higher levels of high dudgeon. But isn’t the dirty little secret, Professor, that you are really angry at me because I keep showing up your errors? Errors like publishing a photo from Rollie Zavada’s study and saying it proves the opposite of what it in fact proves. So right now, once again, very quietly and definitively I am going to prove that your bluster hides great vacuity, that you do not argue, you bloviate.

You wrote: “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!”

As you will recall, I pointed out this was not my discovery but that of Don Thomas. He first offered this discovery at a Lancer conference in 2001. Apparently you missed it. I have had both the honor and the pleasure of reading the manuscript of Thomas’s new book Hear No Evil where this discovery is even more persuasively presented. Below is an excerpt from Don’s 2001 lecture at Lancer where this discovery is laid out. At that time, he simplified the discovery with a diagram that I am also including. All of this can be found on the Mary Ferrell site or at the URL offered below:

http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/hearnoevil.htm

“One can apply the same analysis to the unequivocal evidence of impact at frame 313 to reach a startling conclusion. The blur which is coincident with this frame, the largest blur episode in the Zapruder film, occurs much too soon to be caused by a gunshot from the Book Depository. Because nothing extraordinary is visible in frame 312, all analysts have concluded that the impact must have occurred during the 27 msec interval between the exposures of frames 312 and 313 when the shutter occluded the lens. But, inasmuch as the effects of bullet impact are so vivid in the latter frame, it is possible to be more precise in establishing the instant of impact. The frame shows fragments of bone egressing the President's skull at ballistic velocities. The ITEK Corporation analysts calculated the velocity of the fragments at approximately 100 ft/sec. The largest fragment appears as a 1.3 m long white streak creating a string of pearls effect. The effect results from the flat bone flipping end over end as it spins away from the cranium during the 27 msec exposure time of the frame. Importantly, the white streak begins about one ft away from the head, indicating that the exposure of the frame began a few msec after the bone separated from the skull. Studies of bullet impacts with fluid filled vessels using high speed photography show that the pressure wave which ruptures the skull occurs about 5-10 msec after passage of the bullet [Lindenberg 1971, Di Miao 1993]. Thus, impact time might have been as early as 15 msec prior to the exposure of frame 313, near the midpoint of the shutter closure between frames.”

“The initiation of the exposure of frame 313 can be used as an anchor point time, to, with earliest bullet impact estimated at to-15 msec. President Kennedy was 265 ft from the sixth floor window at the time of the fatal shot [6 HSCA 27]. The Army's weapons experts measured the velocity of the bullet from the alleged murder weapon at 90 yd to be 1600 ft/sec [1 HSCA 413-414]. Thus, the average velocity would have been 1880 ft/sec and the bullet flight time to cover 265 ft = 141 msec. Therefore, trigger time, assuming an origin in the Book Depository, would calculate to to-156 msec. As before, the sound would have taken 240 msec to reach Zapruder, arriving at time to+84 msec. Given the minimum of 25 msec for latency in induction of the startle reaction, the earliest that the camera body could have jiggled would be at 109 msec after the initiation of frame 313, producing a blur at frame 315. The relevant times are shown in a schematic (Fig. 22). It is perplexing then, that the report of the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel contains the unsupported and unqualified statement,”

"...it is possible to determine that the sound from that shot would have reached Zapruder at frame 313-314..."

“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.”

The shock wave emanates from the nose of the bullet as it rips through the air. The closest that the bullet ever came to Zapruder, if it did come from the Book Depository, was the instant before it struck the President. Zapruder was 73 ft from the President at the time of the fatal shot [6 HSCA 39]. The shock wave emanating from the bullet would have taken 65 msec to travel the distance from this point in its path to Zapruder. From earliest impact time at to-15 msec the shock wave would impinge on the camera body at 50 msec after the beginning of the exposure of frame 313, i.e., at about the beginning of the exposure of frame 314, much too late to account for the blur in frame 313."

What do you have to say for yourself, Professor?

Josiah Thompson

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

Edited January 7, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

Re Pamela's assertion that the Zapruder film was projected at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the fall of 1964, and that "I've been sharing this event with the research community for a very long time."

No, I was unaware that you were doing so, but that fact does not change my opinion about this one iota. I don't know what film you saw at New York City's Bleeker Street Cinema "in the fall of 1964" (which would be just after the issuance of the Warren Report) but it couldn't possibly have been the Zapruder film.

On 11/25/63, Time-Life executed an "all rights" contract on the Zapruder film for $150,000-and took permanent legal possession of the original with the express purpose of never permitting it to be seen as a motion picture film. Using a multiplier of six (to bring us to "today's money"), Time-Life executed a contract for $900,000 (in today's money) to achieve that goal.

