Tinks Double Head Shot Theory From SSID

[Dean Hagerman]

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

Thank you very much Jim

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Well, they talk about lies, damn lies, and statistics--and then we have Josiah Thompson.....

Not nice, Dr. Fetzer.

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 precision 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.

Luis Alvarez was also a Nobel prize winner in physics who studied SIX SECONDS. Alvarez looked into the ZFilm in much greater detail than Feyneman did, and he found something that Thomson AND Feynman had not seen. Alvarez was the first person to notice that the Z-FIlm shows that the limo slows ABRUPTLY prior to the fatal head shot. THis fact was reported by many eyewitnesses, many of whom recalled later that the limo actually came to a complete stop.

The heavy car decelerated suddenly for about 0.5 seconds (10 frames) centered at about frame 299 reducing its speed from about 12 MPH to about 8 mph. Since the car was cer tainly being operated in some low gear ratio the decelera tion was no doubt caused by the driver reducing his fowl pressure on the accelerator pedal

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=442

Alvarez published his paper circa 1976, but for some reason leading critics including Dr. THompson seem to have missed the implications of what Alvarez had to say about the limo's sudden slowdown. The sudden slowdown of the limo EXPLAINS why JFK was moving forward immediately before the fatal shot.

So while Dr. Fetzer now fumes at Dr. Thompson for reinterpreting the evidence in the light of findings by Wimp and Durnavich, my only criticism of Thompson is that he seems to have overlooked Alvarez's 1976 paper on the subject, which effectively made the same point as Wimp and Durnavich, only 30 years earlier.

But though I criticize Josiah for being slow on the ball here, he is still light years ahead of Dr. Fetzer, who still refuses to acknowledge the value of the Zfilm as evidence.

Note:THough I cite Alvarez with approval on the issue of limo slowdown, that by no means implies that I find his defense of Greer to be persuasive, nor his theory of Jiggle analysis, and certainly not his Jet Effect theory.

[Dean Hagerman]

Not nice, Dr. Fetzer.

he is still light years ahead of Dr. Fetzer

Not Nice, Ray

[Josiah Thompson]

Good point, Ray. Was it Alvarez or someone else who actually computed the deceleration of the limousine from 12 mph to 8 mph during the period that Wimp and others observed everyone in the limousine slide forward (Z frame 308ff)? I've known that fact for some time and I know Alvarez was interested in all this. I just don't know if he made the calculation?

Josiah Thompson

Well, they talk about lies, damn lies, and statistics--and then we have Josiah Thompson.....

Not nice, Dr. Fetzer.

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 precision 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.

Luis Alvarez was also a Nobel prize winner in physics who studied SIX SECONDS. Alvarez looked into the ZFilm in much greater detail than Feyneman did, and he found something that Thomson AND Feynman had not seen. Alvarez was the first person to notice that the Z-FIlm shows that the limo slows ABRUPTLY prior to the fatal head shot. THis fact was reported by many eyewitnesses, many of whom recalled later that the limo actually came to a complete stop.

The heavy car decelerated suddenly for about 0.5 seconds (10 frames) centered at about frame 299 reducing its speed from about 12 MPH to about 8 mph. Since the car was cer tainly being operated in some low gear ratio the decelera tion was no doubt caused by the driver reducing his fowl pressure on the accelerator pedal

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=442

Alvarez published his paper circa 1976, but for some reason leading critics including Dr. THompson seem to have missed the implications of what Alvarez had to say about the limo's sudden slowdown. The sudden slowdown of the limo EXPLAINS why JFK was moving forward immediately before the fatal shot.

So while Dr. Fetzer now fumes at Dr. Thompson for reinterpreting the evidence in the light of findings by Wimp and Durnavich, my only criticism of Thompson is that he seems to have overlooked Alvarez's 1976 paper on the subject, which effectively made the same point as Wimp and Durnavich, only 30 years earlier.

But though I criticize Josiah for being slow on the ball here, he is still light years ahead of Dr. Fetzer, who still refuses to acknowledge the value of the Zfilm as evidence.

Note:THough I cite Alvarez with approval on the issue of limo slowdown, that by no means implies that I find his defense of Greer to be persuasive, nor his theory of Jiggle analysis, and certainly not his Jet Effect theory.

[Josiah Thompson]

Mr. Hagerman, please note my replies in bold-face:

Tink I dont see any of the others in the limo being thrown forward at the time of JFKs forward head snap

They all do. Wimp prepared quite wonderful GIFs showing this. Until someone comes up with his work for all to see, it is extremely difficult to make clear his points.

