Evidence... not Fetzer!

[Josiah Thompson]

In explaining the very sound reasons why I no longer think JFK was hit in the head from the rear and the front between Z 312 and Z 314 I am very much at a disadvantage. David Wimp offered a very complete, detailed, mathematically correct account as to why the "motion" I measured between Z 312 and Z 313 was in part due to the movement of Zapruder's camera. For five or six years all this material appeared on a web site. In addition, on the same web site were gifs of Zapruder frames showing that all the occupants of the limousine started slipping forward when Greer decelerated the limousine from 12 mph to about 8 mph starting at Z 308. I was disappointed when I went to the web site and found it had disappeared. Hence, I have no way of presenting to you the argument that changed my mind. Perhaps someone on this site downloaded Wimp's material. I also noted that I made arrangements for Wimp to appear at the AARC conference in Washington. He gave a talk there that included this material. The DVD of the conference is available.

Lacking this material, I have no way of giving you the information you want. My silence should not be taken as any sign of disrespect. Sadly, I have nothing to show you.

Josiah Thompson

While I disagree with much of the personal stuff Jim Fetzer has directed at Josiah Thompson on this forum, I don't believe he's posted anything quite as nasty as this. What purpose is there in rehashing a poster's entire work history? How, by the way, do you have all this personal information on him? Talk about completely irrelevant....

Josiah, I have never been anything but courteous with you on this forum. I have asked you a few hard questions, but in a perfectly appropriate manner. You have ignored me. Why? Are you incapable of commenting on anything that doesn't relate to Jim Fetzer?

I asked you simply to explain why, on another thread, you stated that the evidence for a frontal throat wound was lacking, but that you "didn't know" about the evidence for the throat wound being one of exit. To me, that seems highly inconsistent. While we can debate the case for a frontal wound to the throat, it seems to me that the only "evidence" for the throat wound being one of exit is to accept the single bullet theory. Do you now "not know" about the single bullet theory? I understand you postulated that the wound was caused by a fragment from the head, and I'm not arguing with that. I simply want to know how you can assess the state of the evidence for the throat wound being either of entrance or exit so differently.

If you're truly agnostic on this subject, your answer should be "don't know" either way. I would really appreciate a response from you.

Don

Dont feel too bad, after Thompson replied to my "Double Head Shot" thread he has ignored every post and any questions I have made since then

I guess I have to write a book for him to find me worthy enough of a simple reply

Dean

[Todd W. Vaughan]

The opposite is true.

Fetzer QUOTES EVIDENCE.

Thompson invents AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

Jack

Hahahahahaha. Oh Jack, you really break me up. You are such a card!

Burton cracks me up. He is such a card...an Ace...but not spelled that way.

Jack

Nice personal attack, Jack.

Todd!

Please tell me your joking

Did you miss what Evan posted? I hope not because its in your post as a quote

Evan laughs at Jacks opinion that Fetzer quotes evidence (which I agree with Jacks statement) says Jack breaks him up and calls him a card

Did you miss that?

Its really starting to get to me that non-alteratoinists have tunnel vision when it comes to reading posts, they only see what they think are unwarrented attacks by Fetzer, White and other alterationists

How could you have missed that post Todd?

Like Pat said, compared to Fetzer and Thompsons past feuds the stuff going back and forth now is civil

Dean,

Jack is always complaining about people making 'personal attacks" on him.

Evan posted "Hahahahahaha. Oh Jack, you really break me up. You are such a card!".

Where is the personal attack in that, as opposed to "You're a card...an Ace...but not spelled that way."?

Todd

[Dean Hagerman]

The opposite is true.

Fetzer QUOTES EVIDENCE.

Thompson invents AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

Jack

Hahahahahaha. Oh Jack, you really break me up. You are such a card!

Burton cracks me up. He is such a card...an Ace...but not spelled that way.

Jack

Nice personal attack, Jack.

Todd!

