Tinks Double Head Shot Theory From SSID

Josiah Thompson · January 6, 2010

Professor,

You write:

“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 like these 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!"

"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!”

“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!”

This is classic Fetzer posturing and it says a lot about you, not me. As in other posts, here you are desperately trying to make me appear suspect. It is classic because your strategy for the last decade has been to impugn the motives and character of those who oppose you. It’s been over a decade since you declared on your web site that I and others were “agents of disinformation” – that is, employees of intelligence agencies spreading false information. Remember when you claimed on your web site that “Josiah Thompson is not the person he appears to be.” This sort of thing earned you a robust denunciation from the "heavies" of the research community. And now, a decade later, you keep trying the same thing.

And so you fulminate. You stoke your anger and raise yourself to even higher levels of high dudgeon. But isn’t the dirty little secret, Professor, that you are really angry at me because I keep showing up your errors? Errors like publishing a photo from Rollie Zavada’s study and saying it proves the opposite of what it in fact proves. So right now, once again, very quietly and definitively I am going to prove that your bluster hides great vacuity, that you do not argue, you bloviate.

You wrote: “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 like these to defend his position!”

As you will recall, I pointed out this was not my discovery but that of Don Thomas. He first offered this discovery at a Lancer conference in 2001. Apparently you missed it. I have had both the honor and the pleasure of reading the manuscript of Thomas’s new book Hear No Evil where this discovery is even more persuasively presented. Below is an excerpt from Don’s 2001 lecture at Lancer where this discovery is laid out. At that time, he simplified the discovery with a diagram that I am also including. All of this can be found on the Mary Ferrell site or at the URL offered below:

http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/hearnoevil.htm

“One can apply the same analysis to the unequivocal evidence of impact at frame 313 to reach a startling conclusion. The blur which is coincident with this frame, the largest blur episode in the Zapruder film, occurs much too soon to be caused by a gunshot from the Book Depository. Because nothing extraordinary is visible in frame 312, all analysts have concluded that the impact must have occurred during the 27 msec interval between the exposures of frames 312 and 313 when the shutter occluded the lens. But, inasmuch as the effects of bullet impact are so vivid in the latter frame, it is possible to be more precise in establishing the instant of impact. The frame shows fragments of bone egressing the President's skull at ballistic velocities. The ITEK Corporation analysts calculated the velocity of the fragments at approximately 100 ft/sec. The largest fragment appears as a 1.3 m long white streak creating a string of pearls effect. The effect results from the flat bone flipping end over end as it spins away from the cranium during the 27 msec exposure time of the frame. Importantly, the white streak begins about one ft away from the head, indicating that the exposure of the frame began a few msec after the bone separated from the skull. Studies of bullet impacts with fluid filled vessels using high speed photography show that the pressure wave which ruptures the skull occurs about 5-10 msec after passage of the bullet [Lindenberg 1971, Di Miao 1993]. Thus, impact time might have been as early as 15 msec prior to the exposure of frame 313, near the midpoint of the shutter closure between frames.”

“The initiation of the exposure of frame 313 can be used as an anchor point time, to, with earliest bullet impact estimated at to-15 msec. President Kennedy was 265 ft from the sixth floor window at the time of the fatal shot [6 HSCA 27]. The Army's weapons experts measured the velocity of the bullet from the alleged murder weapon at 90 yd to be 1600 ft/sec [1 HSCA 413-414]. Thus, the average velocity would have been 1880 ft/sec and the bullet flight time to cover 265 ft = 141 msec. Therefore, trigger time, assuming an origin in the Book Depository, would calculate to to-156 msec. As before, the sound would have taken 240 msec to reach Zapruder, arriving at time to+84 msec. Given the minimum of 25 msec for latency in induction of the startle reaction, the earliest that the camera body could have jiggled would be at 109 msec after the initiation of frame 313, producing a blur at frame 315. The relevant times are shown in a schematic (Fig. 22). It is perplexing then, that the report of the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel contains the unsupported and unqualified statement,”

"...it is possible to determine that the sound from that shot would have reached Zapruder at frame 313-314..."

“On the contrary, it is not possible for the sound to have reached Zapruder's position prior to frame 313 or 314 unless one posits some sort of cartridge anomaly. Moreover, because of the latency in reaction time, the sound has to arrive well before the exposure of frame 313 in order to account for the blur in that frame. In his published analysis, Alvarez acknowledged that it was not possible for the sound of the gunshot to arrive before the end of frame 313. Alvarez offered a different solution. Alvarez conjectured that the sound pressure from the shock wave of the passing bullet could have moved the camera body! Indeed, the sound pressure of the shock wave would have been significant; around 110 deciBels. But, as was the case with the HSCA panel, Alvarez failed to provide calculations in support of his supposition that the shock wave could have arrived in time to account for the jiggle.”

The shock wave emanates from the nose of the bullet as it rips through the air. The closest that the bullet ever came to Zapruder, if it did come from the Book Depository, was the instant before it struck the President. Zapruder was 73 ft from the President at the time of the fatal shot [6 HSCA 39]. The shock wave emanating from the bullet would have taken 65 msec to travel the distance from this point in its path to Zapruder. From earliest impact time at to-15 msec the shock wave would impinge on the camera body at 50 msec after the beginning of the exposure of frame 313, i.e., at about the beginning of the exposure of frame 314, much too late to account for the blur in frame 313."