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)

You are confused here. All occupants of the limousine slide forward starting about Z frame 308. All continue sliding forward but JFK is whacked backward and to the left at Z 314

Tink you were right the first time

I thought you were going to explain why this belief you have is correct. You haven't.

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

As far as I know, Rich Dellarosa's story about seeing the "other film" has been around for a decade or so and no one has made any progress in confirming it. Were there others in the audience with Dellarosa who could confirm what he says he saw? Exactly where and when did he see it? Etc. My own bet is that he may have seen one of the many Zapruder film look-alikes that have been floating around... you know, the sort of thing done for the film Executive Action, etc.

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

Well, as long as you're happy with your fellow tribe members, that's nice,

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

No, I wasn't "backing out" of anything.

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

[Josiah Thompson]

My answers will be in bold-face.

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!

Strangely enough, I have to agree with what you say here. So let's give more detail to the hypothetical we are talking about. Let's say you have three shooters at three separate locations. Let's also say that there is "free fire zone" that lasts about eight seconds. The shooters are told they can fire anytime in that eight-second interval. Let's also say that a shooter can fire a second or third shot 2.3 seconds after he pulls the trigger for shot one. Now with all these details put out there, what is the chance that any two projectiles will land on the target within 2/18ths of a second. I don't know the answer but have a go at it,

(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.

ITEK and Richard Feynman (if you say so) independently verified a forward movement of JFK's head of about 2.2 inches between Z 312 and Z 313. Why? Because neither I, ITEK or Feynman allowed for smear as causing part of the purported movement. If Feynman had allowed for smear, his measurement would have been different. This is pretty obvious.

(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.

"Great precision"? I take an 8" by 10" B & W print and stick a pin in it where I believe the back of Kennedy's head can be seen... And you call this "great precision?"

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.

This has all been worked out mathematically in exquisite detail by Don Thomas. Alvarez's argument is incorrect and Thomas shows us why.

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.

So what?

(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.

Whatever you are trying to say here it is so confused that I can't reply to it.

(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.

This quote does not conclude Six Seconds and, dishonestly, you cite only part of the quote. See separate thread.

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

[Dean Hagerman]

I wont use the quote option so we dont have to scroll down for 10 miles just to read a reply, so I will keep your posts in bold

They all do. Wimp prepared quite wonderful GIFs showing this. Until someone comes up with his work for all to see, it is extremely difficult to make clear his points

I would love to see this Gif, I can make one with those frames you mention, but I would like to see his Gifs and his work on this

You are confused here. All occupants of the limousine slide forward starting about Z frame 308. All continue sliding forward but JFK is whacked backward and to the left at Z 314

No I am not confused, I do not see JFK ever start to slide forward, have you ever thought that all the people in the limo were all ducking out of the way right after JFK was hit instead of the limo just slowing down? Kellerman thought that bullets were coming in from all over the place, Nellie thought that spent buckshot was raining down all over them in the car.

I will look into frame 308 to 313 (or even up to 320) and make a Gif if only for myself to watch because I dont recall anyone moving forward until AFTER the head shot

Im not saying your wrong about them starting to move forward at 308, I have just never seen that nor studied any one in the limo moving forward before the head shot

As far as I know, Rich Dellarosa's story about seeing the "other film" has been around for a decade or so and no one has made any progress in confirming it. Were there others in the audience with Dellarosa who could confirm what he says he saw? Exactly where and when did he see it? Etc. My own bet is that he may have seen one of the many Zapruder film look-alikes that have been floating around... you know, the sort of thing done for the film Executive Action, etc.

Rich has done that Tink, go to JFKresearch.com, Rich made a thread telling where he saw the film, under what conditions, what he saw etc.

Well, as long as you're happy with your fellow tribe members, that's nice,

Very much so, im proud to be a part of the tribe as you say, its nice to have people who belive strongly in the same things that you do, I do disagree with some things but for the most part my thoughts fit in well with Fetzer and crew

No, I wasn't "backing out" of anything.

That good to hear

So you still back your shot scenario in SSID but whithout the first hit in the double head shot?

Thanks Tink

Dean

Edited January 1, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Was it Alvarez or someone else who actually computed the deceleration of the limousine from 12 mph to 8 mph during the period that Wimp and others observed everyone in the limousine slide forward (Z frame 308ff)? I've known that fact for some time and I know Alvarez was interested in all this. I just don't know if he made the calculation?

Yes, it was Alvarez who made the calculation and he describes how he did it in the article published in HSCA Volume I at Maryferrell.org that I linked to my previous post:

The heavy car decelerated suddenly for about 0.5 seconds (10 frames) centered at about frame 299 reducing its speed from about 12 MPH to about 8 mph. Since the car was cer tainly being operated in some low gear ratio the decelera tion was no doubt caused by the driver reducing his fowl pressure on the accelerator pedal

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=442

ANthony Marsh independently made the same discovery as Alvarez and Durnovich/Wimp.

