Jump to content
The Education Forum

A Simple Question for Josiah Thompson


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

After making a response to Len Colby, who was defending Josiah from the possibility that he might have been inspired by David Lifton's earlier study of three assassins in preparing his own three-assassin theory, it occurred to me -- while I was out shoveling snow -- that most of these issues are complex and involve drawing inferences based upon background knowledge that may not be familiar to us all. Tink's repudiation of his own "double hit" theory doesn't make any sense, but you have to realize that sound travels slower than bullets and that the time it takes for a "startle response" to occur makes it physically impossible that the response and the hit occurred at the same time. But he has replied with a bit of razzle-dazzle, invoking the name of Luis Alvarez, a Nobel Prize winner, in his support, while ignoring the fact that Richard Feynman, another Nobel Prize winner, had arrived at the same "double hit" conclusion independently.

Another example is the wound to the throat. Josiah has opined that it was actually an exit wound from a piece of bone or a bullet fragment from the back-of-the-head shot, which Lifton and I both regard as indefensible. Since we have diagrams from Charles Crenshaw of a small, clean puncture wound, Malcolm Perry's descriptions of it as a wound of entry (three times) during the Parkland press conference, it was widely discussed on radio and television that day, and even Tom Wicker reported it in The New York Times, it is an odd opinion. This is complemented by his assault on the through-and-through hole in the windshield, which you can actually see in some copies of the Altgens, not to mention that multiple bystanders noticed it at Parkland and Richard Dudman even tried to stick a pencil through it. While Doug Weldon has dispatched his arguments, those who haven't read his chapter in MURDER or studied the issue might find it subtle and complex.

Tink has also sought to fend off my suggestions that he might not be on the "up and up" with a list of actions of his that, he contends, would not have been done "by an agent", including "the first compilation of 190 witness reports with respect to shot origin. This compilation showed that a substantial proportion of witnesses thought a shot or shots were fired from the knoll. In addition, a substantial proportion of witnesses found shots to be bunched, something that could not happen if only the rifle found in the TSBD was being fired. Firing tests in the 70s showed that observers were able to pick location of shots with over 90% accuracy, a fact that made these compilations significant." Paul Rigby, however, has observed (in the post below) that he has shown that Tink systematically suppressed, distorted, mischaracterized and mislocated eyewitnesses and their testimony in an attempt to buttress a fake film and suppress the role of the Secret Service.

Once again, however, the issues are complex and perhaps just a tad too complicated to serve as a "knockout punch". In my reply to Colby, however, I pointed out that, if the Zapruder were authentic, it would show (i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative, (iii) the limo moving to the left (toward them), (iv) Mary and Jean both stepping off the curb and into the street, (v) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!" and all that, (vi) Mary taking her picture, (vii) both stepping back onto the grass, (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her, none of which is shown in the film. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, neither Tink nor Barb nor Lamson nor Colby nor even Bill Miller(!) has acknowledged that, on this basis alone, the question of the film's authenticity is resolved! And, while I was shoveling snow, it occurred to me that this was the key!

Everyone knows that Tink and I have had extended exchanges about the Moorman, including those that have been explained in "Moorman in the Street Revisited", http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/, and, more recently, "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", where I have laid out the inconsistency between the medical and other evidence of a blow-out to the left-rear with the blow-out to the right-front seen in the film. Perhaps even this argument is difficult for some on the forum to follow. Virtually the only point that we agree upon is that Mary actually took her Polaroids! But then it hit me. Everyone knows that Polaroids required fixation and that Jean came with Mary both to see their boyfriends but to fixate her photographs. We don't see her doing that in the film. But if Jean did not fixate Mary's Polaroids, how can they possibly exist? This is a very simple question with far-reaching ramifications.

