Tinks Double Head Shot Theory From SSID

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is a ridiculous response. You are claiming that Donald Thomas "discovered" something that is not even neurophysiologically possible. 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 very same conclusion. No one is buying this drivel. You are only further discrediting yourself. Come clean, Tink. Tell us why you were then and continue to this day to obfuscate evidence about the death of JFK! And while you are at it, answer my simple question about which paragraph so infuriated Vincent Salandria that he accused you of being a government agent? That should be easier than trying to defend violations of laws of nature!

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

Edited January 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

Inside the Target Car

Reading that you use Inside the Target Car to prove a point just threw everything else out the window

[Pat Speer]

Inside the Target Car

Reading that you use Inside the Target Car to prove a point just threw everything else out the window

To clarify, Dean, I was probably the first person to review Inside the Target Car and rip it to shreds. This review is available, here: Inside the Target Car

One of my main complaints about the program was, and continues to be, that they missed the HSCA entrance wound location in their first simulated shot from the TSBD, and hit the skull closer to the supposed exit, and failed to show the results of this shot in the program. A review of this outtake, not coincidentally, revealed the result to be far more similar to the explosion of skull seen on the Z-film than the explosion shown in the program.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

I like your review of "Inside the Target Car". It is very patient, thorough, and devastating. Perhaps there may be grounds for reconciliation between us. Please review my chapter from "John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy", which you can find via google, and download Chapter 30, "Revisiting Dealey Plaza: What Happened to JFK?", and go through my slides and comments and tell me exactly where we disagree and why. That would be most helpful. You have also made an interesting point about the HSCA photo/Dox diagram of the head hit on the other thread, to which I shall respond today. My best wishes for the New Year!

Jim

Inside the Target Car

Reading that you use Inside the Target Car to prove a point just threw everything else out the window

To clarify, Dean, I was probably the first person to review Inside the Target Car and rip it to shreds. This review is available, here: Inside the Target Car

One of my main complaints about the program was, and continues to be, that they missed the HSCA entrance wound location in their first simulated shot from the TSBD, and hit the skull closer to the supposed exit, and failed to show the results of this shot in the program. A review of this outtake, not coincidentally, revealed the result to be far more similar to the explosion of skull seen on the Z-film than the explosion shown in the program.

Edited January 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

Inside the Target Car

Reading that you use Inside the Target Car to prove a point just threw everything else out the window

To clarify, Dean, I was probably the first person to review Inside the Target Car and rip it to shreds. This review is available, here: Inside the Target Car

One of my main complaints about the program was, and continues to be, that they missed the HSCA entrance wound location in their first simulated shot from the TSBD, and hit the skull closer to the supposed exit, and failed to show the results of this shot in the program. A review of this outtake, not coincidentally, revealed the result to be far more similar to the explosion of skull seen on the Z-film than the explosion shown in the program.

I have never read your review

I liked it, good job

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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.

Pat: No back spatter can be seen at any point in Moorman, Nix or Muchmore either, correct?

And it all suggests that the small entrance in JFK's hairline came from a second bullet.

So one shot hit at Z313. It ENTERED (tangentially) above the ear and exploded. So far so good.

Since apparently there is no back spatter visible in any film or photo to indicate a shot striking the BACK of the head, have you found anything else to indicate WHEN the other head shot struck, the one that supposedly left a small entrance in the hairline?

[Jack White]

Everyone "analyzing" the faked Z film and faked autopsy photos are wasting their time.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

No, no, no! I meant that, from his point of view, he had done a good job! He is dealing with a fake film and other phony features. I was not agreeing with him. Apparently, even his study of the HSCA back-of-the-head photograph is flawed. And it is obviously blatantly inconsistent with the Groden color-photographs, which can't possibly be of the same subject at the same autopsy--unless he was given a shampoo and a haircut during the procedures, as I previously observed. You are wrong across the board!

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.

Pat: No back spatter can be seen at any point in Moorman, Nix or Muchmore either, correct?

And it all suggests that the small entrance in JFK's hairline came from a second bullet.

So one shot hit at Z313. It ENTERED (tangentially) above the ear and exploded. So far so good.

