SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

[Dean Hagerman]

Interesting statement by Groden..

"For the firt time, I had an ultra clear copy..."

Notice he did say he had a copy the z film for the first time...rather that he had a "ultra clear" copy for the first time.

Make of it what you will, to me it says he had a not so "ultra clear" copy prior....

Interesting pick up, Craig.

Barb :-)

Maybe Groden had a bootleg copy from the Shaw trial that was obtained by Garrison in early 1969.

Seems he did. He shows a copy (whose quality he describes as "visual mud") in his DVD The Assassination Films".

Good call, I was glad Groden put that copy in his "Assassination Films" DVD/VHS, so you could see what the early researchers had to work with

I have a 16mm copy of the film that I purchased from the Citizen's Commission of Inquiry (Mark Lanes organization) in November of 1975.

Very cool Todd

Do you have a working projector?

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Interesting statement by Groden..

"For the firt time, I had an ultra clear copy..."

Notice he did say he had a copy the z film for the first time...rather that he had a "ultra clear" copy for the first time.

Make of it what you will, to me it says he had a not so "ultra clear" copy prior....

Interesting pick up, Craig.

Barb :-)

Maybe Groden had a bootleg copy from the Shaw trial that was obtained by Garrison in early 1969.

Seems he did. He shows a copy (whose quality he describes as "visual mud") in his DVD The Assassination Films".

Good call, I was glad Groden put that copy in his "Assassination Films" DVD/VHS, so you could see what the early researchers had to work with

I have a 16mm copy of the film that I purchased from the Citizen's Commission of Inquiry (Mark Lanes organization) in November of 1975.

Very cool Todd

Do you have a working projector?

No, what I did back then was borrow a 16 mm projector from our local Library (my decision to order the film in 16mm rather than Super 8 was based on the fact that I could borrow that projector). I also showed the film at High School. I do have the original screen that I got for Christmas to show the film on rather than just shoing it on the wall or a white sheet.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Dean Hagerman]

Interesting statement by Groden..

"For the firt time, I had an ultra clear copy..."

Notice he did say he had a copy the z film for the first time...rather that he had a "ultra clear" copy for the first time.

Make of it what you will, to me it says he had a not so "ultra clear" copy prior....

Interesting pick up, Craig.

Barb :-)

Maybe Groden had a bootleg copy from the Shaw trial that was obtained by Garrison in early 1969.

Seems he did. He shows a copy (whose quality he describes as "visual mud") in his DVD The Assassination Films".

Good call, I was glad Groden put that copy in his "Assassination Films" DVD/VHS, so you could see what the early researchers had to work with

I have a 16mm copy of the film that I purchased from the Citizen's Commission of Inquiry (Mark Lanes organization) in November of 1975.

Very cool Todd

Do you have a working projector?

No, what I did back then was borrow a 16 mm projector from our local Library (my decision to order the film in 16mm rather than Super 8 was based on the fact that I could borrow that projector). I also showed the film at High School. I do have the original screen that I got for Christmas to show the film on rather than just shoing it on the wall or a white sheet.

Thats just cool as hell that you showed the Z-film at your high school back then

I bet the students were shocked and in awe

The first time I saw the Z-film was on the Nova program back in 1988 I remember the head shot over and over again in my head, in my dreams, I could not stop thinking about it

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Interesting statement by Groden..

"For the firt time, I had an ultra clear copy..."

Notice he did say he had a copy the z film for the first time...rather that he had a "ultra clear" copy for the first time.

Make of it what you will, to me it says he had a not so "ultra clear" copy prior....

Interesting pick up, Craig.

Barb :-)

Maybe Groden had a bootleg copy from the Shaw trial that was obtained by Garrison in early 1969.

Seems he did. He shows a copy (whose quality he describes as "visual mud") in his DVD The Assassination Films".

Good call, I was glad Groden put that copy in his "Assassination Films" DVD/VHS, so you could see what the early researchers had to work with

I have a 16mm copy of the film that I purchased from the Citizen's Commission of Inquiry (Mark Lanes organization) in November of 1975.

