SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

[David G. Healy]

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

"I say Holmes, you may just have solved that part of the case". Very interesting idea, Jack. Only problem is we haven't found the cameraman, unless it was Zapruder himself, or a hidden other very nearby. It would have to be someone at about the same angle as Z and S.

I find this an amazingly interesting thread and I know there are high passions on the various sides; just a personal request, more light and less heat [attack the positions/ideas, not the person - whenever possible]. I also know it is not always possible when one suspects someone did or thought something for some motive one doesn't respect. But unless one is sure in one's own heart, give the other a little benefit of the doubt. The research community seems to like to stone and then eat their own dead. Viewed from the outside it has weakened us, IMO, although vetting of the information and the persons - even sometimes their motives are valid and necessary. Carry-on with the stoning and eating of the dead - tastefully.

same here, Peter..... though I disagree in one area, the research community doesn't eat its own, its dying of starvation. There's damn few researchers left despite what folks call themselves... 90% is simply protecting turf...

When one talks about hiding in plain sight, one needs to understand one of these:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nice-Bell-Howell-Sport...=item4cece369ad

fits right in the palm of your hand... Bell & Howell no less, double 8mm, around since the 20's. Problem with some researchers of yore, their imaginations aren't as quick... Could that be by design? notice the film speeds...

Edited January 7, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Self deletion

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

Edited January 7, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Well, Professor, you’re just plain wrong.

Attached below is slight crop of the image from Pamela’s second link at http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif. In it I’ve circled the so called “spiral nebula” feature. It’s located directly above the white cuff of President Kennedy's left shirt sleeve, just as I told you two posts back

The inset image, a crop from a post right here in this thread, is Jack White’s circling of the so called “spiral nebula” from another version of Altgens.

Clearly they are both the same feature. In fact I’d suggest that you’d have to be “cognitively impaired” to not be able to see that they are the same.

Isn’t it interesting that even after 3 postings on the matter, you were unable to identify the so-called “spiral nebula” in the image from Pamela’s second link.

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

Edited January 7, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Pamela Brown]

Since Doug Weldon is posting here, perhaps it would not be too much to ask for him to provide us with an upload of the version of the A1-6 he is using in his assertion, and also provide us with its provenance.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[David G. Healy]

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

"I say Holmes, you may just have solved that part of the case". Very interesting idea, Jack. Only problem is we haven't found the cameraman, unless it was Zapruder himself, or a hidden other very nearby. It would have to be someone at about the same angle as Z and S.

I find this an amazingly interesting thread and I know there are high passions on the various sides; just a personal request, more light and less heat [attack the positions/ideas, not the person - whenever possible]. I also know it is not always possible when one suspects someone did or thought something for some motive one doesn't respect. But unless one is sure in one's own heart, give the other a little benefit of the doubt. The research community seems to like to stone and then eat their own dead. Viewed from the outside it has weakened us, IMO, although vetting of the information and the persons - even sometimes their motives are valid and necessary. Carry-on with the stoning and eating of the dead - tastefully.

same here, Peter..... though I disagree in one area, the research community doesn't eat its own, its dying of starvation. There's damn few researchers left despite what folks call themselves... 90% is simply protecting turf...

When one talks about hiding in plain sight, one needs to understand one of these:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nice-Bell-Howell-Sport...=item4cece369ad

fits right in the palm of your hand... Bell & Howell no less, double 8mm, around since the 20's. Problem with some researchers of yore, their imaginations aren't as quick... Could that be by design? notice the film speeds...

David, Only problem with that camera is this would [as per Jack's interesting scenario] NEED a tripod that was not moved. We need to find someone with a tripod in line with Zappy, or consider that Zappy made both.

As to 'research' dying of starvation....yes and no....the numbers are down...the public interest IMO is down...but what has been coming out by the few still extant of late has been nothing less than monumental! I think the CTs have won and we can declare victory...but sadly no one is watching to acknowledge this in the MSM or general public.

Tripod? Nah... tripod footage would not smoothly inter-cut with Zapruder's handheld offering... Now Zapruder doing both? Now where have I heard THAT before? However Peter, in my estimation that is probably the most likely scenario...

Edited January 7, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. 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.

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. I suppose I should not be surprised that you were sent on a fool's errand. We have multiple witnesses and substantiating photographs. It was there, it was real--and its denial is simply more obfuscation!

Well, Professor, you’re just plain wrong.

Attached below is slight crop of the image from Pamela’s second link at http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif. In it I’ve circled the so called “spiral nebula” feature. It’s located directly above the white cuff of President Kennedy's left shirt sleeve, just as I told you two posts back

The inset image, a crop from a post right here in this thread, is Jack White’s circling of the so called “spiral nebula” from another version of Altgens.