[Dean Hagerman]

I see nobody in the limo sliding forward

In fact Jackie is perfectly still, look at the door handle in front of her, she never moves closer to it before the head shot

JFK does not move either, its harder to tell but the rst of the people in the limo dont seem to move until after the head shot

Again I have to say I think they were all ducking for cover so to say after the massive headshot to JFK

I really would like to see the GIF created by Wimp, maybe his have some close ups of messurments that can prove me wrong

Until that time I will stick with the double head hit

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It might be a good idea if Mr. Carroll were to read David Mantik's chapter about Alvarez work in HOAX (2003), "The Real Story or the Reel Story?" I can't believe how many on this forum post without having most read the relevant work.

Not nice, Dr. Fetzer.

he is still light years ahead of Dr. Fetzer

Not Nice, Ray

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

My answers will be in bold-face.

My replies are underlined.

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!

Strangely enough, I have to agree with what you say here. So let's give more detail to the hypothetical we are talking about. Let's say you have three shooters at three separate locations. Let's also say that there is "free fire zone" that lasts about eight seconds. The shooters are told they can fire anytime in that eight-second interval. Let's also say that a shooter can fire a second or third shot 2.3 seconds after he pulls the trigger for shot one. Now with all these details put out there, what is the chance that any two projectiles will land on the target within 2/18ths of a second. I don't know the answer but have a go at it,

But there is no reason to assume any "free fire zone" was taking place. Based upon David Mantik's work on the medical evidence and other related research, there appear to have been as many as six shooters who fired a total of eight, nine, or ten shots. We know JFK was hit four times--once in the neck from in front, once in the back from behind, and twice in the head (from behind and from in front), while another shot missed and hit the curb, injuring James Tague, another missed and hit the chrome strip above the windshield, and another was picked up from the grass, while Connally was hit from one to three times. Since the "three shot" scenario had rather obviously been settled upon in advance, it appears far more plausible that the plan was for three salvos of shots, a few seconds apart, each involving multiple shooters.

Under those conditions, that two shots might have hit his head closely together is rather probable. It is also probable that we are viewing in the extant Zapruder film, which has been faked, is an attempt to conflate two shots--the one to the back of the head and the one to the right temple--where JFK actually fell forward and Jackie eased him up and was looking at him when he was hit by the right-temple shot--which were merged to create the impression of one shot but where those who were fabricating the film overlooked the motion from 312 to 313, which you and Feynman detected independently. In effecting the merge, the fabricators were not quite successful in turing two shots into one. I am sorry to say, but your efforts to disavow this finding appears to be a stage in your efforts to dilute the evidence of conspiracy.

(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.

ITEK and Richard Feynman (if you say so) independently verified a forward movement of JFK's head of about 2.2 inches between Z 312 and Z 313. Why? Because neither I, ITEK or Feynman allowed for smear as causing part of the purported movement. If Feynman had allowed for smear, his measurement would have been different. This is pretty obvious.

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.

(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.

"Great precision"? I take an 8" by 10" B & W print and stick a pin in it where I believe the back of Kennedy's head can be seen... And you call this "great precision?"

I am talking about the graphs that were published in SIX SECONDS. Are you now telling us that they were done in a sloppy fashion? Is "sloppy research" Josiah Thompson's defense? And how could this possibly account for Richard Feynman having reached the same conclusion?

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.

This has all been worked out mathematically in exquisite detail by Don Thomas. Alvarez's argument is incorrect and Thomas shows us why.

I have had conversations with Donald Thomas. He observed that the work they did on the acoustics did not even differentiate between shots fired from the Dal-Tex and fired from the Book Depository. If you have an argument to make, then make it. They cannot have occurred at the same time.

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.

So what?

(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.

Whatever you are trying to say here it is so confused that I can't reply to it.

OK. Let me make it simple. The film itself does not appear to support you. More importantly, the McClelland diagram, which you published, contradicts the Zapruder film, which you studied. You omitted detailed sketches of 314, 315, and 316, and even your sketch of 313 is missing the "blob". In retrospect, this appears to have been a deliberate effort to obfuscate the medical evidence of a blow-out to the rear, which contradicts the blow out to the right-front seen in the film. This inconsistency cannot have escaped your attention, since you discuss the distribution of brain matter, noticing that some of the debris is consistent with a shot from behind but that even more debris and the testimony of Officer Hargis is consistent with a shot from in front. You had to be consider this corroboration of your "doubt hit" scenario. Since medical evidence published in your book contradicted the sequence of events shown in the Zapruder film, you should have made this inconsistency a focus of your book. How could you not have accented this conflict and rigorously pursued the tension between them, when your not doing so had the effect of obfuscating crucial evidence?