Very cool Todd

Do you have a working projector?

No, what I did back then was borrow a 16 mm projector from our local Library (my decision to order the film in 16mm rather than Super 8 was based on the fact that I could borrow that projector). I also showed the film at High School. I do have the original screen that I got for Christmas to show the film on rather than just shoing it on the wall or a white sheet.

Thats just cool as hell that you showed the Z-film at your high school back then

I bet the students were shocked and in awe

The first time I saw the Z-film was on the Nova program back in 1988 I remember the head shot over and over again in my head, in my dreams, I could not stop thinking about it

Do you have the NOVA program on tape or disc?

[Paul Rigby]

In late November 1967, Max Lerner, long a zealous stenographer of the plotters’ shifting explanations for the Dallas coup, reviewed Thompson’s SSID, and pronounced himself a convert.

The emergence of serious critics of the Warren Report – by serious Lerner meant academics, men like Epstein, Popkin, and now Thompson – had persuaded him that there was “some kind of collaborative shooting” and that “a trap had been set for the President” (1). At the end of his review, Lerner expressed the hope “That Thompson will leave Kierkegaard alone for a while, and turn to the big problem remaining in the assassination: who were the three men, where did they come from, what plot did they form, by what strange motives were they moved?” (2).

Forty-years on, we know that Lerner pleaded in vain. Not merely did Thompson add nothing to the plot so fuzzily sketched in SSID, he now devotes his time to dismissing the very evidence he adduced for a plot. There is continuity in his work, though, and we overlook it at our peril: He continues to offer a politics-free analysis, whether of Time-Life, Kennedy’s relationship with the CIA, or the Warren Commission.

(1) Max Lerner, “A New Book Shoots Big Holes in Warren Report,” L.A. Times, 26 November 1967, p.P7

(2) Ibid.

Thompson emerged from the same stable, and at much the same time, as Edward J. Epstein. An interesting assessment of Epstein’s role was offered by Marian Kester in a Third Decade essay of July 1985:

"His role seems to be that of a neutralizing agent: his books are interjected as a kind of psychological counterstroke whenever the consensus seems dangerously close to crystallizing around the anti-Castro covert operations hypothesis"(1)

Thompson’s interventions in the past decade or so leave little doubt that he, too, has been deployed as a neutralizing agent. His superficial objections and backslidings – the former faithfully echoed by his very own chorus, the latter assiduously ignored like so many inconvenient witnesses - are interjected as a propaganda counterstroke whenever the consensus seems dangerously close to crystallizing in favour of the wholesale fraudulence of the assassination’s photographic record.

Not working any more, I'm pleased to say.

(1) "Better Red than Ed: Reflections on "Who is Edward J. Epstein?", The Third Decade, Vol. 2 #5, (July 1985), p.11.

[Jack White]

Jack, Could you please upload page 436 of HOAX (2003), which includes a comparison of the two windshields? Thanks.

Hi Jerry.

I like to ask you a couple of questions before i went into detail regarding my improved windshield crack study.

It has been said in your/Barb and Josiah's article that:

John Hunt, working from photos he obtained in the Archives, has come up with an ingenious but simple proof that the “windshield switch theory” is wrong. He compared Frazier’s photo of the windshield taken in the wee hours of November 23rd with a later photo of the windshield taken by the HSCA circa 1978:

As Hunt points out, “cracks don’t go away.” If cracks were present in the windshield when photographed by Frazier on November 23rd while the windshield was still attached to the limousine and those cracks are not present in the HSCA windshield in 1978, then we are dealing with two different pieces of evidence. However, the photos show a marked similarity in the position and number of the cracks. The photos indicate that the two windshields are the same and that the Lifton/Fetzer “windshield switch theory” is wrong.

Can you, or anyone else guide me to the original article from John Hunt's windshield study?

I can't find it here nor on Lancer or Google. Is it hidden in alt.assassination groups?

What i like to see is the whole expert's report from John Hunt about this ingenious but simple proof .

Another question i have is.......what is the source of this photograph taken ca. 1978 for the HSCA:

Ok, i can't find it in my files nor on any other online source (Mary Ferrell).