Lifton has responded to this on another thread. Check it out. When you add up all of the oddities, obfuscations, misdescriptions, including those you list here, we appear to be dealing with someone who is either incredibly sloppy in his research or else deliberately deceptive. He and I have had an extended series of exchanges about Mary Moorman and Jean Hill, for example, where he insists -- to this day! -- that they are where they should be and doing what they should be doing in the extant film. Yet when you read their own discussions of why they were there and what they were doing -- which were included in an earlier exchange between us -- it drives me up the wall! Not only were they in the street at the same time but, if the Zapruder were authentic, it would show (i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative, (iii) the limo moving to the left (toward them), (iv) Mary and Jean both stepping off the curb and into the street, (v) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!" and all that, (vi) Mary taking her picture, (vii) both stepping back onto the grass, (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her, none of which is shown in the film. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, neither Tink nor Barb nor Lamson nor Colby nor even Bill Miller(!) has acknowledged that, on this basis alone, the question of the film's authenticity is resolved! When there exists such plain and simple evidence of fakery, which he and his clique persistently deny, it is very difficult for me to drawn inferences about them that are favorable to their dedication and determination to expose the truth and refute falsehoods about the death of JFK. In fact, I am sorry to say, it weighs in the opposite direction. David offers the most charitable explanation. Perhaps they are all incompetent students of the case, who sympathize with Tink because their research standards are no more demanding than his. That is the question. What's going on and on here? I find the situation ridiculous, frustrating and sad. But then, I've explained this already.
Would an agent have done that?

Useful to remind ourselves what a real pro had to say about the most basic precepts of intel work:

“There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,”

Hubert Cole. Fouche: The Unprincipled Patriot (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd., 1971), p.140, PRO, FO 27/63

The proposition that the CIA has, presumably from some hitherto unidentified form of scruple, disdained to infiltrate and misdirect the research community is fatuous.

(1) Six Seconds included the first compilation of 190 witness reports with respect to shot origin. This compilation showed that a substantial proportion of witnesses thought a shot or shots were fired from the knoll. In addition, a substantial proportion of witnesses found shots to be bunched, something that could not happen if only the rifle found in the TSBD was being fired. Firing tests in the 70s showed that observers were able to pick location of shots with over 90% accuracy, a fact that made these compilations significant. Paul Rigby has been trying to nit-pic this compilation by finding what he believes to be errors in individual reports that show something having to do with the Zapruder film. It is the overall compilation that produces significant results. These results are in contradiction to the official story. Would an agent have done that?

Come, come, Tink, get it right. What I've done is demonstrate that you systematically suppressed, distorted, mischaracterised and mislocated eyewitnesses and their testimony in an attempt to buttress a fake film, and suppress realisation of the centrality of the SS to the assassination. If you'd like few refresher examples, don't hesitate to ask. In this matter, at least, at I'm at your service.

(7) Reports from Parkland doctors (including McClelland’s report and the diagram) were used to back up the calculation of head movement as showing the impact of a shot from the right front. This had never before been shown to this degree. Would an agent have done that?

Not one of your better days in the service of the cover-up, I have to observe. Still flogging this expired quadruped, I see? Very well, let's exhume the evidence to the contrary one more time:

Parkland medical staff:

a) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.]

B)Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

c) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head," Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4.

d) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. (Cited by Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.)

(9) Investigation turned up numerous films and photos never seen before...

Designed to buttress the central fake. Would an agent have done that? Absolutely. And that's exactly what you did.

I could go on ad infinitum.

I know the feeling. But you're worth it.

I don’t need to attack Fetzer's history or reputation and I won’t.

What a hypocrite: You and your motley band of acolytes undertake precisely the kinds of attacks you pretend to abjure on a near-daily basis. This entire post is little more than a sustained ad hominem against a man, whatever his faults, and however much I disagree with him on certain issues, has contributed more to the establishment of truth in the case than you could achieve even if granted the gift of eternity.

Too bad Sylvia Meagher did not survive to this day. She would have munched him for breakfast!

We are talking about the same Sylvia Meagher, aren't we? The one who wrote: "In sum, at least seven eyewitnesses to the assassination indicated that the President's car had come to a complete stop..."? We're not, are we?

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

..."Virtually the only point that we agree upon is that Mary actually took her Polaroids! But then it hit me. Everyone knows that Polaroids required fixation and that Jean came with Mary both to see their boyfriends but to fixate her photographs. We don't see her doing that in the film. But if Jean did not fixate Mary's Polaroids, how can they possibly exist? This is a very simple question with far-reaching ramifications."...