This is very serious money, and bespeaks a very serious intent at complete suppression--especially in the fall of 1964, with the LBJ-Goldwater election on the calendar.

As previously noted, I had these contracts--courtesy of Josiah thompson--by around 1969/70. I was in very heavy contact with the ARRB and sent them to Horne, Gunn, and Marwell on July 1, 1996--along with a detailed memorandum explaining the significance of the change in price between Saturday, 11/23, and Monday, 11/25/63. I received back direct commentary that Marwell, Gunn, and Laura Denk was delighted and fascinated by the receipt of this material.

As the contracts show, $25,000 (of $150,000, in today's money) was paid on 11/23/63; and another $25,000 (i.e., another $150,000, in today's money) was paid a few days after January 1, 1964. So by the fall of 1964, $300,000 (in today's money) had been expended.

By the fall of 1964, frames from the film had appeared in three issues of LIFE magazine: about 30 frames of the Zapruder film had been published in the 11/29/63 edition of Life; and about 9 frames in the Life Memorial Edition, the next week. In early October, 1964, in an issue about the Warren Report, 8 frames were published.

Outside of the FBI, the Secret Service and the Warren Commission, and certain staffers at Life, the only way for an ordinary civilian to see the Zapruder film was to travel to Washington, D.C. and make an appointment for a screening at the National Archives. Two such persons who did exactly that were Thomas Stamm, and Stewart Galanor. They both related vivid accounts describing what that was like--Stamm's account being circulated to a number of people in the nascent "research community."

Now back to this claim about the public projection of this film at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the fall of 1964:

I continue to maintain that the Zapruder film was not projected at the Bleeker Street Cinema in New York City--or any other New York theater, for that matter--and that Time-Life had executed a contract to the tune of $900,000 (in today's money) insure that no such thing would occur--and in fact it did not occur. I do not know what you saw screened at the Bleeker Street Cinema, but it is not just "highly unlikely" that it was the Zapruder film--that is as close to impossible as one can get.

I say this as someone who lived through the frustration of this period, someone who realized, from the poor black and white reproductions of the Z frames in Volume 18, that the film showed JFK being slammed backwards and to the left, and who, consequently, greatly admired the effort expended by a small number of first generation JFK researchers--Thomas Stamm and Stewart Galanor (and Vincent Salandria, etc.) --who traveled to the National Archives, made an appointment to screen this critical evidence, were shocked at what they saw, and then did what they could--in a world where there was no Internet--to "spread the word." I believe it demeans their effort and the historic role they played to repeatedly disseminate a story that during this period when the film was clearly quarantined from the American public, that it was screened at the Bleeker Street cinema.

In my opinion, spreading this story--whether the result of confusion or misunderstanding--is simply spreading an urban legend.

DSL

January 6, 2010; 4:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Well said David, I agree 100%

And anyone who cant see the spiral nebula in Altgens is so caught up in the LNer fantasy land that their mind refuses to see it

Just look at "Pictures Of The Pain"

Edited January 7, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Jack White]

Very well put, jack.

Those who are opeating under the old paradigm are still looking for "hidden shooters on the knoll." But I am positive that this assassination was filmed, the same way a football team films its own play, and so we're looking for hidden cameras, and other paraphernalia and related techniques to understand not only how the shooting occurred, but how the subsequent "imagery" of this event was controlled.

DSL

David...here is my theory. The best way to hide something is IN PLAIN SIGHT, AS IF IT BELONGS THERE.

If on 11-22 there was on the pedestal a tripod with a movie camera, nobody would give it a second thought.

It was manned by a professional cameraman with 16mm camera/film. About 5 or10 minutes before the motorcade

reached the plaza, he shot A PRELIMINARY GUIDE FILM TO ASSIST ANIMATORS.

When the motorcade reached Houston Street, the cameraman shot TAKE 2, CAPTURING THE ENTIRE MOTORCADE

FROM ELM TO HOUSTON, including the limo and occupants.

When the FAKED FINAL FILM WAS FABRICATED, it was an amalgam of the GUIDE FILM and the TAKE 2 FILM.

Using aerial imaging, the two films were interchangeable as far as REGISTRATION AND PERSPECTIVE were

concerned. This accounts for certain anomalies in the extant film such as the MOTIONLESS SPECTATORS ON

THE NORTH CURB, WHICH WERE TAKEN FROM THE GUIDE FILM.

All of the above is very logical if you look at various anomalies and figure which film they came from...TAKE 1

OR TAKE 2.

Then, later by prearranged plan, Abe makes public that he shot the film...and you know the story from there.

The FBI rounds up all other movies and photos, and paints out the camera and tripod, replacing them with

Zapruder and Sitzman.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

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 7, 2010 by Josiah Thompson