Who made it and for what purpose?

Thank you forward.

As i said, every help is much appreciated.

Martin

Jim...you must have the wrong page number. The windshield is not on page 436.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It's the right page but the wrong printing. It's only in the third printing. Perhaps someone has it and could scan it in. I'll see if I can.

Jack, Could you please upload page 436 of HOAX (2003), which includes a comparison of the two windshields? Thanks.

Hi Jerry.

I like to ask you a couple of questions before i went into detail regarding my improved windshield crack study.

It has been said in your/Barb and Josiah's article that:

John Hunt, working from photos he obtained in the Archives, has come up with an ingenious but simple proof that the “windshield switch theory” is wrong. He compared Frazier’s photo of the windshield taken in the wee hours of November 23rd with a later photo of the windshield taken by the HSCA circa 1978:

As Hunt points out, “cracks don’t go away.” If cracks were present in the windshield when photographed by Frazier on November 23rd while the windshield was still attached to the limousine and those cracks are not present in the HSCA windshield in 1978, then we are dealing with two different pieces of evidence. However, the photos show a marked similarity in the position and number of the cracks. The photos indicate that the two windshields are the same and that the Lifton/Fetzer “windshield switch theory” is wrong.

Can you, or anyone else guide me to the original article from John Hunt's windshield study?

I can't find it here nor on Lancer or Google. Is it hidden in alt.assassination groups?

What i like to see is the whole expert's report from John Hunt about this ingenious but simple proof .

Another question i have is.......what is the source of this photograph taken ca. 1978 for the HSCA:

Ok, i can't find it in my files nor on any other online source (Mary Ferrell).

Who made it and for what purpose?

Thank you forward.

As i said, every help is much appreciated.

Martin

Jim...you must have the wrong page number. The windshield is not on page 436.

Jack

Edited January 15, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

Do you have the NOVA program on tape or disc?

No Todd, I have it dowloaded to my computer

The entire program is on Youtube if you have not seen it their

Its on David Von Pain's Youtube page under "Who Shot President Kennedy"

[Dean Hagerman]

It's the right page but the wrong printing. It's only in the third printing. Perhaps someone has it and could scan it in. I'll see if I can.

Jack, Could you please upload page 436 of HOAX (2003), which includes a comparison of the two windshields? Thanks.

Hi Jerry.

I like to ask you a couple of questions before i went into detail regarding my improved windshield crack study.

It has been said in your/Barb and Josiah's article that:

John Hunt, working from photos he obtained in the Archives, has come up with an ingenious but simple proof that the “windshield switch theory” is wrong. He compared Frazier’s photo of the windshield taken in the wee hours of November 23rd with a later photo of the windshield taken by the HSCA circa 1978:

As Hunt points out, “cracks don’t go away.” If cracks were present in the windshield when photographed by Frazier on November 23rd while the windshield was still attached to the limousine and those cracks are not present in the HSCA windshield in 1978, then we are dealing with two different pieces of evidence. However, the photos show a marked similarity in the position and number of the cracks. The photos indicate that the two windshields are the same and that the Lifton/Fetzer “windshield switch theory” is wrong.

Can you, or anyone else guide me to the original article from John Hunt's windshield study?

I can't find it here nor on Lancer or Google. Is it hidden in alt.assassination groups?

What i like to see is the whole expert's report from John Hunt about this ingenious but simple proof .

Another question i have is.......what is the source of this photograph taken ca. 1978 for the HSCA:

Ok, i can't find it in my files nor on any other online source (Mary Ferrell).

Who made it and for what purpose?

Thank you forward.

As i said, every help is much appreciated.

Martin

Jim...you must have the wrong page number. The windshield is not on page 436.

Jack

I got you Jim

I have the 1st edition of TGZFH, im having a little trouble finding it, do you know what page its on in the 1st edition?

Edited January 15, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Jack White]

Jim...I found the page 436 in the third printing...but the images are far too small

to be meaningful.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack, Please scan it in. Then download my chapter from http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/

and, if you could, upload the page where the two windshields are compared, which is page 8. Then,

by placing page 8 of "Revisiting Dealey Plaza" above page 436 of HOAX (2003), I can make my points.