Since apparently there is no back spatter visible in any film or photo to indicate a shot striking the BACK of the head, have you found anything else to indicate WHEN the other head shot struck, the one that supposedly left a small entrance in the hairline?

Edited January 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Inside the Target Car

Reading that you use Inside the Target Car to prove a point just threw everything else out the window

To clarify, Dean, I was probably the first person to review Inside the Target Car and rip it to shreds. This review is available, here: Inside the Target Car

One of my main complaints about the program was, and continues to be, that they missed the HSCA entrance wound location in their first simulated shot from the TSBD, and hit the skull closer to the supposed exit, and failed to show the results of this shot in the program. A review of this outtake, not coincidentally, revealed the result to be far more similar to the explosion of skull seen on the Z-film than the explosion shown in the program.

I have never read your review

I liked it, good job

If you liked that, you might also appreciate my analysis of Dale Myers' animation, here: Animania

[Pat Speer]

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.

Pat: No back spatter can be seen at any point in Moorman, Nix or Muchmore either, correct?

And it all suggests that the small entrance in JFK's hairline came from a second bullet.

So one shot hit at Z313. It ENTERED (tangentially) above the ear and exploded. So far so good.

Since apparently there is no back spatter visible in any film or photo to indicate a shot striking the BACK of the head, have you found anything else to indicate WHEN the other head shot struck, the one that supposedly left a small entrance in the hairline?

Ray, my discussion of the possible timing and trajectory of the shot entering near the EOP is the backbone of chapter 17 of my webpage, here: Newer Views

If you get a chance to look at it, I suspect you'll find it interesting.

[Dean Hagerman]

Inside the Target Car

Reading that you use Inside the Target Car to prove a point just threw everything else out the window

To clarify, Dean, I was probably the first person to review Inside the Target Car and rip it to shreds. This review is available, here: Inside the Target Car

One of my main complaints about the program was, and continues to be, that they missed the HSCA entrance wound location in their first simulated shot from the TSBD, and hit the skull closer to the supposed exit, and failed to show the results of this shot in the program. A review of this outtake, not coincidentally, revealed the result to be far more similar to the explosion of skull seen on the Z-film than the explosion shown in the program.

I have never read your review

I liked it, good job

If you liked that, you might also appreciate my analysis of Dale Myers' animation, here: Animania

Again great work Pat, I enjoyed reading that and also enjoyed you making Dale Myers look like an idiot

I just put your website into my favorites and will read through it soon

Dean

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray, my discussion of the possible timing and trajectory of the shot entering near the EOP is the backbone of chapter 17 of my webpage, here: Newer Views

If you get a chance to look at it, I suspect you'll find it interesting.

Thanks Pat. Interesting indeed.

[Peter McGuire]

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.

I have not followed recent events closely enough to know what you are referring to; nor do I have the time to do so.

But I will say that Dr. Fetzer has been one of the few posters on either side of the "argument" who has made any meaningful contributions of late.

If he is losing his patience, I can not blame him. This forum has several "sheep in wolves clothing" and other so called believers in the conspiracy who keep re-hashing the same old stuff.

There has been no advancement on this forum for over a year, and, with the exeption of a few posters, only since Professor Fetzer has given his time, has anything meaningful been done.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Peter,

You are spot-on! My frustration has been exacerbated by Josiah Thompson's continued bobbing and weaving, ducking and running. Here's a guy who has basked in the glory of his past, but who appears to have been betraying the search for truth from the beginning--and he isn't willing to stand up and be counted! In this post, for example, I respond to his absurd explanation of why he is retracting his "doubt hit" theory, which was the most precise and detailed aspect of his book. He claims it is the only case where the hit and the "startle response" occurred at the same time. Since that would entail that the speed of sound and the speed of the bullet coincide AND that the neurophysiological response take no time at all, it is a preposterous claim! We can't find better proofs of dishonesty and deception than for Tink to be adopting physically impossible premises to defend his position!

Laws of nature, including the speed of sound, of bullets and of responses, cannot be violated and cannot be changed. So here you have a Yale Ph.D., a former professor of philosophy and a one-time Navy frogman offering a physically impossible explanation for now denying the--for most of us--important proof of conspiracy his book had to offer. Not only is his excuse for abandoning it preposterous, but Richard Feynman, the world famous physicist, had arrived at the same conclusion independently! And, in case anyone hasn't noticed, not only has he not responded to my argument, which reveals the depths of his desire to disentangle himself from "proofs of conspiracy", he is now on other threads in the process of denying the throat wound! In the thread, "A Few Thoughts on the Zapruder Film", which he (Thompson) no doubt created to distract others from this thread and the other devoted to SIX SECONDS, he has raised questions about the throat wound! But we know quite a lot about it.

I have a post about it below. In fact, Charles Crenshaw, M.D., even drew its appearance before and after the tracheotomy, which I published as Appendix A to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). It was a small, clean puncture wound that was easily identifiable as a wound of entry and, indeed, that afternoon and evening, as news poured in about the assassination, two wounds were repeatedly described on radio and television: the wound to the throat and the wound to the right temple, both of which were fired from in front. You can watch these reports as they were broadcast live by Chet Huntley and others on NBC, for example. Later, when the report comes in that the alleged assassin was above and behind his target, Frank McGee states, "This is incongruous! How can the man have been shot from in front from behind?"

So Josiah Thompson's mission now appears to be to raise concerns about every indication of conspiracy he can reach, including the through-and-through hole in the windshield, the entry wound in the throat, and the "double hit" theory he himself had previously championed! His technique is divide-and-conquer, which involves separating different aspects of the case and raising doubts about them. It will be fascinating to see how he will disavow the back-and-to-the-left motion in the film, which he takes to be "unambiguous evidence of a shot from the front". Probably he will admit that there was an additional shot from in front, but that--as for the rest--we will never know!

His purpose is not to convince anyone that Lee Oswald was the only shooter or that THE WARREN REPORT (1964) was correct, but that there is enough controversy ON BOTH SIDES that it is simply impossible to sort out! As Martin Schotz, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996), observed, the objective of the disinformation movement is not to defend the fantasies of the official account but to create the impression that, in relation to the assassination of JFK, everything is believable and nothing is knowable! We have long known that CASE CLOSED (1992), RECLAIMING HISTORY (2007) and many lesser works are never going to convince serious students of the case. But they can create uncertainty in the mind of the public!

And this, I now perceive, is the rationale for his relentless attacks upon me and the books I have edited. Because if you study ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), you will see that students with appropriate background, training, and skills are able to differentiated between genuine and fabricated evidence, which means that WE ACTUALLY CAN FIND THE TRUTH about the death of JFK, where his mission is to obfuscate and obscure that that objective can be attained. So OF COURSE these books represent the greatest threat to preserving the status quo. As long as the truth cannot be know, the CIA, the Join Chiefs, and others who were complicit in the crime can rest assured that their tranquility will not be disturbed! And Tink is on the job!

James H. Fetzer

Yesterday, 08:24 PM

Post #36

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 398

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

NEVER AGAIN! (1995), page 239:

Dulles made the mistake of asking Carrico what Specter avoided, where the neck wound was. From Post Mortem:

pages 357-58:

Carrico showed by placing his hand on his own throat while speaking his rejoinder ending, 'this was a small wound

here'. To this demonstration of 'here', Dulles responded. 'I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie

is?" (Emhasis added). Carrico confirmed with a "Yes, sir.'

Continuing on page 240:

Specter questioned Margaret M. Henchcliffe (6H139)ff.) She was the first medical person to see the President:

. . . Well, actually I went in ahead of the cart with him and I was the first one in with him, and just in a minute,

or seconds, D.r Carrico came in.

She followed this (6H141), after describing long experience with gunshot wounds in her emergency-room duties,

by identifying this front neck wound as one of "entrance".

Which, of course, corroborates Malcolm Perry's reports during the Parkland press conference, where three times

he described the wound as one of entry: the bullet was coming at him, it was a wound of entry, and all that. If

anyone wants to read his remarks, a transcript appears as Appendix C to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). And

of course Tom Wicker's report of the throat wound as a wound of entrance was published in The New York Times

(23 November 1963), where you can find the relevant portion reprinted on page 15: "Mr. Kennedy was hit by a

bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple, they [Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark] said. This wound had the

appearance of a bullet's entry." And of course there are the statements by Robert Livingston, M.D., and Richard

Dudman, which are published on pages 161 though 175, which bear upon this issue, too. And of course there is

the chapter by Doug Weldon, J.D., "The Kennedy Limousine", in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pp. 129-158.