What do you have to say for yourself, Professor?

Josiah Thompson

David, Not only is he playing games with you, he is doing this all over the forum. Here's a post everyone should read. I am glad you are here. Jim

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 like these 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 include 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 have the effect of creating uncertainly 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

Edited January 7, 2010 by Josiah Thompson

January 7, 2010

This is very curious. Josiah Thompson is responding to my observation that it would have been physically impossible for the blur and the startle response to have occurred at the same time with a post that affirms that the blur and the startle response could not have occurred at the same time:

On the contrary, it is not possible for the sound to have reached Zapruder's position prior to frame 313 or 314 unless one posits some sort of cartridge anomaly. Moreover, because of the latency in reaction time, the sound has to arrive well before the exposure of frame 313 in order to account for the blur in that frame. In his published analysis, Alvarez acknowledged that it was not possible for the sound of the gunshot to arrive before the end of frame 313. Alvarez offered a different solution. Alvarez conjectured that the sound pressure from the shock wave of the passing bullet could have moved the camera body! Indeed, the sound pressure of the shock wave would have been significant; around 110 deciBels. But, as was the case with the HSCA panel, Alvarez failed to provide calculations in support of his supposition that the shock wave could have arrived in time to account for the jiggle.

We know a lot about Alvarez, by the way. In his chapter in HOAX (2003), David Mantik reports that Alvarez was highly selecting in producing his support for a three-shot scenario, selecting evidence that agreed with a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest. That is not sound science, Josiah!

You observe that, over a decade ago, I fingered you as an agent of disinformation. My statement about you can still be found on assassinationscience.com. That hardly qualifies as discerning on my part, since Vincent Salandria had already nailed you for that role some thirty years before me! I was right then and I am right now.

Consider the following:

(1) in composing SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), you, Josiah Thompson, had unprecedented access to the highest quality versions of the Zapruder film;

(2) that film, as you must know for yourself, displays a massive bulging out of brains to the right-front, which has long since come to be known as "the blob";

(3) the "blob" is not an incidental feature of the representation of the blow-out, but extends from frames 313-316 for more than thirty frames through 338-339;

(4) this massive bulging-out to the right front is inconsistent with the medical evidence, typified by the McClelland drawing and by the testimony of Officer Bobby Hargis;

(5) Gary Aguilar, M.D., collated the testimony of the Parkland physicians, who were consistent about cerebellar and cerebral tissue extruding from the right-rear;

(6) it follows that, even from consideration of the most elementary evidence in this case, that there is a stunning and inescapable conflict between the medical evidence and the film;

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

(8) however, in your book, you only provides an opaque sketch of frame 313 and none but the most abstract outline of any of the frames 314, 315, and 316, which meant they were inaccessible for study;

(9) since you published the McClelland diargram and even quote Officer Hargis, you have to have been aware of the conflict, yet you tacitly, implicity, and by omitting discussion minimize it;

(10) this meant that, no matter how blatant the contradiction, the existence of this conflict--in spite of its immense importance--was very difficult to discern based upon your book;

(11) you also introduced your "doubt hit" theory, where JFK was hit in the back of the head 1/9th of a second before he was hit in the right temple by a fangile (or exploding) bullet;

(12) you now maintain that you were wrong, claiming Zapruder experienced a "startle response" that caused a smear on the film at exactly the same moment that the bullet hit;

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

(14) you are now offering an excuse for having been mistaken about your "double hit" hypothesis--which was one of the most striking features of his book--by invoking a phony explanation;

(15) the phoniness of your explanation has now been confirmed by the very sources you cite in attempting to justify your false reasons for repudiating own your previous work;

(16) your pseudo-explanation of why your were wrong does not affect the independent discovery of the same "double hit" by Richard Feynman, a world-famous physicist at CalTech;

(17) there is overwhelming proof that the film is a fabrication, including HOAX (2003), "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery" (2008) and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid" (2009);

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

(19) today at least seven film experts have concurred in this opinion, thereby agreeing with Roderick Ryan, an expect on special effects, who received the academic award in 2000, who explained these things to Noel Twyam, BLOODY TREASON (1998); and,

(20) the chain of custody argument that you have long advanced to defend his claim that the film cannot have been faked--in spite of massive evidence to the contrary--has been shattered by Doug Horne's discover of another copy have been developed in Rochester.

No one likes being played for a sucker, yet you have been playing the world for saps since your book appeared in 1967. Your conduct is utterly disgusting and completely reprehensible. You are now extending your efforts by disavowing or minimizing indications of conspiracy that were included in SIX SECONDS, while you continue your attempts to perpetrate the fraud that the film is authentic.

Your new mission now appears to be to raise concerns about every indication of conspiracy you can reach, including the through-and-through hole in the windshield, the entry wound in the throat, and the "double hit" theory you yourself had previously championed! Your 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 you will disavow the back-and-to-the-left motion in the film, which you take to be "unambiguous evidence of a shot from the front". My best guess is that you will admit that, "There was an additional shot from in front, but that--as for the rest--we will never know!” And you will do this with fanfare shortly before the 50th observance of the assassination.