Clearly they are both the same feature. In fact I’d suggest that you’d have to be “cognitively impaired” to not be able to see that they are the same.

Isn’t it interesting that even after 3 postings on the matter, you were unable to identify the so-called “spiral nebula” in the image from Pamela’s second link.

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]

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

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

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

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

Six Seconds in Dallas

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

JFKresearch Forum that Josiah Thompson's book, SIX

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

in collaboration with The 6th Floor Museum caused me

concern, for reasons explained in this post. While

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and preservation of original materials."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

addressed in his DISINFORMATION SERIES have displayed his ignorance of recent

work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of computerized photoanalysis and arrived at very different conclusions about

the shot sequence itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

be wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mistakenly supposing that this is the latest research reflecting current work

on the subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

maintains a file of complaints about the operation there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yourself.

I wrote:

“Frame 313 is unique among the various Zapruder frames since it demonstrably shows the impact of a bullet at the same time the camera is being moved by the startle reaction of Zapruder. In all other instances, where we believe we can see the effects of a bullet strike, the horizontal smear introduced by Zapruder’s startle reaction follows two or three frames later. The fact that 313 shows large horizontal smearing is critical. The effect can be seen by noting the horizontal smearing of the light reflections from the chrome strut over the passenger compartment. Measurements of the position of JFK’s head were made against the background of the light-colored south curb of Elm Street. The effect of the smear was to elongate this horizontal light-colored area.”

You replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josiah Thompson

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

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

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

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

Consider the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim

[Todd W. Vaughan]

No, Professor, sorry, you absolutely 100% did not “identify” the “spiral nebula” in the Altgens 1-6 blow-up that Pamela provided a link for.

In fact, you twice committed yourself here in writing to claiming that the image Pamela provided was framed “too low to show the spiral nebula”.

Your first claim regarding this matter was…

“Pamela’s 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.” (emphasis mine)

When I then pointed out that…

“(it’s) 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.”

To which you replied with…

“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.” (emphasis mine)

Now, given your own words above, how in the world can you honestly sit there and claim that you “not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted.”, when in fact you twice claimed that the image Pamela provided was framed “too low to show the spiral nebula”?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

No, you are right. The degree of magnification threw off my perception. It is right there where it should be -- on a line extending from the inside of her left thumb upward to where JFK's left ear would be visible if it were not obscured by the white spiral nebula. As I have said several times before, the dark hole at the center has been painted out, which makes it look rather more like an open flower. I looks a bit mushy here. Perhaps Jack might outline the image that you claim to find so difficult to discern. And why don't you repeat my posts when you reply? You create a misleading impression by doing that. But, oh, I forgot! That's exactly what someone like you is supposed to do! Obfuscate, at all costs!

No, Professor, sorry, you absolutely 100% did not “identify” the “spiral nebula” in the Altgens 1-6 blow-up that Pamela provided a link for.

In fact, you twice committed yourself here in writing to claiming that the image Pamela provided was framed “too low to show the spiral nebula”.

Your first claim regarding this matter was…

“Pamela’s 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.” (emphasis mine)

When I then pointed out that…

“(it’s) 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.”

To which you replied with…

“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.” (emphasis mine)

Now, given your own words above, how in the world can you honestly sit there and claim that you “not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted.”, when in fact you twice claimed that the image Pamela provided was framed “too low to show the spiral nebula”?

Edited January 7, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

No, you are right. The degree of magnification threw off my perception. It is right there where it should be -- on a line extending from the inside of her left thumb upward to where JFK's left ear would be visible if it were not obscured by the white spiral nebula. As I have said several times before, the dark hole at the center has been painted out, which makes it look rather more like an open flower. I looks a bit mushy here. Perhaps Jack might outline the image that you claim to find so difficult to discern. And why don't you repeat my posts when you reply? You create a misleading impression by doing that. But, oh, I forgot! That's exactly what someone like you is supposed to do! Obfuscate, at all costs!

No, Professor, sorry, you absolutely 100% did not “identify” the “spiral nebula” in the Altgens 1-6 blow-up that Pamela provided a link for.

In fact, you twice committed yourself here in writing to claiming that the image Pamela provided was framed “too low to show the spiral nebula”.

Your first claim regarding this matter was…

“Pamela’s 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.” (emphasis mine)

When I then pointed out that…

“(it’s) 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.”

