Dean Hagerman Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 If you want to start a separate thread on the "double head shot" and others choose to contribute, I will be happy to give you chapter and verse on why I was wrong in 1967. I would like to keep this thead focused on what it is supposed to be about. I didn't change my mind, obviously, because of what one researcher told me or didn't tell me.Josiah Thompson The "double hit" analysis on pages 86 to 95--which was the most scientific and impressive aspect of your book--along with your account of three gunmen murdering the president with four shots--all of which hit--on pages 115 to 140, which is summarized on pages 178 to 195, clearly implies the existence of a Tink This is very important, maybe not to you but it is to me I have asked you in this thread about it and I understand that you are busy dealing with Full Flush Left but at the same time the double hit theory that YOU came up with has something to do with Z-film alteration Again I have believed in your theory since I read it, it made perfect sense and the way you presented it in your book was outstanding I have read the story about why you no longer support your double hit theory, but I cant see how you were so sure in SSID but then go back on it from one researcher telling you it was the from the limo slowing down and the passangers being thrown forward Why didnt the rest of JFKs body get thrown forward with the rest of the limo? Just his head moved forward I dont want to go into my thoughts on Z-film alteration right now because I dont want you to dismiss me as this is important to ME! Rich Dellarosa has seen the double hit unlike myself and you have Tink This fits in perfectly with the Z-film being altered, I hope that you taking back your double hit theory didnt have anything to do with you not wanting to be involved or labeled as an alterationist Tink I believe that you were correct back in 1967 and you are still correct today Can you at least give me some more info on why you dont believe in your theory anymore? Again I would love to discuss this with you, if you want i can start a new thread Thanks Tink Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 31, 2009 Author Share Posted December 31, 2009 Tink Please explain why you changed your mind on this most important theory And again I believe you were correct back in 1967 Thank you Tink Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) This should be most interesting, because when David Lifton consulted with the world famous physicist, Richard Feynman, at CalTech, Feynman made the same discovery. He told Lifton that the head goes forward. At first, he (Lifton) thought it was becausee frames 314 and 315 had been published in the wrong order. But Feyman corrected him and explained that the frame he was studying was 312! See BEST EVIDENCE (1980), pages 48 to 51. Tink Please explain why you changed your mind on this most important theory And again I believe you were correct back in 1967 Thank you Tink Dean Edited December 31, 2009 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) So, after encouraging you to create a new thread and promising to respond, the illustrious Josiah Thompson stands mute? He is further discrediting himself! We've all heard of "Searching for Waldo!" Where is Tink? Where is he hiding? Where's Josiah? If you want to start a separate thread on the "double head shot" and others choose to contribute, I will be happy to give you chapter and verse on why I was wrong in 1967. I would like to keep this thead focused on what it is supposed to be about. I didn't change my mind, obviously, because of what one researcher told me or didn't tell me.Josiah Thompson The "double hit" analysis on pages 86 to 95--which was the most scientific and impressive aspect of your book--along with your account of three gunmen murdering the president with four shots--all of which hit--on pages 115 to 140, which is summarized on pages 178 to 195, clearly implies the existence of a Tink This is very important, maybe not to you but it is to me I have asked you in this thread about it and I understand that you are busy dealing with Full Flush Left but at the same time the double hit theory that YOU came up with has something to do with Z-film alteration Again I have believed in your theory since I read it, it made perfect sense and the way you presented it in your book was outstanding I have read the story about why you no longer support your double hit theory, but I cant see how you were so sure in SSID but then go back on it from one researcher telling you it was the from the limo slowing down and the passangers being thrown forward Why didnt the rest of JFKs body get thrown forward with the rest of the limo? Just his head moved forward I dont want to go into my thoughts on Z-film alteration right now because I dont want you to dismiss me as this is important to ME! Rich Dellarosa has seen the double hit unlike myself and you have Tink This fits in perfectly with the Z-film being altered, I hope that you taking back your double hit theory didnt have anything to do with you not wanting to be involved or labeled as an alterationist Tink I believe that you were correct back in 1967 and you are still correct today Can you at least give me some more info on why you dont believe in your theory anymore? Again I would love to discuss this with you, if you want i can start a new thread Thanks Tink Dean Edited December 31, 2009 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Might it possibly be that Mr. Thompson actually has a LIFE outside the realm of internet discussion boards? Naaaawwwww, that's just another one of those fantasy theories of mine. NOTHING can be more important than internet discussion boards. Right, Dr, Jim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Oh, come on, Mark! Get real. He created a thread just to belittle me and Lifton only a few days ago. He has refused repeated requests to address these issues because they were on the wrong thread! If you read the post that initiated this very thread--which was by Dean Hagerman, in case you missed it!--he invited Dean to create a thread dedicated to this topic and promised to respond: QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Dec 31 2009, 02:32 AM) If you want to start a separate thread on the "double head shot" and others choose to contribute, I will be happy to give you chapter and verse on why I was wrong in 1967. I would like to keep this thead focused on what it is supposed to be about. I didn't change my mind, obviously, because of what one researcher told me or didn't tell me. Josiah Thompson You must be a newcomer, because Josiah and I have engaged in vigorous exchanges for more than a decade. In this case, he is unwilling to show up for a match with Dean Hagerman? And you want to give him a free pass? I hate to say it, Mark, but you are displaying a diminished appreciation of what's going on here. This appears to be a display of Josiah's mental and moral cowardice. Might it possibly be that Mr. Thompson actually has a LIFE outside the realm of internet discussion boards?Naaaawwwww, that's just another one of those fantasy theories of mine. NOTHING can be more important than internet discussion boards. Right, Dr, Jim? Edited December 31, 2009 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Actually, DR. Jim...I've been on this board for well over 5 years. I spend more time reading and sifting through the various facts AND OPINIONS than I do commenting, because I wish to learn...and because I've nothing to teach here. I've read your books, and I agree with many of your conclusions. I also disagree with a few, but I try very hard to keep an open mind about conclusions [vs. facts, which tend to be quite stubborn]. I've seen quite a few threads here deteriorate over the years to little more than urination contests, with their namecalling and shameless casting of aspersions upon the character of others. That's the major reason I tend to avoid threads with posts by Colby, Lamson, Bill Miller, and Healy. I'd much rather learn of facts than of who thinks whom possesses no skills in whatever category is the attack de jour. And lately, your posts are tending to slide more to personalities than facts, Dr. Jim. I don't actually CARE who is or isn't an absolute sleazeball as a person, as long as they can keep me informed with FACTS. And in my own case, while over the holidays I've had considerable time to peruse these boards, there are times when I may find myself absent from here for as much as a week or two at a time. Does that mean, then, that I, too, am "hiding" from anyone? Or might the time demands of the REAL world--as opposed to the cyberworld--be a higher priority at certain times? Naaaawwwwwww, that's too far-fetched to even consider. Obviously, those times when I'm not here, I'm hiding. Edited December 31, 2009 by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Tink Please explain why you changed your mind on this most important theory Dr. Thompson explained this a number of years ago and it has been posted several times on the forum, starting with this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=5018&st=30 Fetzer claims I want to return things to their 1967 basis. This, of course, is nonsense. Let me rebut it by pointing out a major mistake I made in "Six Seconds."I measured there that JFK's head moved forward about two inches between Z312 and Z313. This forward movement followed by the obvious left, backward snap suggested to me that he had been hit in the head from the rear and then, almost instantaneously, from the right front. Within the last few years, Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory, was able to show me how this involved a serious mistake in measurement. As you all know, Z312 is quite clear while Z313 is smeared from movement of the camera. Using fairly complicated math, Snyder was able to demonstrate to me that I was measuring the smear on frame Z313 and not the movement of Kennedy's head. That socalled "two-inch movement" was an illusion; it came from the smear. David Wimp and Joe Durnavich came to much the same conclusion. Wimp, however, has gone futher. He has shown that JFK's head begins moving forward about Z308 and that everyone else in the limousine... Kellerman, Greer, Jackie, Mrs. Connally, John Connally... also begin a moderate movement forward at that time. After Z314, JFK flips backward and to the left while all the rest continue moving forward. The explanation: When Greer turned to look in the back seat at circa Z302 his foot tapped the brake, decelerating the limousine and throwing forward all the limousine's occupants. There is no longer any clear evidence in the Zapruder film of Kennedy being hit in the back of the head. (I say "clear" because there may be some evidence of a hit from the rear at Z327/328) The Z312-Z317 sequence... the bowling over of JFK to the left rear.... is the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front. This is wonderful progress by careful research. Because of it, I