I think we have your number, Tink. It's about time that you came clean and cease your bizarre and malevolent practices.

Jim

Professor,
You write:

“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 like these 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!"

"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!”

“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!”

This is classic Fetzer posturing and it says a lot about you, not me. As in other posts, here you are desperately trying to make me appear suspect. It is classic because your strategy for the last decade has been to impugn the motives and character of those who oppose you. It’s been over a decade since you declared on your web site that I and others were “agents of disinformation” – that is, employees of intelligence agencies spreading false information. Remember when you claimed on your web site that “Josiah Thompson is not the person he appears to be.” This sort of thing earned you a robust denunciation from the "heavies" of the research community. And now, a decade later, you keep trying the same thing.

And so you fulminate. You stoke your anger and raise yourself to even higher levels of high dudgeon. But isn’t the dirty little secret, Professor, that you are really angry at me because I keep showing up your errors? Errors like publishing a photo from Rollie Zavada’s study and saying it proves the opposite of what it in fact proves. So right now, once again, very quietly and definitively I am going to prove that your bluster hides great vacuity, that you do not argue, you bloviate.

You wrote: “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 like these to defend his position!”

As you will recall, I pointed out this was not my discovery but that of Don Thomas. He first offered this discovery at a Lancer conference in 2001. Apparently you missed it. I have had both the honor and the pleasure of reading the manuscript of Thomas’s new book Hear No Evil where this discovery is even more persuasively presented. Below is an excerpt from Don’s 2001 lecture at Lancer where this discovery is laid out. At that time, he simplified the discovery with a diagram that I am also including. All of this can be found on the Mary Ferrell site or at the URL offered below:

http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/hearnoevil.htm

“One can apply the same analysis to the unequivocal evidence of impact at frame 313 to reach a startling conclusion. The blur which is coincident with this frame, the largest blur episode in the Zapruder film, occurs much too soon to be caused by a gunshot from the Book Depository. Because nothing extraordinary is visible in frame 312, all analysts have concluded that the impact must have occurred during the 27 msec interval between the exposures of frames 312 and 313 when the shutter occluded the lens. But, inasmuch as the effects of bullet impact are so vivid in the latter frame, it is possible to be more precise in establishing the instant of impact. The frame shows fragments of bone egressing the President's skull at ballistic velocities. The ITEK Corporation analysts calculated the velocity of the fragments at approximately 100 ft/sec. The largest fragment appears as a 1.3 m long white streak creating a string of pearls effect. The effect results from the flat bone flipping end over end as it spins away from the cranium during the 27 msec exposure time of the frame. Importantly, the white streak begins about one ft away from the head, indicating that the exposure of the frame began a few msec after the bone separated from the skull. Studies of bullet impacts with fluid filled vessels using high speed photography show that the pressure wave which ruptures the skull occurs about 5-10 msec after passage of the bullet [Lindenberg 1971, Di Miao 1993]. Thus, impact time might have been as early as 15 msec prior to the exposure of frame 313, near the midpoint of the shutter closure between frames.”

“The initiation of the exposure of frame 313 can be used as an anchor point time, to, with earliest bullet impact estimated at to-15 msec. President Kennedy was 265 ft from the sixth floor window at the time of the fatal shot [6 HSCA 27]. The Army's weapons experts measured the velocity of the bullet from the alleged murder weapon at 90 yd to be 1600 ft/sec [1 HSCA 413-414]. Thus, the average velocity would have been 1880 ft/sec and the bullet flight time to cover 265 ft = 141 msec. Therefore, trigger time, assuming an origin in the Book Depository, would calculate to to-156 msec. As before, the sound would have taken 240 msec to reach Zapruder, arriving at time to+84 msec. Given the minimum of 25 msec for latency in induction of the startle reaction, the earliest that the camera body could have jiggled would be at 109 msec after the initiation of frame 313, producing a blur at frame 315. The relevant times are shown in a schematic (Fig. 22). It is perplexing then, that the report of the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel contains the unsupported and unqualified statement,”

"...it is possible to determine that the sound from that shot would have reached Zapruder at frame 313-314..."

“On the contrary, it is not possible for the sound to have reached Zapruder's position prior to frame 313 or 314 unless one posits some sort of cartridge anomaly. Moreover, because of the latency in reaction time, the sound has to arrive well before the exposure of frame 313 in order to account for the blur in that frame. In his published analysis, Alvarez acknowledged that it was not possible for the sound of the gunshot to arrive before the end of frame 313. Alvarez offered a different solution. Alvarez conjectured that the sound pressure from the shock wave of the passing bullet could have moved the camera body! Indeed, the sound pressure of the shock wave would have been significant; around 110 deciBels. But, as was the case with the HSCA panel, Alvarez failed to provide calculations in support of his supposition that the shock wave could have arrived in time to account for the jiggle.”

The shock wave emanates from the nose of the bullet as it rips through the air. The closest that the bullet ever came to Zapruder, if it did come from the Book Depository, was the instant before it struck the President. Zapruder was 73 ft from the President at the time of the fatal shot [6 HSCA 39]. The shock wave emanating from the bullet would have taken 65 msec to travel the distance from this point in its path to Zapruder. From earliest impact time at to-15 msec the shock wave would impinge on the camera body at 50 msec after the beginning of the exposure of frame 313, i.e., at about the beginning of the exposure of frame 314, much too late to account for the blur in frame 313."