To which you replied with…

“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.” (emphasis mine)

Now, given your own words above, how in the world can you honestly sit there and claim that you “not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted.”, when in fact you twice claimed that the image Pamela provided was framed “too low to show the spiral nebula”?

Jim...I DID post an image of the spiral nebula yesterday. You must have missed it. It is right beside the rear view mirror.

Jack

[Jack White]

Jack,

Here is Duncan's study:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=164116

Kathy

Thanks Kathy. I used Jack's measurements which show when scaled, that the figures are all the same size. As you can see, I just lined up Jack's yellow lines close enough to make the comparison, and mirror imaged the opposite views of the pedestal to match them up.

Duncan

Setting Duncan straight.

[Craig Lamson]

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

Would that also be like spreading the urban legen that Zapruders camera "couild not, should not" record images to the left of the sprocket holes as seen in the Zpruder film.

We KNOW its an urban legend because a B&H 414 is DESIGNED to produce recorded image area to the the same extent seen in the Zapruder film.

But hey, lets not let facts get in the way of a good fantasy and we must remember there are books to sell....

[Craig Lamson]

Jack,

Here is Duncan's study:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=164116

Kathy

Thanks Kathy. I used Jack's measurements which show when scaled, that the figures are all the same size. As you can see, I just lined up Jack's yellow lines close enough to make the comparison, and mirror imaged the opposite views of the pedestal to match them up.

Duncan

Setting Duncan straight.

Setting Jack Straight''

As thsi simple test shows, your study is a failure.

One has to wonder if you will admit your error or just continue to recycle your failed study again and again....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry174475

Bill, I'm going to give you first chance to respond.

Your work on the backyard photos center on the head size and neck size...correct? To make comparisons you took the backyard photos and scaled them all the the same headsize and found the bodies to not match in size...correct? And you scaled bodies to the same size and the heads did not match...correct? Finally you took a backyard photo and a sample photo of Oswalds head and scaled them to the same size and noticed the neck did not match...correct?

Your error is that you just can't scale things from different photos and expect thingts to match..or not.

You can test this concept easily, as I did.

I took three photos of a yardstick, with the same camera and same lens focal length. Much like the camera height in the backyard photos , the camera height was placed about in the middle of yardstick length(using 0 to 22 inches on the yardstick). And again like the backyard photos the the camera was placed in three different distances from the yardstick (subect) It was also like the backyard photos pointed upward or level to include the lenght of the yardstick as the camera moved closer the the yardsticki.

These are the three quick photos:

Now lets resize each yardstick so that the first 4 inches is the same on each yardstick (head). Notice how the "body ' is not the same size on each yardstick and also the the 'neck" ( width of the yardstick) is different as well. The point here is that you can't just scale different photos taken from different camera to subject distances and expect things to match up.

Here is the very best part. This same principle applys to EVERY 'study" ever done on the JFK photos that involvles resizing different photos taken from different places with the intention of comparing sizes between the photos. I think we can find quite a few examples of White doing this very thing, and citing the results as proof the images, whatever they my be are faked. He failed in his so called proof, but he did prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that when it comes to understanding the basics of photography, he does not. Now to be fair, he is not the only one to make this mistake and I'm sure he won't be the last. But the bottom line is that work produced via this method gets tossed into the trash bin .

[Barb Junkkarinen]

I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. 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.

Hi Jim,

I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.

Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.

“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."

This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.

You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!

You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, Dudman wrote, “A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.”

What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.

You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.

This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.

And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?

It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jeez, Barb. I've been waiting for you to show up. Whenever Tink is getting an intellectual whipping, he calls upon his faithful flock, of which you are such a prominent member! I find it fascinating that you would cite the first paragraph of that post but exclude the second. Egad! I wouldn't want to accuse YOU of OBFUSCATION. No, indeed. That would be a breech of manners and, as we all know, since we are supposed to tolerate even the most corrupt members of this forum. Here's the second paragraph OF THE VERY SAME POST. So what's going on with Barb Junkkarinen. She isn't Cindarella, but the shoe seems to fit:

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. I suppose I should not be surprised that you were sent on a fool's errand. We have multiple witnesses and substantiating photographs. It was there, it was real--and its denial is simply more obfuscation!

I have not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted. You don't have to look at MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2003), to view it on page 149 or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) to view it on page 436, but you can also view in in PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994) on page 314. I understand that more photographic evidence will be forthcoming soon. But I am very curious that you challenge it. 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.

Hi Jim,

I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him.

Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it.

“Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield."

This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July.

You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book!

You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, Dudman wrote, “A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.”

What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole.

You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman.

This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven.

And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that?

It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent.

Barb :-)

Edited January 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer