Tinks Double Head Shot Theory From SSID

[J. Raymond Carroll]

You have no basis for your repudiation of the "double hit" hypothesis and nothing you have said could possibly explain how Richard Feynman could have arrived at the same conclusion. No one is buying this drivel. Come clean, Tink. Tell us why you were then and continue to this day to obfuscate evidence about the death of JFK! The evidence is piling up that you are a cheat, a phony and a fraud. [/b]

I'd say the evidence is piling up that Dr. Fetzer becomes hysterical and abusive when dealing with Dr. Thompson.

If I understand him correctly, David Lifton also rejected the "double hit" hypothesis in BEST EVIDENCE, yet Fetzer is not calling Lifton names.

By rejecting the double hit, Thompson has actually moved closer to accepting Lifton's view of the medical evidence, and just this morning on the SIX SECONDS thread, THompson wrote:

I'm not informed enough about this tangle of evidence to say anything. I look forward to reading Doug Horne's four volumes on this to learn.

I think Dr. Fetzer is missing something here, and not just good manners.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Personally, I am sick and tired of the <removed by moderator> evasions of Josiah Thompson. The man has been lionized in the past for his vast knowledge of the evidence and the film. But, upon reconsideration, it looks as if he has actually been executing an elaborate charade to ofbuscate the fundamental inconsistency between the medical evidence and the Zapruder film. With Thompson, the inconsistency is iron-clad, because he maintains the authenticity of the film. Once, like Lifton, you acknowledge the film is a fabrication, many positions are possible, including that the "double hit" is an artifact of the manner in which the film was faked.

Given David Mantik's brilliant work on both the medical evidence and the film, the two shots to the head appear to have been temporally separate and not nearly-simultaneous, where, after Greer pulled the limo to a halt, JFK was hit in the back of the head, fell forward, Jackie eased him back up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right-temple and fell forward and to the left again. The damage caused by the second head shot with a frangible bullet was great, blasting open a flap of skull and damaging his ear.

The flap is clearly visible in frame 374. If you go to http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/ and download Chapter 30, "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", you will discover a very accessible introduction to the medical evidence, includiing Mantik's discovery that the blow-out to the back of the head was concealed in the lateral-cranial X-rays. But you will also see that the area of obfuscation, "Area P", closely corresponds to the blow out that is easily observed in frame 374--along with the bright flap of skull!

Witnesses to the side observed the blood and brains from the side and did not notice the massive blow-out to the left-rear, where Officer Hargis was hit so hard he thought he himself had been shot. When Pat Speer thinks this through, perhaps he will understand it better. For him, misunderstanding might be excusable. The inconsistency between the blow-out to the right-front in the film and the blow-out to the left-rear had to have been blatant to Tink at the time, yet he has evaded these issues for over 40 years. His conduct is reprehensible.

OpEdNews

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-...-090324-48.html

March 28, 2009

Zapruder JFK Film Impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid

By Jim Fetzer

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry about answers". -- Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW (1973).

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) March 27, 2009 -- A debate has been raging just off the radar of the main stream media over the significance of a Polaroid photograph by Mary Moorman, which appears to impeach the famous Zapruder film of the assassination. Although most attention has focused on an argument initiated by legendary photo-analyst Jack White--that the photo reflects a line-of-sight that places Mary in the street, while the film shows her on the grass--a more serious threat emerges from its photographic content, which shows JFK's head tilted downward and slightly to the left. Surprisingly, this removes the final resistance to impeaching the film based upon the medical evidence.

The features of the film that are the center of this latest controversy have been explored by an Australian physicist, John P. Costella, Ph.D., who has a specialty in electromagnetism, including the properties of light and the physics of moving bodies, who is the leading expert on the Zapruder film in the world today. Some of his studies may be found on my public issue web site at http://assassinationscience.com and are archived there as "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax: An Introduction". Indeed, Roderick Ryan, an expert on cinematic special effects, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), p. 160, that the bulging brains (sometimes called "the blob") had been painted in. Ryan would receive a 2000 Academy Award for lifetime achievement. But Costella's studies and Ryan's observations have not brought an end to the controversy for those dedicated to Zapruder authenticity.