am delighted to admit... even proclaim... that I made a mistake in 1967. This kind of research requires more than the National Enquirer method of research espoused by Professor Fetzer. In fact, such research would never have have been undertaken had anyone paid any attention to Fetzer's now bankrupt obsession with proving the Zapruder film a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 31, 2009 Author Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Tink Please explain why you changed your mind on this most important theory Dr. Thompson explained this a number of years ago and it has been posted several times on the forum, starting with this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=5018&st=30 Fetzer claims I want to return things to their 1967 basis. This, of course, is nonsense. Let me rebut it by pointing out a major mistake I made in "Six Seconds."I measured there that JFK's head moved forward about two inches between Z312 and Z313. This forward movement followed by the obvious left, backward snap suggested to me that he had been hit in the head from the rear and then, almost instantaneously, from the right front. Within the last few years, Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory, was able to show me how this involved a serious mistake in measurement. As you all know, Z312 is quite clear while Z313 is smeared from movement of the camera. Using fairly complicated math, Snyder was able to demonstrate to me that I was measuring the smear on frame Z313 and not the movement of Kennedy's head. That socalled "two-inch movement" was an illusion; it came from the smear. David Wimp and Joe Durnavich came to much the same conclusion. Wimp, however, has gone futher. He has shown that JFK's head begins moving forward about Z308 and that everyone else in the limousine... Kellerman, Greer, Jackie, Mrs. Connally, John Connally... also begin a moderate movement forward at that time. After Z314, JFK flips backward and to the left while all the rest continue moving forward. The explanation: When Greer turned to look in the back seat at circa Z302 his foot tapped the brake, decelerating the limousine and throwing forward all the limousine's occupants. There is no longer any clear evidence in the Zapruder film of Kennedy being hit in the back of the head. (I say "clear" because there may be some evidence of a hit from the rear at Z327/328) The Z312-Z317 sequence... the bowling over of JFK to the left rear.... is the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front. This is wonderful progress by careful research. Because of it, I am delighted to admit... even proclaim... that I made a mistake in 1967. This kind of research requires more than the National Enquirer method of research espoused by Professor Fetzer. In fact, such research would never have have been undertaken had anyone paid any attention to Fetzer's now bankrupt obsession with proving the Zapruder film a hoax. Well Ray you must have missed the post I made were I said I had already read his reason for changing his mind (in fact it was the post made by Tink in the same thread you posted a link to that I read) That was not the point of my making this thread, I want talk to Tink in depth about this theory and his reasons for backing out on it Edited December 31, 2009 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 That was not the point of my making this thread, I want talk to Tink in depth about this theory and his reasons for backing out on it Dr. Thompson's explanation sounds perfectly reasonable and even self-explanatory to me, and of course others have independently made the same observations and deductions as the people Thompson relied on. So a good place to start might be for you to state what you think is wrong with Josiah's explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Sure. I’ll be delighted to tell you what I know on this topic. Perhaps others will be able to refine the issue. I went to the URL [http://server3002.freeyellos.com/rhepler/Motion%20Blur.htm] carrying David Wimp’s detailed analysis of blurs and his measurements on the Zapruder film. This is perhaps the most relevant source of information on this subject. I was going to reference it but, alas, found that it has disappeared. If anyone has downloaded the material, it would be a service to make it available to us. Back in 2004, I made arrangements with Jim Lesar for Wimp to give a talk at the AARC Conference in Washington, D.C. His talk is on the DVD of that conference. See [http://www.aarclibrary.org/Catalog/About2004Conf.htm]. Let me start out by saying that an obvious fact has bothered me from the beginning with respect to the double-shot (Z312-Z314) scenario. Whether you have two or three people shooting at the limousine, the likelihood of two shots arriving on target within one-ninth of a second of each other is very slim. This is simply a statistical fact and it has bothered me from the beginning. The measurements published in Six Seconds were made on 8" by 10" black and white prints made by copying the 4" by 5" transparencies LIFE copied from the original film. I still have the prints and they show how primitive were our measurements. I simply took a pin and pricked the point on the photo where I thought the back of JFK’s head was. I did the same with the leading edge of the back seat and the leading edge of the handhold on the trunk. Then these distances were measured with a micrometer and Bill Hoffman, an undergraduate major in physics, did the proper mathematics. There could have been errors all over the place. For example, the enlarger that made 8" by 10" prints might have varied a bit from frame to frame. My own eye could have been off from time to time in picking just where the back of Jack Kennedy’s head was. I think we determined that between frame 312 and 313 JFK’s head moved forward by about 2.2 inches. I was amazed when ITEK later carried out similar measurements and came up with a forward movement of 2.3 inches. 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. Don Thomas has developed this point in a rigorous manner. He explains the difference by the fact that the shot from the stockade fence was fired so close to Zapruder that the sound from the shot hit Zapruder’s ears fast enough to produce the unusually fast startle reaction. The other shots from the north end of Elm Street naturally produced a delay in startle reaction. 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. What I took to be movement of JFK’s head was at least partially due to the horizontal elongation of the curb introduced by the smear. David Wimp has produced both a study of how you measure smearing and also a study of the movement of JFK’s head. From memory, I think he found that the movement of JFK’s head between 312 and 313 was either an inch or less than an inch. What makes this reduction in movement so important is another discovery Wimp made. Careful study of the Zapruder film shows that Bill Greer turned around at about Z 302 (again from memory). In doing so, he either took his foot off the accelerator or tapped the brake. The result is that at about Z 308 all the occupants of the limousine (JFK, Jackie, Connally, Mrs. Connally, Gov. Connally, Roy Kellerman and William Greer) begin sliding forward. This forward movement continues to about Z 317 or Z 318 (again from memory) for all the occupants of the limousine except JFK who is bowled backwards and to the left. The result of this analysis is that it is impossible to label any part of JFK’s forward movement as due to the action of a bullet striking his skull rather than due to the deceleration of the limousine. I would point out that this in no way requires that JFK was only hit from the right front in the head. In fact, the dispersion of brain matter and the hit on the interior of the windshield and the chrome strip certainly indicate a strike on the skull from the rear. All this means is that the Z 313 effect was solely from a bullet striking his skull and fired from the right front. I should point out that before reading David Wimp’s studies my friend Art Snyder had already alerted me to the unlikelihood that my measurements were measuring solely movement of the head. Finally, I look forward to carrying out new measurement of JFK’s head movement using the 35 mm. prints available from the archives. High resolution scans of these frames using “pixel-counting” techniques pioneered by Joe Durnavich and others should make possible extremely accurate measurements of movement. Josiah Thompson Tink Please explain why you changed your mind on this most important theory Dr. Thompson explained this a number of years ago and it has been posted several times on the forum, starting with this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=5018&st=30 Fetzer claims I want to return things to their 1967 basis. This, of course, is nonsense. Let me rebut it by pointing out a major mistake I made in "Six Seconds."I measured there that JFK's head moved forward about two inches between Z312 and Z313. This forward movement followed by the obvious left, backward snap suggested to me that he had been hit in the head from the rear and then, almost instantaneously, from the right front. Within the last few years, Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory, was able to show me how this involved a serious mistake in measurement. As you all know, Z312 is quite clear while Z313 is smeared from movement of the camera. Using fairly complicated math, Snyder was able to demonstrate to me that I was measuring the smear on frame Z313 and not the movement of Kennedy's head. That socalled "two-inch movement" was an illusion; it came from the smear. David Wimp and Joe Durnavich came to much the same conclusion. Wimp, however, has gone futher. He has shown that JFK's head begins moving forward about Z308 and that everyone else in the limousine... Kellerman, Greer, Jackie, Mrs. Connally, John Connally... also begin a moderate movement forward at that time. After Z314, JFK flips backward and to the left while all the rest continue moving forward. The explanation: When Greer turned to look in the back seat at circa Z302 his foot tapped the brake, decelerating the limousine and throwing forward all the limousine's occupants. There is no longer any clear evidence in the Zapruder film of Kennedy being hit in the back of the head. (I say "clear" because there may be some evidence of a hit from the rear at Z327/328) The Z312-Z317 sequence... the bowling over of JFK to the left rear.... is the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front. This is wonderful progress by careful research. Because of it, I am delighted to admit... even proclaim... that I made a mistake in 1967. This kind of research requires more than the National Enquirer method of research espoused by Professor Fetzer. In fact, such research would never have have been undertaken had anyone paid any attention to Fetzer's now bankrupt obsession with proving the Zapruder film a hoax. Well Ray you must have missed the post I made were I said I had already read his reason for changing his mind (in fact it was the post made by Tink in the same thread you posted a link to that I read) That was not the point of my making this thread, I want talk to Tink in depth about this theory and his reasons for backing out on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted January 1, 2010 Author Share Posted January 1, 2010 Thank you very much for your reply Tink I will work on my response tonight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted January 1, 2010 Author Share Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) Tink I dont see any of the others in the limo being thrown forward at the time of JFKs forward head snap And why is JFKs head the only part of his body to be thrown forward when the others in the limo have their bodies thrown forward? (Again after JFKs forward head snap) Tink you were right the first time The other film as viewed by Rich Dellarosa shows a more pronounced double hit to JFKs head after the limo came to a complete stop Im sure you dont believe Rich, however I do believe Rich and I think those who altered the Z-film could not take away enough frames to make the double hit disappear completly, that and they paid to much attention to creating the blob and blood spray to notice the small forward head snap that you caught I already know that you are going to say im crazy for backing up alteration, but I stand behind Fetzer and TGZFH gang (White, Mantik, Healy, Lifton, DellaRosa) as well as Noel Twyman whom back in 1997 proved alteration of the Z-film to me I think you having caught the double head hit is a huge deal, and while you may think of it in terms of the Z-film being authentic, I think of it as a missed item by the alterationists Again thanks for you reply And one more question, it seems like you were kind of backing out on a shot coming from the front in your reply to me Was I just looking into what you were saying the wrong way, or do you no longer believe in a shot from the front? Thanks again Tink Dean Edit: I created the Gif from Costella combined edit Edited January 1, 2010 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) Well, they talk about lies, damn lies, and statistics--and then we have Josiah Thompson, who is in category by himself! My argument is (1) that Josiah has no foundation in statistics or probability for his purported quandary, (2) that the convergence between his original finding and that of Richard Feynman makes it improbable they were both wrong, (3) that he has no basis to claim a simultaneous "startle reaction" at the time of the hit, (4) that his alleged "explanation" implies that the limo was not brought to a halt and that the film is genuine; and (5) that his position contradicts the conclusion of his book. (1) The Statistical Argument: Let me start out by saying that an obvious fact has bothered me from the beginning with respect to the double-shot (Z312-Z314) scenario. Whether you have two or three people shooting at the limousine, the likelihood of two shots arriving on target within one-ninth of a second of each other is very slim. This is simply a statistical fact and it has bothered me from the beginning. As it happens, the interpretation of probability is one of my areas of philosophical specialization. There are two conceptions of probability that might apply here, the propensity and the frequency. On the propensity view, probabilities are measures of the strength of a causal tendency. On the frequency view, probabilities are measures of the relative frequency with which events happen to occur. In order to be dealing with "statistical facts", as Josiah claims, we would need to know the relative frequencies with which one shooter fires relative to another. Indeed, since it would appear to make a difference, since they are participating in an assassination of the President of the United States, we would need to know how often one shooter fires at a President of the United States in relation to another. It should already be apparent that Josiah has no basis to claim the chance of two shots hitting JFK within one-ninth of a second of each other was "very slim". Suppose they had both been instructed to fire when the limousine was opposite the concrete steps leading up to the pergola, but their perspectives were slightly different. Then a one-ninth second difference could have had a high propensity to occur. Since there is no evidential basis for drawing the inference that two shots hitting their target nearly simultaneously was at all improbable--where, in fact, on some scenarios, it would have been probable and, within some intervals of time, even highly probable--Josiah is making a claim that he cannot justify. He has in the past had an inclination to use a phrase that fits here: this is pure bloviation! (2) The Improbable Convergence: Like most students of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), I was impressed by the mathematical sophistication of Josiah's demonstration of the near-simultaneous hits to the head, one of which drove him forward, the other--one-ninth of a second later--driving him backward with great force. The precision and detail with which it is laid out in the book between pages 86 and 98, still impresses me to this very day. When David Lifton consulted with the world famous physicist, Richard Feynman, at CalTech, Feynman made the same discovery. He told Lifton that the head goes forward. At first, he (Lifton) thought it was because frames 314 and 315 had been published in the wrong order. But Feyman