(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.

This quote does not conclude Six Seconds and, dishonestly, you cite only part of the quote. See separate thread.

Elsewhere, I published the whole paragraph, but here just the key sentence. I am not surprised you don't know that, since you usually don't actually read what appears on these posts, even when they are written about you. Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not the paragraph that convince Vincent Salandria that you were a government agent--where he confronted you directly and in person about it, which you sought to deflect with the claim that it was simply an infelicity of language?

When you published your book, you were convinced of a near simultaneous double-hit to the head, which could only have occurred by shots fired from at least two gunmen. You have described 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 you possibly conclude your book by asserting, "It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy"? Where is the latitude for any ambiguity?

And given the additional results from film restoration experts, who have confirmed, based upon 6k versions of the film, that the film has been altered by painting over the blow out to the back of the head and painting in the "blob" and the blood spray--which confirmed the professional judgment of Roderick Ryan, which he provided to Noel Twyman--how can you continue to insist that the film is authentic? And why shouldn't we conclude that, by suppressing the conflict between the film and the medical evidence, you were perpetrating a fraud and deliberately obfuscating crucial evidence? You owe us a better 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 2, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Those of you open-minded about a possible explanation for Kennedy's head movements should watch the video at the link below.

elastic recoil vid

Here is my discussion of the head movement in chapter 16b at patspeer.com

As discussed, the Zapruder film makes it clear that Kennedy's head goes back and to the left after the fatal head shot. Conspiracy theorists have long held that this means the shot came from the front. Single-assassin theorists, on the other hand, have pointed out that Kennedy's head initially goes forward, and have used supposedly scientific explanations, the "jet effect" and the "neuro-muscular response," to try and explain Kennedy's subsequent backwards movement. When I started suspecting that the head shot hit Kennedy at the supposed exit, one of the first things I did was slap myself at this exit location from behind, to see if this impact would re-create Kennedy's movements. To my surprise, it did.

I subsequently learned that there is a certain elastic recoil in muscle tissue. You stretch it out far enough, and it snaps right back on its own. Some runners learn to use this to their advantage. This led me to believe that Kennedy was hit towards the top of his head, his head was driven down, his chin hit his chest and his head sprang back up from the recoil of his neck muscles.

In July 2007, researcher Gil Jesus alerted the Education Forum to a number of videos he found online, depicting head shots. One of these was news footage of a hostage-taker getting killed by a sniper. The shot came in from the man's right. The man's head turned to his left, traveling with the bullet. Then snapped back to his right, facing the sky as he fell to the ground. Not enough fluid was ejected from his head to create the "jet effect." His body failed to stiffen as in a neuro-muscular response. This video can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTaYzDrnqk

Kennedy contorts in a similar manner, only more vertically. This is consistent with his getting hit more towards the top of his head, at the supposed exit.

Should one continue to doubt such a shot occurred, and insist that the “back-and-to-the-left” movement of Kennedy’s skull could only have come from the front, I suggest a simple test. I’ve done it way too many times. Lean forward 30 degrees…tilt your head 25 degrees to your left… and SLAP the top of your skull above your ear downwards, and see what happens. NO. I'M KIDDING. Don’t do this!!! It hurts a bit. Take my word for it, instead,--your head will bounce right up and throw your body backwards, exactly as Kennedy’s did in the frames after the fatal headshot. (By the way, I'm not just making this up. This unique attribute of tangential hits is mentioned in the online paper Wound Ballistic Simulation by Jorma Jusilla, presented at the University of Helsinki: It states “A tangential hit also causes a torsion motion of the head which can cause serious injuries.” According to Funk and Wagnall’s, the word “torsion” means “The act of twisting.” I say that in case you might need to look it up. I did.)

In retrospect, the mystery over the cause of Kennedy’s back-and-to-the-left movement should have been solved a long time ago. All the debate over the “man behind the picket fence,” the “jet effect” and “neuro-muscular response” would have been unnecessary if someone used some common sense back in 1964. People knew the bullet broke up. People knew that bullets normally pierce a body without imparting enough energy into the body to throw it one way or the other. People knew that, on the other hand, a bullet striking tangentially, creating a gutter wound, and breaking up, could impart enough energy into someone to slap them one way or the other. People knew as well that the Zapruder film showed Kennedy being slapped back into his seat. The problem, one can only guess, is that the people knowing these things were not the same people.