What do you have to say for yourself, Professor?

Josiah Thompson

David, Not only is he playing games with you, he is doing this all over the forum. Here's a post everyone should read. I am glad you are here. Jim
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 like these 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 include 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 have the effect of creating uncertainly 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

Dean Hagerman · January 7, 2010

Tink

You should not have changed your mind

Don Thomas is wrong

You were right

Josiah Thompson · January 7, 2010

I wrote:

“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.”

You replied:

“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.”

Don Thomas’ chart shows why and how you are wrong:

There is a large horizontal smear in Z 313 that has all the indicia of being the result of a startle reaction on Zapruder’s part. It looks exactly like other smears due to startle reaction. The only difference is that this smear occurs in the same frame that we see impact. Don Thomas has explained how this can only be due to the shot having been fired from less than one hundred feet from Zapruder. Luis Alvarez, a clear exponent of the single gunman view, tried to explain this oddity as due to a shock wave from a bullet fired from the TSBD moving Zapruder’s camera. As Thomas has demonstrated, this is silly. What Thomas has discovered is a fascinating argument that the presence of startle reaction smear and impact in the same frame means that the shot could not have come from the TSBD. I find this a persuasive argument and would be interested in other folks’ views of it. I am totally disinterested in more bombast from you, Professor.

But there is another “smear” in your post, Professor, and it is coming from you. As I pointed out earlier, you have put great energy into getting other folks to see me as “suspect.” This has been your standard response to many other people whom you disagree with. You affirm in your post that you “fingered” me as a “disinformation agent” a decade ago. As I recollect, one of the reasons you used for claiming I was such a “disinformation agent” was that Six Seconds published drawings of frames not photos. I think we all know how silly that is. What you didn’t tell your readers was what happened to you after making that charge. First, David Mantik , Cyril Wecht and Gary Aguilar publicly rebuked you. Then a “Public Statement” was circulated and then signed by Peter Dale Scott, Doug DeSalles, William Turner, Paul Hoch and others. That “Public Statement” reads as follows:

“To David Mantik, Cyril Wecht and Gary Aguilar’s public rebuke of our colleague Jim Fetzer’s behavior, we must regretfully add our own. We agree with David Mantik, when he points out “that public attacks on motives of others.. are biased, prejudicial, counterproductive, and, finally, useless.” We agree with Cyril Wecht when he asks Jim Fetzer to apologize to Tink Thompson and points out that “you do not help our cause.. by publicly attacking one of the most experienced, knowledgeable and respected critics of the Warren Commission Report.” We agree with Gary Aguilar when he states that Jim Fetzer’s “slanderous piece about Tink Thompson has no place on the web site of any credible Warren skeptic” and points out that “Jim has seriously undermined his own credibility with collateral damage that will.. harm me, David Mantik and others who have worked with him.”

“By choosing to insinuate what he dare not say, Jim Fetzer chooses a low road. In so choosing, he hurts not only himself but all of us.”

In the years that have followed the issuance of these public statements in 2000, Fetzer has kept up his toxic refrain that I am some sort of “disinformation agent.” His posts on this site are witness to a repeated effort to make me suspect. However, he has reached a new low in claiming that “Vincent Salandria had already nailed you for that role some thirty years before me!”

The best... and as far as I know the only place... to look for an account of this sad little episode in the history of the critics is John Kelin’s excellent book, Praise from a Future Generation. Kelin wrote the book because Vince Salandria offered to let him go through all Salandria’s correspondence for this period. Given this fact one would expect Kelin to back Salandria’s side of things if there was any conflict. But Kelin didn’t. As in the rest of his book, he took a genuinely scholarly approach and printed all the correspondence about the conflict. Kelin’s account can be found in the Chapters 28 and 20 (“Fatal Ruptures” and “Single-Spaced Letters”) dealing with the internecine battles that developed among the critics in 1967 and 1968. It was in the midst of these battles that Salandria began making claims against me.

Salandria had written the key articles in Liberation Magazine and M.S. Arnoni’s Minority of One exposing the key failures in the Warren Commission’s treatment of the evidence. These early articles are as true today as they were on the day they were written. Salandria and I started working together in the spring of 1966 and made several trips to the Archives together in the summer of that year. We decided to put together an article for publication in a magazine such as

Harper’s or The Atlantic Monthly. But Vince didn’t like to write and I did. Hence, by August of that year I had put together a draft that ran 80 to 100 pages. Then we started to disagree about the interpretation of evidence. There were several points of disagreement. The only one I remember is that I was simply not convinced that JFK was hit in the throat from the front. So we abandoned our joint effort and I went forward on my own. Shortly after Six Seconds was published, I began hearing rumors that Salandria was saying I was a government agent. From the correspondence of several people, John Kelin was able to put together a background story that I learned of when I read his book.

Salandria’s suspicions made their way to M.S. Arnoni, the man who had published Salandria in The Minority of One. According the Kelin, “When M.S. Arnoni heard the case against Thompson, he said it was nonsense.” Kelin then goes on to quote Arnoni:

“In my considered judgment, the whole structure of the ‘evidence’ involved is classically psychological, bespeaking Thompson’s pursuits in no way whatsoever, but rather reflecting the frame of mind of whomever begot the suspicion and proceeded to add ‘convincing’ details and deductions.”