corrected him and explained that the frame he was studying was 312! See BEST EVIDENCE (1980), pages 48 to 51. What I find fascinating about this convergence in inference to the occurrence of a near-simultaneous "double hit" is that one of the students of this case, Josiah Thompson, displayed admirable pecision and detail in his analysis, while the other, Richard Feyman, a world famous physicist, concurred in arriving at the same conclusion. This is a matter of reasoning, where one was meticulous, the other brilliant. Now this finding was not incidental to SIX SECONDS but one of its most important contributions to understanding the assassination of our 35th president. Can anyone doubt that Josiah was highly motivated to make sure that he was right before it would be published and the world had the opportunity to consider it? Surely, he would have taken every measure to insure that a major argument like this one did not blow up in his face. Under these conditions, the propensity for Josiah Thompson to have published a faulty argument would have been quite small. Similarly, the propensity for Richard Feynman to make a mistake in an argument involving physics would have been miniscule. So the probability that these students of this case could come to independent but convergent conclusions about this event and both be wrong is a miniscule faction of a small number. (3) The Appeal to the Blur: 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. These passages strike me as very odd and highly misleading. From SIX SECONDS, we read about plots of the president's head from the rear handhold and of the distance of the president's head from the top of the back seat. I do not believe the explanation we are being given here. The original study appears to have been done with great precision, where virtually no element of subjective judgment was involved. There are at least three problems with Josiah's argument. The first problem is that the speed of sound is considerably slower than the speed of a bullet. It is therefore highly unlikely that Zapruder would display a startle reaction at the same time the bullet hit the body. The second is that, in fact, it did not happen in the other cases. The third is that Josiah's claim that they occurred at the same time contradicts the analysis of Luis Alvarez. David Mantik pointed that out to me. In his chapter in HOAX (2003), Mantik also demonstrated that Alvarez' analysis is seriously flawed and is not consistent with results from David's study of the Muchmore film. Mantik concludes that the Zapruder and the Muchmore cannot both be authentic but could both be faked. If Josiah wants to discredit Alvarez, who contradicts his claim, he always has the option of acknowledging that the film is a fake. (4) The Explanation: The explanation: When Greer turned to look in the back seat at circa Z302 his foot tapped the brake, decelerating the limousine and throwing forward all the limousine's occupants. There is no longer any clear evidence in the Zapruder film of Kennedy being hit in the back of the head. (I say "clear" because there may be some evidence of a hit from the rear at Z327/328) The Z312-Z317 sequence... the bowling over of JFK to the left rear.... is the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front. Careful study of the Zapruder film shows that Bill Greer turned around at about Z 302 (again from memory). In doing so, he either took his foot off the accelerator or tapped the brake. The result is that at about Z 308 all the occupants of the limousine (JFK, Jackie, Connally, Mrs. Connally, Gov. Connally, Roy Kellerman and William Greer) begin sliding forward. This forward movement continues to about Z 317 or Z 318 (again from memory) for all the occupants of the limousine except JFK who is bowled backwards and to the left. The result of this analysis is that it is impossible to label any part of JFK’s forward movement as due to the action of a bullet striking his skull rather than due to the deceleration of the limousine. Now Josiah observes that his abandonment of his argument does not mean that JFK was only hit in the head from the right front. "In fact," he remarks, "the dispersion of brain matter and the hit on the interior of the windshield and the chrome strip certainly indicate a strike on the skull from the rear. All this means is that the Z313 effect was solely from a bullet striking his skull and fired from the right front." The problem is not only that he assumes the film is authentic but that, as Dean Hagerman shows, it does not support him. We have multiple witnesses to the limo stop and corroborating evidence, including that Officer Chaney motored forward to inform Chief Curry that the president had been hit and that Jean Hill and Mary Moorman had stepped into the street. Moreover, the "blob" bulges out to the right front, which is not only inconsistent with the McClelland drawing but with new proofs by Hollywood film experts. So is having it both ways: trying to deny the double-hit and to explain away forward motion by the passengers while insisting that the film is authentic. (5) No proof of conspiracy: This is wonderful progress by careful research. Because of it, I am delighted to admit... even proclaim... that I made a mistake in 1967. This kind of research requires more than the National Enquirer method of research espoused by Professor Fetzer. In fact, such research would never have have been undertaken had anyone paid any attention to Fetzer's now bankrupt obsession with proving the Zapruder film a