The principal protagonists in the debate occurring on several of the leading JFK research forums has pitted Josiah Thompson, author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), an early study largely based upon the Zapruder film, against me, editor of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Most of our arguments in the past have been directed to the line of sight argument advanced by Jack White and to the validity of an experiment conducted by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the leading expert on the medical evidence in the world today, and me, using a transit in Dealey Plaza, which I summarized in an recent article, "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", at http://JFKresearch.com/Moorman which has as now appeared in a British journal, THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO 13/1 (March 2009), pp. 6-33.

In that article, I observed that, while there are many indications that the film is a fabrication, the most important proof is the inconsistency between the impact damage to the cranium, which is the film's most stunning feature, showing brains and gore bulging out to JFK's right-front, and the medical evidence, which shows a massive defect at the back of his head just to the right of center. Indeed, Escort Motorcycle Officer Bobby Hargis, who was riding to the left-rear, was hit so hard by the blown-out brains and debris that he though he himself had been shot. Thus, the question has become how such a massive blow-out of brains and gore at the back of the head could appear to be to the right-front in the film.

In an earlier article, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" that appeared in OpEdNews (February 5, 2008), I laid out multiple indications that the Zapruder film is a fabrication. But none of those proofs even reaches to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (i) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, (ii) the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and (iii) the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the bullet had entered the back of his head and blown out the right-front--a caption rewritten twice after breaking the plates. And it implicates Abraham Zapruder in the deception, when (iv) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that that night (HOAX, page 435)!

None of it was true. Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that she had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the mortician! Indeed, the massive defect can even be seen in late frames of the film, including 374. During a phone interview with Joe West, a private investigator, the man who had prepared the body for burial, Thomas Evan Robinson, described the wounds on May 26, 1992, as follows (MURDER, p. 116; HOAX, p. 9):

* large gaping hole in back of head patched by stretching piece of rubber over it.

Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.

* smaller wound in right temple. Crescent shape, flapped down (3")

* (approx 2) small shrapnel wounds in face. Packed with wax.

* wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder. To the right of back bone.

* adrenal gland and brain removed.

* other organs removed and then put back.

* no swelling or discoloration to face. (died instantly)

Those who want to persist in defense of the film, however, observe that Bill and Gayle Newman, Abraham Zapruder and his secretary, Marilyn Sitzman, had reported wounds to the right side of JFK's head. These observations are consistent with the entry wound to the right temple, which caused the massive defect to the back of his skull, but probably also resulted from observing the brains when the flap that the mortician describes was briefly opened when the frangible (or exploding) bullet entered his right temple, creating the flap (which promptly closed) and apparently damaging his right ear.

Indeed, according to E. Z. Friedel, M.D., THE JFK CONSPIRACY (2007), his ear was so badly destroyed that those who wanted to conceal the truth causes of his death brought in an expert to perform a reconstruction. Friedel characterizes his book as a work of “fiction”, but what he has to tell us about these wounds appears to coincide with what witnesses have had to say in describing them. Rich DellaRosa, who founded and moderates JFKresearch.com, has been communicating with him for over a year and believes he has had access to inside information.

Barb Junkkarinen, arguing the other side of the question, recently observed on the JFK forum, jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, that the Newmans, a couple who were on the knoll side of Elm Street at the time of the shooting, had described damage to the right side of his head. Bill, for example, reported,

"By this time he was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head" [Affidavit 11-22-63] and

"At that time he heard the bullet strike the President and saw flesh fly from the President's head." .... "He said the president was hit on the right side of the head with the third shot ..."[FBI report 11-23-63]

Similarly, his wife, Gayle, reported,

"Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us, I heard another shot ring out, and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw blood all over the side of his head." [Affidavit 11-22-63]

During the trial of Clay Shaw by Jim Garrison in New Orleans, they both reported seeing him hit in the right temple, but she elaborated in the following way:

"Q: Now what was the effect of this shot upon the President's head if you were able to observe?

A: The President, his head just seemed to explode, just bits of his skull flew in the air and he fell to the side."

Her husband offered additional observations tha were also dramatic:

"I caught a glimpse of his eyes, just looked like a cold stare, he just looked through me, and then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear came off. "

None of this, of course, could salvage the authenticity of the film unless it could explain how a blow out of brains and gore from the back of his skull could appear to have been blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film. I was so puzzled by the argument that the Newmans, Sitzman and Zapruder had observed such effects that I wrote to leading experts with whom I have collaborated in the past.

Mantik confirmed that, "Of course!", the medical evidence falsifies the film, which I found highly reassuring. Costella, who has demonstrated that the Zapruder is a fabrication at http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro had a telling observation about why there may have been so much controversy over the Moorman from scratch. Ironically, Costella had been in agreement with Thompson ("Tink") about the line of sight argument, which placed him on Tink's side on that question against Mantik, White, and me. So what he had to add on March 19, 2009, was especially striking:

Jim,

I still sit on Tink's side when it comes to the extant Moorman and what camera position it implies, so make sure that the issues are disentangled.

Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The explanation I like best is David Lifton's in BEST EVIDENCE about the time they got hold of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL.

The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316, and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required-as you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318 but does not rotate left or right.

Indeed, maybe that's the point of all this Moorman guff. Forget about the pedestal for the moment, and look at JFK. Place the Moorman next to Zapruder frame 315 or 316, and you have two (allegedly genuine) different views of the same instant of time. That shows you that the "red blob" that explodes out the front of his head in the Z-toon is indeed supposed to be coming out of his right temple. If his head had been rotated massively to the left, we'd be able to see his face in the Moorman-but we don't.

John

John's observation--that the Moorman contradicts that explanation and exposes it as a sham, because JFK's head was not dramatically turned to the left--means that the blow out of brains and gore to the right front cannot be attributed to JFK's having turned his head to the left, which means the authenticity of the film has indeed been impeached by the medical evidence. Such a claim was implausible to begin with, but it still left the smallest degree of uncertainty. So the indirect proof provided by the medical evidence combined with the Moorman turns out to be at least as powerful as the direct proof. And this refutation of the film appears definitive, because there is no remaining line of defense.

Author's Website: www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

Author's Bio: McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, Duluth; Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Editor, Assassination Research.

You have no basis for your repudiation of the "double hit" hypothesis and nothing you have said could possibly explain how Richard Feynman could have arrived at the same conclusion. No one is buying this drivel. Come clean, Tink. Tell us why you were then and continue to this day to obfuscate evidence about the death of JFK! <removed by moderator>. [/b]

I'd say the evidence is piling up that Dr. Fetzer becomes hysterical and abusive when dealing with Dr. Thompson.

If I understand him correctly, David Lifton also rejected the "double hit" hypothesis in BEST EVIDENCE, yet Fetzer is not calling Lifton names.

By rejecting the double hit, Thompson has actually moved closer to accepting Lifton's view of the medical evidence, and just this morning on the SIX SECONDS thread, THompson wrote:

I'm not informed enough about this tangle of evidence to say anything. I look forward to reading Doug Horne's four volumes on this to learn.

I think Dr. Fetzer is missing something here, and not just good manners.

<Removed banned words / attack on member>

Edited January 3, 2010 by Evan Burton

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Personally, I am sick and tired of the lies and evasions of Josiah Thompson... His conduct is reprehensible.

Many of us disagree with Josiah on specific aspects of the evidence, but nobody agrees with this characterization, and I suggest that Dr. Fetzer be placed on moderation until he conforms his behavior to forum rules on civility.

[Dean Hagerman]

Personally, I am sick and tired of the lies and evasions of Josiah Thompson... His conduct is reprehensible.

Many of us disagree with Josiah on specific aspects of the evidence, but nobody agrees with this characterization, and I suggest that Dr. Fetzer be placed on moderation until he conforms his behavior to forum rules on civility.

Give me a break Ray

Im sure Tink can handle it, just as Tink can dish it out

I think you miss the things that Tink says about Fetzer, its funny how when your against alteration you have tunnel vision

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Raymond,

Perhaps you can help me to find the words. I regard him as a prevaricator, an obfuscationist, and a dissembler. Let me offer a few reasons why:

(1) in composing SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), 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) 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 Hargis;

(4) 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;

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

(6) however, in his book, he 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;

(7) since he published the McClelland diargram and even quotes Officer Hargis, Josiah Thompson had to have been aware of the conflict, yet he tacitly, implicity, and by omitting discussion minimized it;

(8) 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 Josiah Thompson's book;

(9) he also introduced a "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;

(10) he now maintains that he was wrong, claiming Zapruder experienced a "startle response" that caused a smear on the film at exactly the same moment that the bullet hit;

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

(12) Josiah is therefore offering an excuse for having been mistaken about his "double hit" hypothesis--which was one of the most striking features of his book--by invoking a phony explanation;

(13) 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);

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

(15) 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,

(16) the chain of custody argument that Josiah has 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.

I don't like being played for a sucker, yet Tink has been playing the world--including you, Mr. Carroll--for saps since his book appeared in 1967. His conduct is utterly disgusting and completely reprehensible <removed by moderator>.

He is extending his efforts by disavowing or minimizing indications of conspiracy that were included in SIX SECONDS, while he attempts to perpetrate the fraud that the film is authentic. It should not be difficult, even for one as kindly as you, to see though his obvious hypocrisy.

If you prefer to place propriety and manners ahead of distortions and perversions about evidence and truth in the assassination of JFK, that is your prerogative. But that, in my view, is simply one more form of apology for betraying the trust of you, me, and the American people.

Jim

Personally, I am sick and tired of the lies and evasions of Josiah Thompson... His conduct is reprehensible.

Many of us disagree with Josiah on specific aspects of the evidence, but nobody agrees with this characterization, and I suggest that Dr. Fetzer be placed on moderation until he conforms his behavior to forum rules on civility.

<Removed attack on member>

Edited January 3, 2010 by Evan Burton

[David G. Healy]

Personally, I am sick and tired of the lies and evasions of Josiah Thompson... His conduct is reprehensible.

Many of us disagree with Josiah on specific aspects of the evidence, but nobody agrees with this characterization, and I suggest that Dr. Fetzer be placed on moderation until he conforms his behavior to forum rules on civility.

nah.... I suggest church services

Right-Elder Healy

Edited January 3, 2010 by David G. Healy

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Raymond,

Perhaps you can help me to find the words. I regard him as a prevaricator, an obfuscationist, and a dissembler. Let me offer a few reasons why:

(1) in composing SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), 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) 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 Hargis;

(4) 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;

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

(6) however, in his book, he 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;

(7) since he published the McClelland diargram and even quotes Officer Hargis, Josiah Thompson had to have been aware of the conflict, yet he tacitly, implicity, and by omitting discussion minimized it;

(8) 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 Josiah Thompson's book;

OK so far we have fair criticism, whether anyone agrees with the criticism or not.

(

9) he also introduced a "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;

(10) he now maintains that he was wrong, claiming Zapruder experienced a "startle response" that caused a smear on the film at exactly the same moment that the bullet hit;

I think Josiah abandoned the double hit theory based on more than the smear. He pointed out, as I recall, that the film shows the limo's ABRUPT SLOWDOWN causing all the rear occupants, including JFK, to be seen moving forward in the frames leading up to Z313.

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

Maybe we agree on something. My own view is that using the startle response as a basis for JIGGLE ANALYSIS has never been shown to have scientific validity.

(12) Josiah is therefore offering an excuse for having been mistaken about his "double hit" hypothesis--which was one of the most striking features of his book--by invoking a phony explanation;

No. He has given a valid reason for abandoning the double hit theory.

David Lifton also abandoned the double hit theory, as I recall, so why pick on THompson?

(13) 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);

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

(15) 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,

By all means plug your theories, that's what the forum is for.

(16) the chain of custody argument that Josiah has 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.

As far as I know, Doug Horne has no EVIDENCE that another copy was developed at Rochester. Hearsay is not EVIDENCE.

I don't like being played for a sucker, yet Tink has been playing the world--including you, Mr. Carroll--for saps since his book appeared in 1967. His conduct is utterly disgusting and completely reprehensible<removed by moderator>.

Now here's where I DRAW THE LINE, and ask the moderators to intervene.

<Attack on member removed>

Edited January 3, 2010 by Evan Burton

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Except that the dramatic slow-down took place when Greer was bringing the vehicle to a halt BEFORE the head sots and then shifted to appear to occur AFTER the merged "doubt hit", so you are really buying a pig in a poke and not on a leash! I invite you read Rich DellaRosa's observations of the other film--which included the abrupt stop BEFORE the two hits to the head, which were separated in time--which is published in HOAX (2003). You appear to be ignoring relevant evidence. Of course, if you are going to treat Doug Horne's reports about the testimony of Homer McMahon when he presented his testimony to the ARRB--a summary of which is also published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000)--as though it were "hearsay", then we certainly have different standards of credibility. Maybe I am missing something. A second copy of the film was delivered to the NPIC by "William Smith", who said he had brought it from Rochester. That makes sense, since Kodak has its headquarters there and the secret "Hawkeyeworks" was located there. Is the question of whether or not it actually came from Kodak what inhibits you from accepting Horne's reports about the events at the NPIC? Do you, J. Raymond Carroll, still believe that the film is authentic? And, if you do, have you read the relevant studies, including HOAX (2003), "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery", and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", not to mention the new findings by film restoration experts, which confirms Roderic Ryan's report to Noel Twyman that the massive defect at the back of the head had been painted out in black and that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in? Have you studied frame 374, where the blow-out--and the skull flap--are both clearly visible? How much evidence are you willing to disregard in your search for truth about the death of JFK, where, up to this point, I have assumed that you, unlike Josiah, are sincere in your interest in this case? Your tolerance for deceit and deception about the death of JFK clearly exceeds mine. The question this raises is which of us is displaying greater intellectual acumen and moral responsibility. Hint: It's not you.

Raymond,

Perhaps you can help me to find the words. I regard him as a prevaricator, an obfuscationist, and a dissembler. Let me offer a few reasons why:

(1) in composing SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), 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) 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 Hargis;

(4) 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;

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

(6) however, in his book, he 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;

(7) since he published the McClelland diargram and even quotes Officer Hargis, Josiah Thompson had to have been aware of the conflict, yet he tacitly, implicity, and by omitting discussion minimized it;

(8) 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 Josiah Thompson's book;

OK so far we have fair criticism, whether anyone agrees with the criticism or not.

(

9) he also introduced a "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;

(10) he now maintains that he was wrong, claiming Zapruder experienced a "startle response" that caused a smear on the film at exactly the same moment that the bullet hit;

I think Josiah abandoned the double hit theory based on more than the smear. He pointed out, as I recall, that the film shows the limo's ABRUPT SLOWDOWN causing all the rear occupants, including JFK, to be seen moving forward in the frames leading up to Z313.

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

Maybe we agree on something. My own view is that using the startle response as a basis for JIGGLE ANALYSIS has never been shown to have scientific validity.

(12) Josiah is therefore offering an excuse for having been mistaken about his "double hit" hypothesis--which was one of the most striking features of his book--by invoking a phony explanation;

No. He has given a valid reason for abandoning the double hit theory.