In January 1968, Sylvia Meagher wrote, “I cannot take seriously the suggestion that Tink is a CIA plant.” Later that year, Salandria wrote Sylvia claiming that another individual (unnamed by Kelin) was a government agent. Sylvia wrote back: “Epstein, Thompson, Jacob Cohen, William Gurvitch... not unnaturally, then, the cry wolf may not raise any hackles even if a real one is finally in the chicken coop.”

This was a rough time for the critical community. The Garrison disaster was looming and Sylvia

and I stood together against the tide of general endorsement of the New Orleans District Attorney. We drew a lot of flack from other critics. Kelin closes these chapters with the following two paragraphs:

In March 1968, Salandria had written him [Thompson] a letter. ‘I feel that you should know that I consider the data on whether you are a United States government agent or not incomplete, but that I entertain a suspicion at this time that you are,’ he told him [Thompson]. ‘It will be a pleasure to admit to you later, should you do work to rectify the damage which you have done by failing to confront the truth in the assassination, that I have been egregiously wrong about you.’

Thompson wrote back an even shorter reply: he told Salandria he was out of his goddam mind. But that was all right, he [Thompson] said; at times he wondered about his own sanity. ‘But a government agent? Jesus!’”

What do I think of all this? I think Salandria was doing the same thing that Fetzer now is doing... using a profound disagreement as to how to approach the Kennedy assassination to claim someone is a government agent.

What you are trying to do, Professor Fetzer, is transparent. It is also dishonorable and vicious. It has no place in any community of scholarship. In rebutting these charges that are meant to destroy my credibility, I waste not only my time but the time of everyone who has to read this. I hope someone whose opinion you trust will explain to you just how ignoble what you are trying to do appears.

Josiah Thompson

This is very curious. Josiah Thompson is responding to my observation that it would have been physically impossible for the blur and the startle response to have occurred at the same time with a post that affirms that the blur and the startle response could not have occurred at the same time:

On the contrary, it is not possible for the sound to have reached Zapruder's position prior to frame 313 or 314 unless one posits some sort of cartridge anomaly. Moreover, because of the latency in reaction time, the sound has to arrive well before the exposure of frame 313 in order to account for the blur in that frame. In his published analysis, Alvarez acknowledged that it was not possible for the sound of the gunshot to arrive before the end of frame 313. Alvarez offered a different solution. Alvarez conjectured that the sound pressure from the shock wave of the passing bullet could have moved the camera body! Indeed, the sound pressure of the shock wave would have been significant; around 110 deciBels. But, as was the case with the HSCA panel, Alvarez failed to provide calculations in support of his supposition that the shock wave could have arrived in time to account for the jiggle.

We know a lot about Alvarez, by the way. In his chapter in HOAX (2003), David Mantik reports that Alvarez was highly selecting in producing his support for a three-shot scenario, selecting evidence that agreed with a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest. That is not sound science, Josiah!

You observe that, over a decade ago, I fingered you as an agent of disinformation. My statement about you can still be found on assassinationscience.com. That hardly qualifies as discerning on my part, since Vincent Salandria had already nailed you for that role some thirty years before me! I was right then and I am right now.

Consider the following:

(1) in composing SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), you, Josiah Thompson, had unprecedented access to the highest quality versions of the Zapruder film;

(2) that film, as you must know for yourself, displays a massive bulging out of brains to the right-front, which has long since come to be known as "the blob";

(3) the "blob" is not an incidental feature of the representation of the blow-out, but extends from frames 313-316 for more than thirty frames through 338-339;

(4) this massive bulging-out to the right front is inconsistent with the medical evidence, typified by the McClelland drawing and by the testimony of Officer Bobby Hargis;

(5) Gary Aguilar, M.D., collated the testimony of the Parkland physicians, who were consistent about cerebellar and cerebral tissue extruding from the right-rear;

(6) it follows that, even from consideration of the most elementary evidence in this case, that there is a stunning and inescapable conflict between the medical evidence and the film;

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

(8) however, in your book, you only provides an opaque sketch of frame 313 and none but the most abstract outline of any of the frames 314, 315, and 316, which meant they were inaccessible for study;

(9) since you published the McClelland diargram and even quote Officer Hargis, you have to have been aware of the conflict, yet you tacitly, implicity, and by omitting discussion minimize it;

(10) this meant that, no matter how blatant the contradiction, the existence of this conflict--in spite of its immense importance--was very difficult to discern based upon your book;

(11) you also introduced your "doubt hit" theory, where JFK was hit in the back of the head 1/9th of a second before he was hit in the right temple by a fangile (or exploding) bullet;

(12) you now maintain that you were wrong, claiming Zapruder experienced a "startle response" that caused a smear on the film at exactly the same moment that the bullet hit;

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

(14) you are now offering an excuse for having been mistaken about your "double hit" hypothesis--which was one of the most striking features of his book--by invoking a phony explanation;

(15) the phoniness of your explanation has now been confirmed by the very sources you cite in attempting to justify your false reasons for repudiating own your previous work;

(16) your pseudo-explanation of why your were wrong does not affect the independent discovery of the same "double hit" by Richard Feynman, a world-famous physicist at CalTech;

(17) there is overwhelming proof that the film is a fabrication, including HOAX (2003), "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery" (2008) and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid" (2009);

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

(19) today at least seven film experts have concurred in this opinion, thereby agreeing with Roderick Ryan, an expect on special effects, who received the academic award in 2000, who explained these things to Noel Twyam, BLOODY TREASON (1998); and,

(20) the chain of custody argument that you have long advanced to defend his claim that the film cannot have been faked--in spite of massive evidence to the contrary--has been shattered by Doug Horne's discover of another copy have been developed in Rochester.