Because she coated the photos before her 1.5 second Zapruder appearance. Why would anyone think that everything Jean and Mary did on Elm street has to take place at the same time Zapruder is filming them?

And of course because coating the picture has absolutely nothing to do with developing or fixing the picture.

Edited by Jerry Logan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry,

IIRC, we see a white piece of paper moving in some frames--wasn't that perceived to be the "backing" on a photo, the part that was removed to expose the actual photo?

(Don't know what it is called)

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

..."Virtually the only point that we agree upon is that Mary actually took her Polaroids! But then it hit me. Everyone knows that Polaroids required fixation and that Jean came with Mary both to see their boyfriends but to fixate her photographs. We don't see her doing that in the film. But if Jean did not fixate Mary's Polaroids, how can they possibly exist? This is a very simple question with far-reaching ramifications."...

Because she coated the photos before her 1.5 second Zapruder appearance. Why would anyone think that everything Jean and Mary did on Elm street has to take place at the same time Zapruder is filming them?

And of course because coating the picture has absolutely nothing to do with developing or fixing the picture.

The "fixing" of the Polaroids is irrelevant to any discussion of Zapruder. Fixing could be postponed for

several minutes. The main requirement for fixing the print was that it should not be TOUCHED with the

fingers before the coating. That is why Moorman 5 has a fingerprint. Apparently Jim Featherstone

grasped it with his thumb before it was coated. See photo.

Jack

PS...note BLACK SHOE on Mary's right foot.

post-667-1262973019_thumb.jpg

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "fixing" of the Polaroids is irrelevant to any discussion of Zapruder. Fixing could be postponed for several minutes.

Thanks for (along with Jerry) showing how nonsensical Fetzer's question was.Instread of startinga new thread he should have spent a couple seconds thinking critically or a couple minutes researching the issue before making a fool of himself.

PS...note BLACK SHOE on Mary's right foot.

One can't identify color in a B + W photo but the shoe looks light colored with a shadow under it. Why on earth would she go out with 2 different colored shoes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry,

IIRC, we see a white piece of paper moving in some frames--wasn't that perceived to be the "backing" on a photo, the part that was removed to expose the actual photo?

(Don't know what it is called)

Kathy

Kathy, you are correct. A Bothun photo shows what appears could be a Polaroid backing.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Jack has corrected me on a blunder of my own making. Based upon my own experience with Polaroids early in my life, I had been accustomed to fixing (not "fixating") them when they emerged from the camera. I mistakenly assumed that it was important to do that in a timely fashion for the photograph to be preserved. Jack has explained that it could be done as long as five or more minutes later and that Jim Featherstone's fingerprint was there, in part, because that photo had not yet been fixed. So I grant that I was wrong and withdraw this argument, which is independent of all the others. For those who want the simplest possible proof, of course, check out Mary's black shoes, which appear white in the Zapruder. May my opponents rejoice over my mistake!

..."Virtually the only point that we agree upon is that Mary actually took her Polaroids! But then it hit me. Everyone knows that Polaroids required fixation and that Jean came with Mary both to see their boyfriends but to fixate her photographs. We don't see her doing that in the film. But if Jean did not fixate Mary's Polaroids, how can they possibly exist? This is a very simple question with far-reaching ramifications."...

Because she coated the photos before her 1.5 second Zapruder appearance. Why would anyone think that everything Jean and Mary did on Elm street has to take place at the same time Zapruder is filming them?

And of course because coating the picture has absolutely nothing to do with developing or fixing the picture.

The "fixing" of the Polaroids is irrelevant to any discussion of Zapruder. Fixing could be postponed for

several minutes. The main requirement for fixing the print was that it should not be TOUCHED with the

fingers before the coating. That is why Moorman 5 has a fingerprint. Apparently Jim Featherstone

grasped it with his thumb before it was coated. See photo.