Please tell me your joking

Did you miss what Evan posted? I hope not because its in your post as a quote

Evan laughs at Jacks opinion that Fetzer quotes evidence (which I agree with Jacks statement) says Jack breaks him up and calls him a card

Did you miss that?

Its really starting to get to me that non-alteratoinists have tunnel vision when it comes to reading posts, they only see what they think are unwarrented attacks by Fetzer, White and other alterationists

How could you have missed that post Todd?

Like Pat said, compared to Fetzer and Thompsons past feuds the stuff going back and forth now is civil

Dean,

Jack is always complaining about people making 'personal attacks" on him.

Evan posted "Hahahahahaha. Oh Jack, you really break me up. You are such a card!".

Where is the personal attack in that, as opposed to "You're a card...an Ace...but not spelled that way."?

Todd

Todd has the blinders on today

[Dean Hagerman]

In explaining the very sound reasons why I no longer think JFK was hit in the head from the rear and the front between Z 312 and Z 314 I am very much at a disadvantage. David Wimp offered a very complete, detailed, mathematically correct account as to why the "motion" I measured between Z 312 and Z 313 was in part due to the movement of Zapruder's camera. For five or six years all this material appeared on a web site. In addition, on the same web site were gifs of Zapruder frames showing that all the occupants of the limousine started slipping forward when Greer decelerated the limousine from 12 mph to about 8 mph starting at Z 308. I was disappointed when I went to the web site and found it had disappeared. Hence, I have no way of presenting to you the argument that changed my mind. Perhaps someone on this site downloaded Wimp's material. I also noted that I made arrangements for Wimp to appear at the AARC conference in Washington. He gave a talk there that included this material. The DVD of the conference is available.

Lacking this material, I have no way of giving you the information you want. My silence should not be taken as any sign of disrespect. Sadly, I have nothing to show you.

Josiah Thompson

While I disagree with much of the personal stuff Jim Fetzer has directed at Josiah Thompson on this forum, I don't believe he's posted anything quite as nasty as this. What purpose is there in rehashing a poster's entire work history? How, by the way, do you have all this personal information on him? Talk about completely irrelevant....

Josiah, I have never been anything but courteous with you on this forum. I have asked you a few hard questions, but in a perfectly appropriate manner. You have ignored me. Why? Are you incapable of commenting on anything that doesn't relate to Jim Fetzer?

I asked you simply to explain why, on another thread, you stated that the evidence for a frontal throat wound was lacking, but that you "didn't know" about the evidence for the throat wound being one of exit. To me, that seems highly inconsistent. While we can debate the case for a frontal wound to the throat, it seems to me that the only "evidence" for the throat wound being one of exit is to accept the single bullet theory. Do you now "not know" about the single bullet theory? I understand you postulated that the wound was caused by a fragment from the head, and I'm not arguing with that. I simply want to know how you can assess the state of the evidence for the throat wound being either of entrance or exit so differently.

If you're truly agnostic on this subject, your answer should be "don't know" either way. I would really appreciate a response from you.

Don

Dont feel too bad, after Thompson replied to my "Double Head Shot" thread he has ignored every post and any questions I have made since then

I guess I have to write a book for him to find me worthy enough of a simple reply

Dean

Thank you for your reply

I hope someone somewhere has Wimps work, or knows where to find it

Because the GIFs I made show nobody moving forward and no motion blur at all

Again I would love to see his work

[David G. Healy]

In explaining the very sound reasons why I no longer think JFK was hit in the head from the rear and the front between Z 312 and Z 314 I am very much at a disadvantage. David Wimp offered a very complete, detailed, mathematically correct account as to why the "motion" I measured between Z 312 and Z 313 was in part due to the movement of Zapruder's camera. For five or six years all this material appeared on a web site. In addition, on the same web site were gifs of Zapruder frames showing that all the occupants of the limousine started slipping forward when Greer decelerated the limousine from 12 mph to about 8 mph starting at Z 308. I was disappointed when I went to the web site and found it had disappeared. Hence, I have no way of presenting to you the argument that changed my mind. Perhaps someone on this site downloaded Wimp's material. I also noted that I made arrangements for Wimp to appear at the AARC conference in Washington. He gave a talk there that included this material. The DVD of the conference is available.