No one likes being played for a sucker, yet you have been playing the world for saps since your book appeared in 1967. Your conduct is utterly disgusting and completely reprehensible. You are now extending your efforts by disavowing or minimizing indications of conspiracy that were included in SIX SECONDS, while you continue your attempts to perpetrate the fraud that the film is authentic.

Your new mission now appears to be to raise concerns about every indication of conspiracy you can reach, including the through-and-through hole in the windshield, the entry wound in the throat, and the "double hit" theory you yourself had previously championed! Your 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 you will disavow the back-and-to-the-left motion in the film, which you take to be "unambiguous evidence of a shot from the front". My best guess is that you will admit that, "There was an additional shot from in front, but that--as for the rest--we will never know!” And you will do this with fanfare shortly before the 50th observance of the assassination.

I think we have your number, Tink. It's about time that you came clean and cease your bizarre and malevolent practices.

Jim

John Dolva · January 7, 2010

A minor matter of possible relevance. When one views a tranlucent color through to another color the color changes. eg red mist over green tends to become grey. red over pink tends to enhance the red. ie the actual spread of ejecta cannot be determined from just the bright red forward spray. Also there are multiple movements to consider, some may concur with camera blur and therefore sharper. Others are blurs due to time of exposure such as Jackies towards Kennedy head movement, so its a complex issue.

Don's analysis is most helpful. Has he done such covering the entire film?

J. Raymond Carroll · January 7, 2010

What Thomas has discovered is a fascinating argument that the presence of startle reaction smear and impact in the same frame means that the shot could not have come from the TSBD. I find this a persuasive argument and would be interested in other folks’ views of it.

I submit that the whole "Jiggle Analysis" theory is an Ad Hoc theory that has about as much scientific validity as Guinn's Ad Hoc bullet lead theory, or the INkblot theory of psychology.

There is REAL evidence that the fatal shot did not come from the TSBD, and the Jiggle Analysis theory is not needed to prove that JFK was killed by a shot from the front.

The Jiggle Analysis/Smear theory is also not needed to explain why JFK was moving forward in the frames leading up to Z313. That is explained by the sudden slowdown of the limo, as evidenced by dozens of witness statements AND the Zapruder film itself.

January 7, 2010

Well, Josiah, if you are not misleading us, then why aren't you answering my questions about your book? Why didn't you confront the blatant contradiction between the medical and witness evidence, which support a blow-out to the left-rear, and the Zapruder film, which shows a massive bulging out to the right-front? You do not even include sketches of the "blob", which is very revealing. You have a sketch of 313 that obfuscates rather than clarifies the contents of the frame. You do not show any details of frames 314, 315, and 316, much less the sequence of frames that display the blob so vividly from 313 to 340! That is quite a remarkable sequence to overlook -- and it provides powerful circumstantial proof that you were obfuscating the conflict between them to sustain the illusion of the authenticity of the film, which has served as the backbone of the cover-up from the beginning.

By removing events, adding others, and contracting the time line, it mislead generations of students into the false belief that the film was the touchstone of truth about the assassination -- an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs! Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports that seven Hollywood film experts have viewed the 6k version and concluded that the film is a fake: the blow-out to the rear of the head was painted over in black and the "blob" and the blood spray were painted in, precisely as Roderick Ryan had explained to Noel Twyman, BLOODY REASON (1998), which you continued to obscure and obfuscate. The time is long past for you to stand up and be counted, Josiah. You have abused your position in having had access to the best qualify versions of the film to distort and conceal their blatant conflict with the medical evidence. The time has come. The jig is up!

This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling. You are now trying to subvert every indication of conspiracy that you contributed in your book, even while you denied that your book offered proof of conspiracy! That, of course, was what infuriated Vincent Salandria. And this is not the first time I have made a point of these issues. See, for example, "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", which I published on OpEdNews (28 March 2009), yet you have evaded the question and not confronted it. How much evidence do we need that you are not the "stand up" guy you pose as being? You now appear to be undertaking the systemic undermining of the "doubt hit" theory, using an impossible explanation, denying the throat wound is a wound of entry or that it passed through the windshield, where we have ample proof of both, in an evident effort to prepare for your repudiation of conspiracy in time for the 50th observance! You appear to be disinfo to the bitter end!

You have been able to take in large numbers of students in the past, who do not know you as well as I do. Here, for example, is an earlier study of mine:

Six Seconds in Dallas

[Editor's note: The announcement on Rich DellaRosa's

JFKresearch Forum that Josiah Thompson's book, SIX

SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), was going to be reprinted

in collaboration with The 6th Floor Museum caused me

concern, for reasons explained in this post. While

more than 125 persons read it, no one took issue with

what I had to say here, including Josiah Thompson.]