Jack

PS...note BLACK SHOE on Mary's right foot.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack has corrected me on a blunder of my own making. Based upon my own experience with Polaroids early in my life, I had been accustomed to fixing (not "fixating") them when they emerged from the camera. I mistakenly assumed that it was important to do that in a timely fashion for the photograph to be preserved. Jack has explained that it could be done as long as five or more minutes later and that Jim Featherstone's fingerprint was there, in part, because that photo had not yet been fixed. So I grant that I was wrong and withdraw this argument, which is independent of the others. For those who want the simplest possible proof, of course, check out Mary's black shoes, which appear white in the Zapruder. May my opponents rejoice at this victory!
..."Virtually the only point that we agree upon is that Mary actually took her Polaroids! But then it hit me. Everyone knows that Polaroids required fixation and that Jean came with Mary both to see their boyfriends but to fixate her photographs. We don't see her doing that in the film. But if Jean did not fixate Mary's Polaroids, how can they possibly exist? This is a very simple question with far-reaching ramifications."...

Because she coated the photos before her 1.5 second Zapruder appearance. Why would anyone think that everything Jean and Mary did on Elm street has to take place at the same time Zapruder is filming them?

And of course because coating the picture has absolutely nothing to do with developing or fixing the picture.

The "fixing" of the Polaroids is irrelevant to any discussion of Zapruder. Fixing could be postponed for

several minutes. The main requirement for fixing the print was that it should not be TOUCHED with the

fingers before the coating. That is why Moorman 5 has a fingerprint. Apparently Jim Featherstone

grasped it with his thumb before it was coated. See photo.

Jack

PS...note BLACK SHOE on Mary's right foot.

Thanks, Jim. Babe Ruth's lifetime batting average was .342.

You are much better than the Babe. Any time I am wrong, I try to be the first to admit it.

Who among us is perfect? Oh...I forgot Thompson, Lamson, Burton and Colby.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jim. Babe Ruth's lifetime batting average was .342.

And Fetzer's is about .042

Any time I am wrong, I try to be the first to admit it.

BS Jack

You claimed 6 WTC was white or light gray and never admitted error despite being shown repeated photos of the black building.

You claimed a photo taken on the afternoon of 9/11 showing several buildings from the WTC and WFC was taken before either collapse (i.e. before 9:58 AM) and never admitted error despite the fact it was repeatedly pointed out to you that the western faces of the buildings were in direct sunlight and thus were photographed AFTER solar noon (around 1 PM).

You claimed the foreground of the same photo was of the corner of West and Vessy despite being show various proofs it showed a mid-block pedestrian crossing several hundred feet to the west.

You claimed a plume of dust and smoke that arose from the just collapsed 2 WTC was the still erect building and never admitted error despite being shown it was in the wrong position and was transparent.

You claimed a photo showed the Pentagon after the fire was extinguished and never admitted error depite being shown an uncropped version of the same photo showing the building on fire.

Etc, etc, etc and I'm sure Evan and Craig could point out countless other examples. Most of your claims are easily shown to be false,only rarely do you admit error

Who among us is perfect? Oh...I forgot Thompson, Lamson, Burton and Colby.

Point to where any of us said or insinuated we were. Our "batting averages" are much higher that yours or Fetzer's but that's not saying much. Fetzer on the other hand repeatedly makes absurd claims like he is the most accomplished academic (in the US or the entire world was unclear) and that one of his books was the most important ever published on the assassination and conference he organized was the most important ever held.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Does Len have any basis for these attributions to me? I have observed that the Duluth conference may turn out to have been the most important in the history of the JFK assassination. Even Vincent Bugliosi has observed that these are the only exclusively scientific books published about the assassination -- though I would add BEST EVIDENCE (1980) to that list, where I have always regarded ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) as successors to David Lifton's work. While my 29th book will appear early this year -- THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010) -- no one I know, including me, would make the exaggerated claims that you attribute to me. Our success in breaking the back of the cover-up -- by sorting out authentic from fabricated evidence -- has resulted from combining the abilities of a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board-certified in radiation oncology, a world authority on the human brain who was also an expert on wound ballistics, a physician who was in Trauma Room 1 when JFK was being treated and who was responsible, two days later, for treating his alleged assassin, and another Ph.D. in physics, this time with a specialization in electromagnetism, including the properties of light and the physics of moving objects. From the beginning, I have understood my own limitations as a philosopher of science and have sought out those with greater expertise than I possess in relation to the medical, ballistic, photographic and film evidence. Look at my books: they are editing collections in which I have brought together the best-qualified experts on different aspects of the case. That reflects modesty about my own abilities but brilliance in soliciting experts to collaborate in discovering the truth about JFK, where Jack's quite exceptional work has been in the vanguard about the photos and films.