Lacking this material, I have no way of giving you the information you want. My silence should not be taken as any sign of disrespect. Sadly, I have nothing to show you.

Josiah Thompson

ah yes, Dave Wimp, in the way of background:

quote on

This form of “Tink by proxy” arrangement would be infuriating enough to deal with, but it is exacerbated further by the composition of his “Gang” of pals. Some, such as Ron Hepler and Gary Mack, are well-known and established researchers in the case; regardless of differences, one knows who one is dealing with. But others, such as Joe Durnavich, David Wimp, and Craig Lamson, are more ephemeral. We are not permitted to know who they really are when they’re at home (of course, Gary Mack is Larry Dunkel, or someone else, when he’s at home, but that’s just a stage name issue); we are not permitted to know their employment, their background, their qualifications, or their credentials. The argument recently presented by Debra Conway of JFK Lancer is that private citizens buy The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, so private citizens—read “anonymous personalities”—should be able to criticise it. That’s undoubtedly true, and we have indeed received letters and emails from such members of the public, offering their opinions or criticisms. Whether that should be extended to public criticism of the book on a publicly accessible website is an interesting question; whether it should occur under the blessing of an organisation like JFK Lancer even more intriguing. But, nevertheless, we can live with it.

quote off

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ax/thegang.html

While I disagree with much of the personal stuff Jim Fetzer has directed at Josiah Thompson on this forum, I don't believe he's posted anything quite as nasty as this. What purpose is there in rehashing a poster's entire work history? How, by the way, do you have all this personal information on him? Talk about completely irrelevant....

Josiah, I have never been anything but courteous with you on this forum. I have asked you a few hard questions, but in a perfectly appropriate manner. You have ignored me. Why? Are you incapable of commenting on anything that doesn't relate to Jim Fetzer?

I asked you simply to explain why, on another thread, you stated that the evidence for a frontal throat wound was lacking, but that you "didn't know" about the evidence for the throat wound being one of exit. To me, that seems highly inconsistent. While we can debate the case for a frontal wound to the throat, it seems to me that the only "evidence" for the throat wound being one of exit is to accept the single bullet theory. Do you now "not know" about the single bullet theory? I understand you postulated that the wound was caused by a fragment from the head, and I'm not arguing with that. I simply want to know how you can assess the state of the evidence for the throat wound being either of entrance or exit so differently.

If you're truly agnostic on this subject, your answer should be "don't know" either way. I would really appreciate a response from you.

Don

Dont feel too bad, after Thompson replied to my "Double Head Shot" thread he has ignored every post and any questions I have made since then

I guess I have to write a book for him to find me worthy enough of a simple reply

Dean

[Jack White]

Nice animation SHOWING THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR BEING THROWN FORWARD

AS THE BRAKES ARE APPLIED. But everyone is too occupied looking at the fake

head wound. Check it out.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

Show me where all the people in the limo start moving forward at frame 308 Duncan

They all move forward after the head shot

And the blur is for one frame, just like what happens throughout the film, the motion blur that Tink says caused the forward head snap has nothing to do with the blur, look at Jackie, she does not move at all in the blur frame, and look at JC, while the blur makes him look to move forward just a tad it is nothing compared to JFKs forward head snap

Thank you for posting those Duncan, they do a good job of illustrating what Tink was talking about with motion blur, but it really just reinforces what I have been saying, I cant believe Tink changed his mind, the motion blur does not cause the forward movement of JFKs head

And I have yet to see the people in the limo slide forward before the head shot, Tink says it starts at 308, from my GIFs and the one Duncan posted (I dont know what frame his starts at) you see no forward movement until after the head shot

Edited January 12, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Dean Hagerman]

Nice animation SHOWING THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR BEING THROWN FORWARD

AS THE BRAKES ARE APPLIED. But everyone is too occupied looking at the fake

head wound. Check it out.