James H. Fetzer

Jan 4 2010, 05:28 AM

Post #63

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 398

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

This is a ridiculous response. You are claiming that Donald Thomas "discovered" something that is not even neurophysiologically possible. 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 very same conclusion. No one is buying this drivel. You are only further discrediting yourself. Come clean, Tink. Tell us why you were then and continue to this day to obfuscate evidence about the death of JFK! And while you are at it, answer my simple question about which paragraph so infuriated Vincent Salandria that he accused you of being a government agent? That should be easier than trying to defend violations of laws of nature!

QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Jan 3 2010, 11:59 PM)

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

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Jan 3 2010, 07:08 AM)

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>

QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Jan 3 2010, 02:56 AM)

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

QUOTE (Dean Hagerman @ Jan 2 2010, 04:00 PM)

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Jan 2 2010, 01:32 PM)

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

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.

I have not followed recent events closely enough to know what you are referring to; nor do I have the time to do so.

But I will say that Dr. Fetzer has been one of the few posters on either side of the "argument" who has made any meaningful contributions of late.

If he is losing his patience, I can not blame him. This forum has several "sheep in wolves clothing" and other so called believers in the conspiracy who keep re-hashing the same old stuff.

There has been no advancement on this forum for over a year, and, with the exeption of a few posters, only since Professor Fetzer has given his time, has anything meaningful been done.

Edited January 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

NOTE: I have now corrected some typos and misspellings. Sorry about that!

Peter,

You are spot-on! My frustration has been exacerbated by Josiah Thompson's continued bobbing and weaving, ducking and running. Here's a guy who has basked in the glory of his past, but who appears to have been betraying the search for truth from the beginning--and he isn't willing to stand up and be counted! In this post, for example, I respond to his absurd explanation of why he is retracting his "doubt hit" theory, which was the most precise and detailed aspect of his book. He claims it is the only case where the hit and the "startle response" occurred at the same time. Since that would entail that the speed of sound and the speed of the bullet coincide AND that the neurophysiological response take no time at all, it is a preposterous claim! We can't find better proofs of dishonesty and deception than for Tink to be adopting physically impossible premises to defend his position!

Laws of nature, including the speed of sound, of bullets and of responses, cannot be violated and cannot be changed. So here you have a Yale Ph.D., a former professor of philosophy and a one-time Navy frogman offering a physically impossible explanation for now denying the--for most of us--important proof of conspiracy his book had to offer. Not only is his excuse for abandoning it preposterous, but Richard Feynman, the world famous physicist, had arrived at the same conclusion independently! And, in case anyone hasn't noticed, not only has he not responded to my argument, which reveals the depths of his desire to disentangle himself from "proofs of conspiracy", he is now on other threads in the process of denying the throat wound! In the thread, "A Few Thoughts on the Zapruder Film", which he (Thompson) no doubt created to distract others from this thread and the other devoted to SIX SECONDS, he has raised questions about the throat wound! But we know quite a lot about it.

I have a post about it below. In fact, Charles Crenshaw, M.D., even drew its appearance before and after the tracheotomy, which I published as Appendix A to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). It was a small, clean puncture wound that was easily identifiable as a wound of entry and, indeed, that afternoon and evening, as news poured in about the assassination, two wounds were repeatedly described on radio and television: the wound to the throat and the wound to the right temple, both of which were fired from in front. You can watch these reports as they were broadcast live by Chet Huntley and others on NBC, for example. Later, when the report comes in that the alleged assassin was above and behind his target, Frank McGee states, "This is incongruous! How can the man have been shot from in front from behind?"

So Josiah Thompson's mission now appears to be to raise concerns about every indication of conspiracy he can reach, including the through-and-through hole in the windshield, the entry wound in the throat, and the "double hit" theory he himself had previously championed! His technique is divide-and-conquer, which involves separating different aspects of the case and raising doubts about them. It will be fascinating to see how he will disavow the back-and-to-the-left motion in the film, which he takes to be "unambiguous evidence of a shot from the front". Probably he will admit that there was an additional shot from in front, but that--as for the rest--we will never know!