Thanks, Jim. Babe Ruth's lifetime batting average was .342.

And Fetzer's is about .042

Any time I am wrong, I try to be the first to admit it.

BS Jack

You claimed 6 WTC was white or light gray and never admitted error despite being shown repeated photos of the black building.

You claimed a photo taken on the afternoon of 9/11 showing several buildings from the WTC and WFC was taken before either collapse (i.e. before 9:58 AM) and never admitted error despite the fact it was repeatedly pointed out to you that the western faces of the buildings were in direct sunlight and thus were photographed AFTER solar noon (around 1 PM).

You claimed the foreground of the same photo was of the corner of West and Vessy despite being show various proofs it showed a mid-block pedestrian crossing several hundred feet to the west.

You claimed a plume of dust and smoke that arose from the just collapsed 2 WTC was the still erect building and never admitted error despite being shown it was in the wrong position and was transparent.

You claimed a photo showed the Pentagon after the fire was extinguished and never admitted error depite being shown an uncropped version of the same photo showing the building on fire.

Etc, etc, etc and I'm sure Evan and Craig could point out countless other examples. Most of your claims are easily shown to be false,only rarely do you admit error

Who among us is perfect? Oh...I forgot Thompson, Lamson, Burton and Colby.

Point to where any of us said or insinuated we were. Our "batting averages" are much higher that yours or Fetzer's but that's not saying much. Fetzer on the other hand repeatedly makes absurd claims like he is the most accomplished academic (in the US or the entire world was unclear) and that one of his books was the most important ever published on the assassination and conference he organized was the most important ever held.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brasil's claims are distorted or untrue. For instance, WTC6 was not BLACK, but two shades of

gray aluminum, with a white ground floor. Early photos showing in to be black were results

of the explosion and fire which blackened the exterior. I stand by all of my later studies

about the color of the building and the explosion which occurred there. The attached shows

this, as well as the street scene which Brasil says was wrong. It is correct.

Jack

PS. I am having trouble uploading the image.

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Jack, Did you miss uploading the attachment? or it is already in the thread? Thanks. Jim

Brasil's claims are distorted or untrue. For instance, WTC6 was not BLACK, but two shades of

gray aluminum, with a white ground floor. Early photos showing in to be black were results

of the explosion and fire which blackened the exterior. I stand by all of my later studies

about the color of the building and the explosion which occurred there. The attached shows

this, as well as the street scene which Brasil says was wrong. It is correct.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, Did you miss uploading the attachment? or it is already in the thread? Thanks. Jim
Brasil's claims are distorted or untrue. For instance, WTC6 was not BLACK, but two shades of

gray aluminum, with a white ground floor. Early photos showing in to be black were results

of the explosion and fire which blackened the exterior. I stand by all of my later studies

about the color of the building and the explosion which occurred there. The attached shows

this, as well as the street scene which Brasil says was wrong. It is correct.

Jack

Jim...I can no longer post images on the forum. I got a message saying I had used up

all of my allotted space for attachments. This is very unrealistic. Some of us deal in images

and some do not, but we are all allotted the same amount. Over five years or so, I have now

used up my allotment. It is the forum's loss, not mine. I have lots of images of interest to

post but no longer will be able to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, Did you miss uploading the attachment? or it is already in the thread? Thanks. Jim
Brasil's claims are distorted or untrue. For instance, WTC6 was not BLACK, but two shades of

gray aluminum, with a white ground floor. Early photos showing in to be black were results

of the explosion and fire which blackened the exterior. I stand by all of my later studies

about the color of the building and the explosion which occurred there. The attached shows

this, as well as the street scene which Brasil says was wrong. It is correct.

Jack

Jim...I can no longer post images on the forum. I got a message saying I had used up

all of my allotted space for attachments. This is very unrealistic. Some of us deal in images

and some do not, but we are all allotted the same amount. Over five years or so, I have now

used up my allotment. It is the forum's loss, not mine. I have lots of images of interest to

post but no longer will be able to do so.

Jump into the 21 century...Photobucket....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...