David Lifton also abandoned the double hit theory, as I recall, so why pick on THompson?

(13) 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);

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

(15) 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,

By all means plug your theories, that's what the forum is for.

(16) the chain of custody argument that Josiah has 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.

As far as I know, Doug Horne has no EVIDENCE that another copy was developed at Rochester. Hearsay is not EVIDENCE.

I don't like being played for a sucker, yet Tink has been playing the world--including you, Mr. Carroll--for saps since his book appeared in 1967. His conduct is utterly disgusting and completely reprehensible <removed by moderator>.

Now here's where I DRAW THE LINE, and ask the moderators to intervene.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Evan Burton

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Of course, if you are going to treat Doug Horne's reports about the testimony of Homer McMahon when he presented his testimony to the ARRB--a summary of which is also published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000)--as though it were "hearsay", then we certainly have different standards of credibility. Maybe I am missing something.

Whether or not "Smith's" statement is hearsay -- and therefore NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE -- is not a subjective question upon which we are free to differ.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay

Although we should be concerned about McMahon's memory, we are not really concerned with his credibility. McMahon claims NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of where the film came from.

The question that raises is which of us is displaying greater intellectual acumen and moral responsibility.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So you agree that McMahon's statement that he was told by "William Smith" that the copy he brought to the NPIC was from Rochester is NOT "hearsay", because he is testifying as to what he was personally told as opposed to the truth of what he was told? That's fine. I take it you will also grant that, when McMahon told the ARRB that he had studied the film and discovered six to eight hits from three directions, that that, too, is not "hearsay"? In fact, even more obviously, since this was McMahon reporting the results of his own study of the film. David Mantik has established that JFK was hit four times, where Connally was hit from one to three. Four plus three equals seven, which is a number between six and eight. But nothing like that can be seen in the extant film, which tells us that, based upon his research, at least one of the films he was given to review was very different in its content from the one we have available today. Can we at least agree on this, Mr. Carroll?

Of course, if you are going to treat Doug Horne's reports about the testimony of Homer McMahon when he presented his testimony to the ARRB--a summary of which is also published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000)--as though it were "hearsay", then we certainly have different standards of credibility. Maybe I am missing something.

Whether or not "Smith's" statement is hearsay -- and therefore NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE -- is not a subjective question upon which we are free to differ.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay

Although we should be concerned about McMahon's memory, we are not really concerned with his credibility. McMahon claims NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of where the film came from.

The question that raises is which of us is displaying greater intellectual acumen and moral responsibility.

Edited January 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Evan Burton]

Dr Fetzer,

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

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

Edited January 3, 2010 by Evan Burton

[Josiah Thompson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josiah Thompson

The bullet was traveling much faster than sound, even if, in this case, the shooter had been closer to Zapruder. The occurrence of the neurological "startle" response itself would have taken time. The hit and the response cannot have happened at the same time. Your argument is clearly based upon a false premise. You have no basis for your repudiation of the "double hit" hypothesis and nothing you have said could possibly explain how Richard Feynman could have arrived at the same conclusion. No one is buying this drivel. Come clean, Tink. Tell us why you were then and continue to this day to obfuscate evidence about the death of JFK! <Removed by Moderator>

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

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

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

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

Josiah Thompson

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

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

Dean

Removed personal attack on member

[J. Raymond Carroll]

So you agree that McMahon's statement that he was told by "William Smith" that the copy he brought to the NPIC was from Rochester is NOT "hearsay", because he is testifying as to what he was personally told as opposed to the truth of what he was told? That's fine.

The bottom line is that if you want to prove that the film McMahon saw came from Rochester, you will have to find EVIDENCE. McMahon's statement of what he was told is not EVIDENCE of where the film came from.

I take it you will also grant that, when McMahon told the ARRB that he had studied the film and discovered six to eight hits from three directions, that that, too, is not "hearsay"? In fact, even more obviously, since this was McMahon reporting the results of his own study of the film.