hoax. Well, as we now know, Doug Horne, following Noel Twyman's lead, consulted with Hollywood experts who viewed a 6k version of the film, where each frame was translated into 6,000 pixels. They were astonished by the amateurish quality of the fabrication, where the massive blow-out to the back of the head was covered over by being painted over in black and the "blob" and the blood spray were painted in, just as Roderick Ryan had told Noel. When he wrote SIX SECONDS, Josiah was obviously aware that the brains bulge out to the right-front. He was also aware that the physicians at Parkland had reported a massive blow-out to the back of the head and that his brains were blow out to the left-rear. Here he concedes that the motion of the body back-and-to-the-left was "the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front". But then why are the brains bulging out to the right-front? He had to know there was a profound inconsistency between the film and the medical evidence, which he never addresses but instead finesses--not only by not confronting it, even though its existence had to be apparent, but by obfuscating the evidence by not even including sketches of frames 314, 315, and 316, where even the sketch of frame 313 he does use is opaque and does not even show the way in which the brains were bulging out. We know when he published his book he was convinced of a near simultaneous double-hit to the head, which could only have occurred by shots fired from at least two gunmen. He also describes the back-and-to-the-left motion of the body as "the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front". Since Oswald was above and behind, how could he possibly conclude his book by asserting, "It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy"? I think Tink owes us an explanation. Sure. I’ll be delighted to tell you what I know on this topic. Perhaps others will be able to refine the issue.I went to the URL [http://server3002.freeyellos.com/rhepler/Motion%20Blur.htm] carrying David Wimp’s detailed analysis of blurs and his measurements on the Zapruder film. This is perhaps the most relevant source of information on this subject. I was going to reference it but, alas, found that it has disappeared. If anyone has downloaded the material, it would be a service to make it available to us. Back in 2004, I made arrangements with Jim Lesar for Wimp to give a talk at the AARC Conference in Washington, D.C. His talk is on the DVD of that conference. See [http://www.aarclibrary.org/Catalog/About2004Conf.htm]. Let me start out by saying that an obvious fact has bothered me from the beginning with respect to the double-shot (Z312-Z314) scenario. Whether you have two or three people shooting at the limousine, the likelihood of two shots arriving on target within one-ninth of a second of each other is very slim. This is simply a statistical fact and it has bothered me from the beginning. The measurements published in Six Seconds were made on 8" by 10" black and white prints made by copying the 4" by 5" transparencies LIFE copied from the original film. I still have the prints and they show how primitive were our measurements. I simply took a pin and pricked the point on the photo where I thought the back of JFK’s head was. I did the same with the leading edge of the back seat and the leading edge of the handhold on the trunk. Then these distances were measured with a micrometer and Bill Hoffman, an undergraduate major in physics, did the proper mathematics. There could have been errors all over the place. For example, the enlarger that made 8" by 10" prints might have varied a bit from frame to frame. My own eye could have been off from time to time in picking just where the back of Jack Kennedy’s head was. I think we determined that between frame 312 and 313 JFK’s head moved forward by about 2.2 inches. I was amazed when ITEK later carried out similar measurements and came up with a forward movement of 2.3 inches. 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. Don Thomas has developed this point in a rigorous manner. He explains the difference by the fact that the shot from the stockade fence was fired so close to Zapruder that the sound from the shot hit Zapruder’s ears fast enough to produce the unusually fast startle reaction. The other shots from the north end of Elm Street naturally produced a delay in startle reaction. 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. What I took to be movement of JFK’s head was at least partially due to the horizontal elongation of the curb introduced by the smear. David Wimp has produced both a study of how you measure smearing and also a study of the movement of JFK’s head. From memory, I think he found that the movement of JFK’s head between 312 and 313 was either an inch or less than an inch. What makes this reduction in movement so important is another discovery Wimp made. Careful study of the Zapruder film shows that Bill Greer turned around at about Z 302 (again from memory). In doing so, he either took his foot off the accelerator or tapped the brake. The result is that at about Z 308 all the occupants of the limousine (JFK, Jackie, Connally, Mrs. Connally, Gov. Connally, Roy Kellerman and William Greer) begin sliding forward. This forward movement continues to about Z 317 or Z 318 (again from memory) for all the occupants of the limousine except JFK who is bowled backwards and to the left. The result of this analysis is that it is impossible to label any part of JFK’s forward movement as due to the action of a