The author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), Josiah Thompson, Ph.D.,

recently announced that his book is being reprinted by some (heretofore

unidentified) university press. "The book will be reprinted in its original

form by a university press", he explained. "All income from this reprinting

will go to a special fund set up by The 6th Floor Museum for the acquisition

and preservation of original materials."

Now university presses are not rare book dealers, so unless this

"reprinting" were to include new material, it is difficult to imagine why it

is being published. Who will buy it? If he were to address current issues of

film authenticity, of course, that might make a considerable difference. Yet

he assures us that "The claims of Zapruder film alteration will not be

discussed since they are spurious." Precisely how he knows that the claims

of Zapruder film alteration are spurious is beyond me, since, to the best of

my knowledge, he has never addressed the vast majority, and those he has

addressed in his DISINFORMATION SERIES have displayed his ignorance of recent

work.

But there are even more general aspects of this situation that I find

puzzling. He has made much of the claim that three spent shell casings were

found in the alleged "assassin's lair", which evidence photographs published

by Gary Shaw, by Noel Twyman, and by Jesse Curry tend to undermine. Yet his

own book claims that just two shots were actually fired from the assassin's

lair, where the third--crimped--cartridge was a plant. So when Todd Vaughan

attacked me for having this all wrong--citing, for example, that Curry had

added the notation, "Three were found in all", where the third was kept by

the DPD until the FBI demanded it-Thompson's own account of the matter

(pp. 143-146) supports the conclusion that it was a fake. So even though his

own position was essentially in agreement with mine--that this third cartridge

casing was "of dubious origin"--he remained silent and said nothing. That is

interesting all on its own, but not as much as that, if three shots had been

fired from there, his own account of the killing would be false.

In particular, it is the thesis of SIX SECOND IN DALLAS that four shots

were fired by three shooters, only two of which were fired from "the assassin's

lair". A third, he claims, was fired from the Dallas County Records Building,

and a fourth from the grassy knoll. One hit JKF in the back, another hit Connally,

and the third and fourth hit the President in the head in very close

temporal proximity. (See Chapter VIII, which includes a diagram of this

scenario.) Since all four shots hit, he accounts for the injury to James

Tague as having been caused by a fragment from the bullet that hit JFK in

the back of the head (pp. 230-233).

Precisely where this fragment exited his cranuim on its trajectory he does

not explain, but that is his take. As I previously observed, the evidence has

long since carried us beyond his position of 1967. In fact, by 1970, the studies

of Richard Sprague, COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970), had already superceded

those of Josiah Thompson. As I observed in response to an inquiry from Todd

Vaughan, Sprague's analysis was not only better founded--based as it was on more

than 500 photographic records, where the Z-film, for example, counted as only

one--but it employed a vastly more sophisticated technology through the use

of computerized photoanalysis and arrived at very different conclusions about

the shot sequence itself.

Sprague has two shots from the knoll (different locations), two from the

Book Depository (but none from the "assassin's lair"), and two from the Dal-Tex

Building. So if Sprague is right, then Thompson is wrong. Since Thompson has

assured us, "There will be no changes in the original text and photos though

some minor corrections or clarifications may be added", apparently he will not

discuss the work of Richard Sprague. But it may also explain his aversion to

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. We had discovered by 1998 that

JFK had been hit by at least four shots--one to the back from behind, one to the

throat from in front, and two to the head, one from behind and one from in

front--with at least one(and probably more) hit to Connally and a complete miss

that injured Tague. So if ASSASSINATION SCIENCE is right, then SIX SECONDS must

be wrong.

And similarly for MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, where evidence for perhaps as

many as ten or more shots may be found. So perhaps there is a simple explanation

for Thompson's otherwise seemingly irrational aversion to both of these books.

If ASSASSINATION SCIENCE or MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA are right, then SIX SECONDS

must be wrong. So perhaps this is all about an author protectingg his "investment"

in the for of his own book. He is not going to discuss Sprague's studies or more

recent work, no matter how well supported they may be, because it severely undermines

the position he adopted in 1967! That is remarkable in itself, but I am still puzzled

why a serious university press would even consider publishing a book in 2001 whose

principal conclusions had already been superceded by 1970! I speculate that this

may be an elaborate public relations gimmick intended to dupe the unwary into

mistakenly supposing that this is the latest research reflecting current work

on the subject.

If anyone has a more plausible hypothesis, I would like to hear it. We have

been reassured by Thompson, however, that he is not making "a dime" off this project,

whose proceeds are going to support The Sixth Floor Museum: "All income from this

reprinting will go to a special fund set up by The 6th Floor Museum for the

acquisition and preservation of original materials." Preservation may be the

operative word, at least in the case of his own work. Yet, for reasons I cannot

quite identify, there still seems to be something peculiar about all this: an old

book not updated, a university press, and now The 6th Floor Museum.

Apparently he knows who he is dealing with there, since he tells us, "I

have known and respected Gary Mack for nearly twenty years. We are friends."