Agreed this is not hearsay. Of course the probative value of a 30 year old memory is very slight, as Pat Speer points out.

[Jack White]

So you agree that McMahon's statement that he was told by "William Smith" that the copy he brought to the NPIC was from Rochester is NOT "hearsay", because he is testifying as to what he was personally told as opposed to the truth of what he was told? That's fine.

The bottom line is that if you want to prove that the film McMahon saw came from Rochester, you will have to find EVIDENCE. McMahon's statement of what he was told is not EVIDENCE of where the film came from.

I take it you will also grant that, when McMahon told the ARRB that he had studied the film and discovered six to eight hits from three directions, that that, too, is not "hearsay"? In fact, even more obviously, since this was McMahon reporting the results of his own study of the film.

Agreed this is not hearsay. Of course the probative value of a 30 year old memory is very slight, as Pat Speer points out.

What is wrong with 30 year old memories? I have many very clear memories from 80 years ago.

Jack

Edited January 4, 2010 by Jack White

[Pat Speer]

.Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility

Oh thats great Pat!

In the meantime; nothing you say has any validity.

Nothing that Pat says is valid?

Can you tell me why that is Peter?

While I don't agree with Pat on some things I think his research is solid

It is not a matter of "some things." It is this;

"Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility."

I find these comments from someone who “believes in conspiracy” indescribable.

Anyone who denies Secret Service involvement and the frontal shot may just as well root for the other team.

I see Peter, I was sure that Pat believed in a front head shot, I did not read that quote of his closly enough

So Pat you dont believe in a frontal head shot but are open to it? Why are you just open to it? Have you ever believed in a front head shot? If so when did you start to doubt it?

Dean

The slides included in my last post were meant to show why I suspect the fatal head shot came from behind. (This is discussed in detail in chapters 16 and 17 at patspeer.com). In summary

1) the fractures on JFK's skull suggest the bullet striking the top of his skull struck before there were any fractures on the back of his head.

2) the bullet fragments on the x-rays are mostly in JFK's scalp by the large defect, and not in his brain as widely presumed. This suggests the bullet exploded at this location.

3) a bullet fired from the sniper's nest at this location would strike the skull nearly on edge and have an explosive effect. No back spatter would be observed flying from the back Of JFK's head. It has long been observed, but never explained, that in Z-313 no back spatter can be seen flying from the supposed entrance on the back of JFK's head.

4) the "missed" shot from Inside the Target Car hit their simulated skull very near this location, and almost exactly recreated both the explosion of Kennedy's skull and the damage to his skull.

5) one of the fragments found in the front seat of the limo was demonstrated to have been fired by the rifle found in the TSBD.

6) human skin was found on this fragment. Skin is normally missing at entrance but not at exit, and is rarely found on bullets. This has to be considered strong evidence the bullet impacted at the large defect from behind and went on to strike the windshield.

7) the Harper fragment, as placed on the skull by Dr. Lawrence Angel, gives the appearance of the top margin of a keyhole defect. A keyhole defect is one of both entrance and exit. One side of the defect indicates entrance, and the other exit. The entrance side is above Kennedy's ear, and the exit closer to his face. Thus, the bullet came from behind.

8) a hard slap at the supposed exit location from behind when one's head is tilted as JFK's was at Z-312 leads one's head to bounced forward and then back, precisely as JFK's bounces in the film. Neither a similarly hard slap on the back of the head from behind nor a slap from the front recreates this movement.

As you can see, pretty much all the evidence related to the Z-film, large defect and bullet fragments, suggests the fatal head shot came from behind, and impacted at the supposed exit. It all adds up. And it all suggests that the small entrance in JFK's hairline came from a second bullet. Which suggests Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.

So, I'm not exactly clutching at straws... or defending the "official" story...

Edited January 4, 2010 by Pat Speer