P.S. Were you able to upload pages 16 and 17 of this chapter on the other thread? Pat Speer has

been avoiding confronting them, which is not the right approach if he wants to know the score.

Jim...I found the page 436 in the third printing...but the images are far too small

to be meaningful.

Jack

Edited January 15, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Jack, Please scan it in. Then download my chapter from http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/

and, if you could, upload the page where the two windshields are compared, which is page 8. Then,

by placing page 8 of "Revisiting Dealey Plaza" above page 436 of HOAX (2003), I can make my points.

P.S. Were you able to upload pages 16 and 17 of this chapter on the other thread? Pat Speer has

been avoiding confronting them, which is not the right approach if he wants to know the score.

Jim...I found the page 436 in the third printing...but the images are far too small

to be meaningful.

Jack

I guess I am behind on posts. I know nothing about pages 16 and 17.

It may be tomorrow. I am about to watch Mavericks vs. Thunder.

Jack

[Jerry Logan]

Hello Martin!

Thanks for being so patient. Analog life has been putting a serious dent in my cyber time.

John Hunt communicated with Josiah. I don't think there was a published formal study but Tink would know for sure.

Later on I contacted John because I had the same questions about the HSCA photos. He told me that to his knowledge the photos he used weren't published anywhere. That he had gone to the National Archives and scanned the photos there in the HSCA holdings. He also generously provided me with some additional, more detailed scans that I'd be happy to share with you. You're right. They're nothing like the HSCA photos at Mary Ferrell in terms of detail and quality. I could not tell just by looking at the scans if they are simply much better scans of the HSCA photos seen at MF or if they are scans of photos that aren't available online but in the HSCA archives. Also, on line, I am unable to locate any information about the details of the photo shoot. Time/conditions/who...? That's one of the reasons why I put additional windshield work on hold until I could get to the Archives and sort some of this out for myself.

Another reason I wanted to get to the Archives before proceeding was important information from Tony Marsh. The FBI image of the windshield crack that everyone is using is a print that Mr. Marsh had made from a copy negative he obtained from the Archives. Mr. Marsh made it clear that the appearance of the cracks changed depending on the exposure settings he selected for his prints and that the print that's in general circulation represents a version of how the cracks looked but not the only possible version. He also could not recall if the copy negative from the Archives was a copy of a print or a copy of a negative.

In fact, I decided that more work at the Archives was necessary because of something you discovered! As you know, the Archives has periodically re-photographed the windshield. Some of those photos are at Mary Ferrell and the amazing Robin Unger brought them to general attention at his photo archive on Duncan's site. As you remember, there was something odd about those photos, they seem to be split and then re-pieced together. It was you that noticed the cracks and shadows had changed because different parts of the windshield were backed by different materials. The fact that the shadows and cracks changed so much just because a different backing was used made me realize that one had to be very, very careful in comparing photos and reaching conclusions about the windshield. Therefore my resolution to get to the Archives and try to sort out the photographic record.

I hope this helps - perhaps a good excuse to get you to Washington?

My very best to you,

Jerry

Hi Jerry.

I like to ask you a couple of questions before i went into detail regarding my improved windshield crack study.

It has been said in your/Barb and Josiah's article that:

John Hunt, working from photos he obtained in the Archives, has come up with an ingenious but simple proof that the “windshield switch theory” is wrong. He compared Frazier’s photo of the windshield taken in the wee hours of November 23rd with a later photo of the windshield taken by the HSCA circa 1978:

As Hunt points out, “cracks don’t go away.” If cracks were present in the windshield when photographed by Frazier on November 23rd while the windshield was still attached to the limousine and those cracks are not present in the HSCA windshield in 1978, then we are dealing with two different pieces of evidence. However, the photos show a marked similarity in the position and number of the cracks. The photos indicate that the two windshields are the same and that the Lifton/Fetzer “windshield switch theory” is wrong.

Can you, or anyone else guide me to the original article from John Hunt's windshield study?