The movements of Kennedy apparent in the Zapruder frames following the head shot, when taken in conjunction with the evidence previously discussed, including the fact that no bloody back spatter emanates from the back of Kennedy's head in the film, can therefore be taken as a clear indication the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 struck his skull at the supposed exit, most probably from behind.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It troubles me is that Josiah Thompson, in January 2010, still appears to have not read THE GREAT ZARPUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which includes a very detailed report about Rich DellaRosa's viewing of this film on three occasions. No one who has actually read it would be inclined to make the absurd suggestion that he (Rich) was talking about a version from "Executive Action"! What kind of scholar has not read the most important book on film fakey or have studied a witness report like DellaRosa's?

Moreover, it is stunning that he does not appear to be aware of some of the blatant disproofs of the film's authenticity, such as "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery" and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", not to mention the confirmation of Roderick Ryan's observation that the back of the head wound had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray were painted in that Horne has reported, which has now been confirmed by seven Hollywood experts--eight counting Ryan!

Josiah Thompson was in a unique position among students of JFK in having access to the very best versions of the film held by LIFE magazine. He was aware of the Parkland physicians' reports, some of which, including the McClelland diargram, he discusses, and that Offier Hargis was hit by deris so hard that thought he himself had been shot. Yet he does not make a point of the inconsistency of the medical evidence with the film, in spite of its blatancy. He is not being candid; he had to have know better.

When you notice that (1) he does not use frames from the film but sketches (allegedly because of a breech of contract with LIFE, that (2) he does not provide sketches of the crucial frames (314, 315, and 315), that (3) his sketch of 313, which was unavoidable, does not include the crucial feature of the "blob" bulging out to the right-front, they together suggest rather strongly that (4) SIX SECONDS was designed to defect attention from the contradiction between the medical evidence and the film.

For him to imply that the conclusion the film has been faked is a "tribal belief"--as though it had no foundation in logic or evidence--exemplifies the inflexible and irrational stance he has adopted. No matter how strong the proof, no matter how many experts on film conclude no only has the film been faked but the fakery was amateurish in the extreme, Josiah Thompson will not budge. There are not many alternative explanations for such a stand, under these conditions, and none is flattering to him.

Mr. Hagerman, please note my replies in bold-face:

Tink I dont see any of the others in the limo being thrown forward at the time of JFKs forward head snap

They all do. Wimp prepared quite wonderful GIFs showing this. Until someone comes up with his work for all to see, it is extremely difficult to make clear his points.

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)

You are confused here. All occupants of the limousine slide forward starting about Z frame 308. All continue sliding forward but JFK is whacked backward and to the left at Z 314

Tink you were right the first time

I thought you were going to explain why this belief you have is correct. You haven't.

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

As far as I know, Rich Dellarosa's story about seeing the "other film" has been around for a decade or so and no one has made any progress in confirming it. Were there others in the audience with Dellarosa who could confirm what he says he saw? Exactly where and when did he see it? Etc. My own bet is that he may have seen one of the many Zapruder film look-alikes that have been floating around... you know, the sort of thing done for the film Executive Action, etc.

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

Well, as long as you're happy with your fellow tribe members, that's nice,

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

No, I wasn't "backing out" of anything.

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

[Dean Hagerman]

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

[Dean Hagerman]

But there is no reason to assume any "free fire zone" was taking place. Based upon David Mantik's work on the medical evidence and other related research, there appear to have been as many as six shooters who fired a total of eight, nine, or ten shots. We know JFK was hit four times--once in the neck from in front, once in the back from behind, and twice in the head (from behind and from in front), while another shot missed and hit the curb, injuring James Tague, another missed and hit the chrome strip above the windshield, and another was picked up from the grass, while Connally was hit from one to three times. Since the "three shot" scenario had rather obviously been settled upon in advance, it appears far more plausible that the plan was for three salvos of shots, a few seconds apart, each involving multiple shooters.

Under those conditions, that two shots might have hit his head closely together is rather probable. It is also probable that we are viewing in the extant Zapruder film, which has been faked, is an attempt to conflate two shots--the one to the back of the head and the one to the right temple--where JFK actually fell forward and Jackie eased him up and was looking at him when he was hit by the right-temple shot--which were merged to create the impression of one shot but where those who were fabricating the film overlooked the motion from 312 to 313, which you and Feynman detected independently. In effecting the merge, the fabricators were not quite successful in turing two shots into one. I am sorry to say, but your efforts to disavow this finding appears to be a stage in your efforts to dilute the evidence of conspiracy.

Again great reply Jim, your replies to Tink are pretty much on par with what I am thinking

Dean