bullet striking his skull rather than due to the deceleration of the limousine. I would point out that this in no way requires that JFK was only hit from the right front in the head. In fact, the dispersion of brain matter and the hit on the interior of the windshield and the chrome strip certainly indicate a strike on the skull from the rear. All this means is that the Z 313 effect was solely from a bullet striking his skull and fired from the right front. I should point out that before reading David Wimp’s studies my friend Art Snyder had already alerted me to the unlikelihood that my measurements were measuring solely movement of the head. Finally, I look forward to carrying out new measurement of JFK’s head movement using the 35 mm. prints available from the archives. High resolution scans of these frames using “pixel-counting” techniques pioneered by Joe Durnavich and others should make possible extremely accurate measurements of movement. Josiah Thompson Tink Please explain why you changed your mind on this most important theory Dr. Thompson explained this a number of years ago and it has been posted several times on the forum, starting with this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=5018&st=30 Fetzer claims I want to return things to their 1967 basis. This, of course, is nonsense. Let me rebut it by pointing out a major mistake I made in "Six Seconds."I measured there that JFK's head moved forward about two inches between Z312 and Z313. This forward movement followed by the obvious left, backward snap suggested to me that he had been hit in the head from the rear and then, almost instantaneously, from the right front. Within the last few years, Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory, was able to show me how this involved a serious mistake in measurement. As you all know, Z312 is quite clear while Z313 is smeared from movement of the camera. Using fairly complicated math, Snyder was able to demonstrate to me that I was measuring the smear on frame Z313 and not the movement of Kennedy's head. That socalled "two-inch movement" was an illusion; it came from the smear. David Wimp and Joe Durnavich came to much the same conclusion. Wimp, however, has gone futher. He has shown that JFK's head begins moving forward about Z308 and that everyone else in the limousine... Kellerman, Greer, Jackie, Mrs. Connally, John Connally... also begin a moderate movement forward at that time. After Z314, JFK flips backward and to the left while all the rest continue moving forward. The explanation: When Greer turned to look in the back seat at circa Z302 his foot tapped the brake, decelerating the limousine and throwing forward all the limousine's occupants. There is no longer any clear evidence in the Zapruder film of Kennedy being hit in the back of the head. (I say "clear" because there may be some evidence of a hit from the rear at Z327/328) The Z312-Z317 sequence... the bowling over of JFK to the left rear.... is the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front. This is wonderful progress by careful research. Because of it, I am delighted to admit... even proclaim... that I made a mistake in 1967. This kind of research requires more than the National Enquirer method of research espoused by Professor Fetzer. In fact, such research would never have have been undertaken had anyone paid any attention to Fetzer's now bankrupt obsession with proving the Zapruder film a hoax. Well Ray you must have missed the post I made were I said I had already read his reason for changing his mind (in fact it was the post made by Tink in the same thread you posted a link to that I read) That was not the point of my making this thread, I want talk to Tink in depth about this theory and his reasons for backing out on it Edited January 1, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 Dean, You are doing a great job here and elsewhere! These issues are so important, let's hope that he stops ducking them! Best for the New Year! Jim Tink I dont see any of the others in the limo being thrown forward at the time of JFKs forward head snap And why is JFKs head the only part of his body to be thrown forward when the others in the limo have their bodies thrown forward? (Again after JFKs forward head snap) Tink you were right the first time The other film as viewed by Rich Dellarosa shows a more pronounced double hit to JFKs head after the limo came to a complete stop Im sure you dont believe Rich, however I do believe Rich and I think those who altered the Z-film could not take away enough frames to make the double hit disappear completly, that and they paid to much attention to creating the blob and blood spray to notice the small forward head snap that you caught I already know that you are going to say im crazy for backing up alteration, but I stand behind Fetzer and TGZFH gang (White, Mantik, Healy, Lifton, DellaRosa) as well as Noel Twyman whom back in 1997 proved alteration of the Z-film to me I think you having caught the double head hit is a huge deal, and while you may think of it in terms of the Z-film being authentic, I think of it as a missed item by the alterationists Again thanks for you reply And one more question, it seems like you were kind of backing out on a shot coming from the front in your reply to me Was I just looking into what you were saying the wrong way, or do you no longer believe in a shot from the front? Thanks again Tink Dean Edit: I created the Gif from Costella combined edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now