Perhaps what bothers me is that The 6th Floor Museum has been criticized

for years for its bias against research and evidence that point in directions

other than that the crime was committed by a lone, demented gunman. Not only

are ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA not carried there, but virtually

none of the books discussed in them are carried there either. Len Osanic, who

maintains a web site on behalf of Fletcher Prouty, who served as a liaison between

the Pentago, the CIA, and The White House during the Kennedy administration, even

maintains a file of complaints about the operation there.

Anyone who would like to review these reactions for themselves is welcome

to visit the file at http://www.prouty.org/boycott.html. The web site itself

holds many attractions, not least of all because Prouty was the basis for the

character "Colonel X" in Oliver's Stone's film "JFK". I find it odd that an

author ostensibly committed to the existence of conspiracy in the death of JFK

would be on such cordial terms with The 6th Floor. Osanic has observed, "That

the book MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is not carried by The 6th Floor only

underscores the fact that this is not a museum but a 'front'". If that is true,

then I guess that would explain it. Consider the evidence and judge for

yourself.

I wrote:
“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.”

You replied:

“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.”

Don Thomas’ chart shows why and how you are wrong:

There is a large horizontal smear in Z 313 that has all the indicia of being the result of a startle reaction on Zapruder’s part. It looks exactly like other smears due to startle reaction. The only difference is that this smear occurs in the same frame that we see impact. Don Thomas has explained how this can only be due to the shot having been fired from less than one hundred feet from Zapruder. Luis Alvarez, a clear exponent of the single gunman view, tried to explain this oddity as due to a shock wave from a bullet fired from the TSBD moving Zapruder’s camera. As Thomas has demonstrated, this is silly. What Thomas has discovered is a fascinating argument that the presence of startle reaction smear and impact in the same frame means that the shot could not have come from the TSBD. I find this a persuasive argument and would be interested in other folks’ views of it. I am totally disinterested in more bombast from you, Professor.

But there is another “smear” in your post, Professor, and it is coming from you. As I pointed out earlier, you have put great energy into getting other folks to see me as “suspect.” This has been your standard response to many other people whom you disagree with. You affirm in your post that you “fingered” me as a “disinformation agent” a decade ago. As I recollect, one of the reasons you used for claiming I was such a “disinformation agent” was that Six Seconds published drawings of frames not photos. I think we all know how silly that is. What you didn’t tell your readers was what happened to you after making that charge. First, David Mantik , Cyril Wecht and Gary Aguilar publicly rebuked you. Then a “Public Statement” was circulated and then signed by Peter Dale Scott, Doug DeSalles, William Turner, Paul Hoch and others. That “Public Statement” reads as follows:

“To David Mantik, Cyril Wecht and Gary Aguilar’s public rebuke of our colleague Jim Fetzer’s behavior, we must regretfully add our own. We agree with David Mantik, when he points out “that public attacks on motives of others.. are biased, prejudicial, counterproductive, and, finally, useless.” We agree with Cyril Wecht when he asks Jim Fetzer to apologize to Tink Thompson and points out that “you do not help our cause.. by publicly attacking one of the most experienced, knowledgeable and respected critics of the Warren Commission Report.” We agree with Gary Aguilar when he states that Jim Fetzer’s “slanderous piece about Tink Thompson has no place on the web site of any credible Warren skeptic” and points out that “Jim has seriously undermined his own credibility with collateral damage that will.. harm me, David Mantik and others who have worked with him.”

“By choosing to insinuate what he dare not say, Jim Fetzer chooses a low road. In so choosing, he hurts not only himself but all of us.”

In the years that have followed the issuance of these public statements in 2000, Fetzer has kept up his toxic refrain that I am some sort of “disinformation agent.” His posts on this site are witness to a repeated effort to make me suspect. However, he has reached a new low in claiming that “Vincent Salandria had already nailed you for that role some thirty years before me!”

The best... and as far as I know the only place... to look for an account of this sad little episode in the history of the critics is John Kelin’s excellent book, Praise from a Future Generation. Kelin wrote the book because Vince Salandria offered to let him go through all Salandria’s correspondence for this period. Given this fact one would expect Kelin to back Salandria’s side of things if there was any conflict. But Kelin didn’t. As in the rest of his book, he took a genuinely scholarly approach and printed all the correspondence about the conflict. Kelin’s account can be found in the Chapters 28 and 20 (“Fatal Ruptures” and “Single-Spaced Letters”) dealing with the internecine battles that developed among the critics in 1967 and 1968. It was in the midst of these battles that Salandria began making claims against me.

Salandria had written the key articles in Liberation Magazine and M.S. Arnoni’s Minority of One exposing the key failures in the Warren Commission’s treatment of the evidence. These early articles are as true today as they were on the day they were written. Salandria and I started working together in the spring of 1966 and made several trips to the Archives together in the summer of that year. We decided to put together an article for publication in a magazine such asHarper’s or The Atlantic Monthly. But Vince didn’t like to write and I did. Hence, by August of that year I had put together a draft that ran 80 to 100 pages. Then we started to disagree about the interpretation of evidence. There were several points of disagreement. The only one I remember is that I was simply not convinced that JFK was hit in the throat from the front. So we abandoned our joint effort and I went forward on my own. Shortly after Six Seconds was published, I began hearing rumors that Salandria was saying I was a government agent. From the correspondence of several people, John Kelin was able to put together a background story that I learned of when I read his book.