I can't find it here nor on Lancer or Google. Is it hidden in alt.assassination groups?

What i like to see is the whole expert's report from John Hunt about this ingenious but simple proof .

Another question i have is.......what is the source of this photograph taken ca. 1978 for the HSCA:

Ok, i can't find it in my files nor on any other online source (Mary Ferrell).

Who made it and for what purpose?

Thank you forward.

As i said, every help is much appreciated.

Martin

[Doug Weldon]

Hello Martin!

Thanks for being so patient. Analog life has been putting a serious dent in my cyber time.

John Hunt communicated with Josiah. I don't think there was a published formal study but Tink would know for sure.

Later on I contacted John because I had the same questions about the HSCA photos. He told me that to his knowledge the photos he used weren't published anywhere. That he had gone to the National Archives and scanned the photos there in the HSCA holdings. He also generously provided me with some additional, more detailed scans that I'd be happy to share with you. You're right. They're nothing like the HSCA photos at Mary Ferrell in terms of detail and quality. I could not tell just by looking at the scans if they are simply much better scans of the HSCA photos seen at MF or if they are scans of photos that aren't available online but in the HSCA archives. Also, on line, I am unable to locate any information about the details of the photo shoot. Time/conditions/who...? That's one of the reasons why I put additional windshield work on hold until I could get to the Archives and sort some of this out for myself.

Another reason I wanted to get to the Archives before proceeding was important information from Tony Marsh. The FBI image of the windshield crack that everyone is using is a print that Mr. Marsh had made from a copy negative he obtained from the Archives. Mr. Marsh made it clear that the appearance of the cracks changed depending on the exposure settings he selected for his prints and that the print that's in general circulation represents a version of how the cracks looked but not the only possible version. He also could not recall if the copy negative from the Archives was a copy of a print or a copy of a negative.

In fact, I decided that more work at the Archives was necessary because of something you discovered! As you know, the Archives has periodically re-photographed the windshield. Some of those photos are at Mary Ferrell and the amazing Robin Unger brought them to general attention at his photo archive on Duncan's site. As you remember, there was something odd about those photos, they seem to be split and then re-pieced together. It was you that noticed the cracks and shadows had changed because different parts of the windshield were backed by different materials. The fact that the shadows and cracks changed so much just because a different backing was used made me realize that one had to be very, very careful in comparing photos and reaching conclusions about the windshield. Therefore my resolution to get to the Archives and try to sort out the photographic record.

I hope this helps - perhaps a good excuse to get you to Washington?

My very best to you,

Jerry

Hi Jerry.

I like to ask you a couple of questions before i went into detail regarding my improved windshield crack study.

It has been said in your/Barb and Josiah's article that:

John Hunt, working from photos he obtained in the Archives, has come up with an ingenious but simple proof that the “windshield switch theory” is wrong. He compared Frazier’s photo of the windshield taken in the wee hours of November 23rd with a later photo of the windshield taken by the HSCA circa 1978:

As Hunt points out, “cracks don’t go away.” If cracks were present in the windshield when photographed by Frazier on November 23rd while the windshield was still attached to the limousine and those cracks are not present in the HSCA windshield in 1978, then we are dealing with two different pieces of evidence. However, the photos show a marked similarity in the position and number of the cracks. The photos indicate that the two windshields are the same and that the Lifton/Fetzer “windshield switch theory” is wrong.

Can you, or anyone else guide me to the original article from John Hunt's windshield study?

I can't find it here nor on Lancer or Google. Is it hidden in alt.assassination groups?

What i like to see is the whole expert's report from John Hunt about this ingenious but simple proof .

Another question i have is.......what is the source of this photograph taken ca. 1978 for the HSCA:

Ok, i can't find it in my files nor on any other online source (Mary Ferrell).

Who made it and for what purpose?

Thank you forward.

As i said, every help is much appreciated.

Martin

Jerry:

I want to understand your point. Are you stating that John Hunt's analysis in your article and that a comparison of the windshield photos is now unreliable? Though I don't believe the first photo is of the Dallas windshield, if these windshields are not the same it would represent conclusive evidence that a shell game was being played. I hope you or Barb will get an opportunity to reply to my previous post. p.21.