His purpose is not to convince anyone that Lee Oswald was the only shooter or that THE WARREN REPORT (1964) was correct, but that there is enough controversy ON BOTH SIDES that it is simply impossible to sort out! As Martin Schotz, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996), observed, the objective of the disinformation movement is not to defend the fantasies of the official account but to create the impression that, in relation to the assassination of JFK, everything is believable and nothing is knowable! We have long known that CASE CLOSED (1992), RECLAIMING HISTORY (2007) and many lesser works are never going to convince serious students of the case. But they can create uncertainty in the mind of the public!

And this, I now perceive, is the rationale for his relentless attacks upon me and the books I have edited. Because if you study ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), you will see that students with appropriate background, training, and skills are able to differentiated between genuine and fabricated evidence, which means that WE ACTUALLY CAN FIND THE TRUTH about the death of JFK, where his mission is to obfuscate and obscure that that objective can be attained. So OF COURSE these books represent the greatest threat to preserving the status quo. As long as the truth cannot be know, the CIA, the Join Chiefs, and others who were complicit in the crime can rest assured that their tranquility will not be disturbed! And Tink is on the job!

James H. Fetzer

Yesterday, 08:24 PM

Post #36

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 398

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

NEVER AGAIN! (1995), page 239:

Dulles made the mistake of asking Carrico what Specter avoided, where the neck wound was. From Post Mortem:

pages 357-58:

Carrico showed by placing his hand on his own throat while speaking his rejoinder ending, 'this was a small wound

here'. To this demonstration of 'here', Dulles responded. 'I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie

is?" (Emhasis added). Carrico confirmed with a "Yes, sir.'

Continuing on page 240:

Specter questioned Margaret M. Henchcliffe (6H139)ff.) She was the first medical person to see the President:

. . . Well, actually I went in ahead of the cart with him and I was the first one in with him, and just in a minute,

or seconds, D.r Carrico came in.

She followed this (6H141), after describing long experience with gunshot wounds in her emergency-room duties,

by identifying this front neck wound as one of "entrance".

Which, of course, corroborates Malcolm Perry's reports during the Parkland press conference, where three times

he described the wound as one of entry: the bullet was coming at him, it was a wound of entry, and all that. If

anyone wants to read his remarks, a transcript appears as Appendix C to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). And

of course Tom Wicker's report of the throat wound as a wound of entrance was published in The New York Times

(23 November 1963), where you can find the relevant portion reprinted on page 15: "Mr. Kennedy was hit by a

bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple, they [Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark] said. This wound had the

appearance of a bullet's entry." And of course there are the statements by Robert Livingston, M.D., and Richard

Dudman, which are published on pages 161 though 175, which bear upon this issue, too. And of course there is

the chapter by Doug Weldon, J.D., "The Kennedy Limousine", in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pp. 129-158.

James H. Fetzer

Jan 4 2010, 05:28 AM

Post #63

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 398

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

This is a ridiculous response. You are claiming that Donald Thomas "discovered" something that is not even neurophysiologically possible. 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 very same conclusion. No one is buying this drivel. You are only further discrediting yourself. Come clean, Tink. Tell us why you were then and continue to this day to obfuscate evidence about the death of JFK! And while you are at it, answer my simple question about which paragraph so infuriated Vincent Salandria that he accused you of being a government agent? That should be easier than trying to defend violations of laws of nature!

QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Jan 3 2010, 11:59 PM)

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

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Jan 3 2010, 07:08 AM)

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>

QUOTE (Josiah Thompson @ Jan 3 2010, 02:56 AM)

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

QUOTE (Dean Hagerman @ Jan 2 2010, 04:00 PM)

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Jan 2 2010, 01:32 PM)

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

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.

I have not followed recent events closely enough to know what you are referring to; nor do I have the time to do so.

But I will say that Dr. Fetzer has been one of the few posters on either side of the "argument" who has made any meaningful contributions of late.

If he is losing his patience, I can not blame him. This forum has several "sheep in wolves clothing" and other so called believers in the conspiracy who keep re-hashing the same old stuff.

There has been no advancement on this forum for over a year, and, with the exeption of a few posters, only since Professor Fetzer has given his time, has anything meaningful been done.