My best,

Doug Weldon

[Jerry Logan]

Hello Martin!

Thanks for being so patient. Analog life has been putting a serious dent in my cyber time.

John Hunt communicated with Josiah. I don't think there was a published formal study but Tink would know for sure.

Later on I contacted John because I had the same questions about the HSCA photos. He told me that to his knowledge the photos he used weren't published anywhere. That he had gone to the National Archives and scanned the photos there in the HSCA holdings. He also generously provided me with some additional, more detailed scans that I'd be happy to share with you. You're right. They're nothing like the HSCA photos at Mary Ferrell in terms of detail and quality. I could not tell just by looking at the scans if they are simply much better scans of the HSCA photos seen at MF or if they are scans of photos that aren't available online but in the HSCA archives. Also, on line, I am unable to locate any information about the details of the photo shoot. Time/conditions/who...? That's one of the reasons why I put additional windshield work on hold until I could get to the Archives and sort some of this out for myself.

Another reason I wanted to get to the Archives before proceeding was important information from Tony Marsh. The FBI image of the windshield crack that everyone is using is a print that Mr. Marsh had made from a copy negative he obtained from the Archives. Mr. Marsh made it clear that the appearance of the cracks changed depending on the exposure settings he selected for his prints and that the print that's in general circulation represents a version of how the cracks looked but not the only possible version. He also could not recall if the copy negative from the Archives was a copy of a print or a copy of a negative.

In fact, I decided that more work at the Archives was necessary because of something you discovered! As you know, the Archives has periodically re-photographed the windshield. Some of those photos are at Mary Ferrell and the amazing Robin Unger brought them to general attention at his photo archive on Duncan's site. As you remember, there was something odd about those photos, they seem to be split and then re-pieced together. It was you that noticed the cracks and shadows had changed because different parts of the windshield were backed by different materials. The fact that the shadows and cracks changed so much just because a different backing was used made me realize that one had to be very, very careful in comparing photos and reaching conclusions about the windshield. Therefore my resolution to get to the Archives and try to sort out the photographic record.

I hope this helps - perhaps a good excuse to get you to Washington?

My very best to you,

Jerry

Hi Jerry.

I like to ask you a couple of questions before i went into detail regarding my improved windshield crack study.

It has been said in your/Barb and Josiah's article that:

John Hunt, working from photos he obtained in the Archives, has come up with an ingenious but simple proof that the “windshield switch theory” is wrong. He compared Frazier’s photo of the windshield taken in the wee hours of November 23rd with a later photo of the windshield taken by the HSCA circa 1978:

As Hunt points out, “cracks don’t go away.” If cracks were present in the windshield when photographed by Frazier on November 23rd while the windshield was still attached to the limousine and those cracks are not present in the HSCA windshield in 1978, then we are dealing with two different pieces of evidence. However, the photos show a marked similarity in the position and number of the cracks. The photos indicate that the two windshields are the same and that the Lifton/Fetzer “windshield switch theory” is wrong.

Can you, or anyone else guide me to the original article from John Hunt's windshield study?

I can't find it here nor on Lancer or Google. Is it hidden in alt.assassination groups?

What i like to see is the whole expert's report from John Hunt about this ingenious but simple proof .

Another question i have is.......what is the source of this photograph taken ca. 1978 for the HSCA:

Ok, i can't find it in my files nor on any other online source (Mary Ferrell).

Who made it and for what purpose?

Thank you forward.

As i said, every help is much appreciated.

Martin

Jerry:

I want to understand your point. Are you stating that John Hunt's analysis in your article and that a comparison of the windshield photos is now unreliable? Though I don't believe the first photo is of the Dallas windshield, if these windshields are not the same it would represent conclusive evidence that a shell game was being played. I hope you or Barb will get an opportunity to reply to my previous post. p.21.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Hello Doug,

Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #?

Why do you think the FBI photo is not of the Dallas windshield. Because it doesn't have a hole in it?

Best to you,

Jerry