Jack

Jack would you agree with me that the occupants of the limo are thrown forward from the brakes being hit after the head shot and not before as Tink claims?

Edited January 12, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Jack White]

Nice animation SHOWING THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR BEING THROWN FORWARD

AS THE BRAKES ARE APPLIED. But everyone is too occupied looking at the fake

head wound. Check it out.

Jack

Jack would you agree with me that the occupants of the limo are thrown forward from the brakes being hit after the head shot and not before as Tink claims?

The attached clip shows everyone being thrown forward. I have forgotten other research on this, but I think

John Costella covers it.

Note Kellerman in particular, whose head nearly hits the dashboard.

Jack

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jack White

[Dean Hagerman]

The attached clip shows everyone being thrown forward. I have forgotten other research on this, but I think

John Costella covers it.

Note Kellerman in particular, whose head nearly hits the dashboard.

Jack

I no doubt agree that they are being thrown forward when Greer hits the brakes but my question is when they start to slide forward

Tink claims he changed his mind on the double head shot theory because the limo occupants start sliding forward at frame 308

I dont see them sliding forward until after the head shot 313

Tink claims they move forward before the head shot at 308, I claim they move forward after the head shot at 313

I will re-read Costellas section in TGZFH to see what he says about it

[Pat Speer]

Nice animation SHOWING THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR BEING THROWN FORWARD

AS THE BRAKES ARE APPLIED. But everyone is too occupied looking at the fake

head wound. Check it out.

Jack

Jack would you agree with me that the occupants of the limo are thrown forward from the brakes being hit after the head shot and not before as Tink claims?

The attached clip shows everyone being thrown forward. I have forgotten other research on this, but I think

John Costella covers it.

Note Kellerman in particular, whose head nearly hits the dashboard.

Jack

It seems likely Kellerman was working the radio.

Mr. SPECTER. No; let me repeat the question so I am sure you understand it. From the time you first heard the noise coming to your right rear, which you described as sounding like a firecracker, until you heard the flurry of shots?

Mr. KELLERMAN. This is about how long it took, sir. As I am viewing, trying to determine this noise, I turned to my right and I heard the voice and I came back and I verify it and speak to the driver, grab the mike, these shots come in.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, you have described it as 3 to 4 seconds from the time--

Mr. KELLERMAN. No more.

Mr. SPECTER. From the time of the first noise--wait a minute--until you gave the instruction to Mr. Greer and then as you made the statement to Special Agent Lawson over the microphone that was an instantaneous timespan as you have described it.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. How soon thereafter did the flurry of shots come?

Mr. KELLERMAN. They came in, Mr. Specter, while I am delivering that radio message.

[John Dolva]

''Definition of Anterior ( http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9248 )

Anterior: The front, as opposed to the posterior. The anterior surface of the heart is toward the breast bone (the sternum).''

Each part of the body, and sub-part thereof has an anterior and posterior.

The head as a whole has a posterior. Medical personell when talking about this presumably uses laymens terms when talking to laymen.

So, posterior becomes rear, anterior > front.

This clip clearly shows a massive posterior blow out, ie.: shows a massive rear wounding.

Re the slow down. Put something that can roll about on the back seat of the car. It doesn't take ''stopping'' for that to fly about. Later, Conally continues his forward movement and bangs into the rear of the SS back seat. There's nothing new in this, it's been there to see all the time.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

This clip clearly shows a massive posterior blow out, ie.: shows a massive rear wounding.

If you mean that you see signs that a bullet strikes the rear of JFK's head in this clip, then your eyes are much better than mine, John. To me this clip shows a bullet striking JFK on the right side of the head, which then drives him back and to the left, as we see in later frames.

Since JFK's head is turned towards his left just before the bullet strikes, the right side of his head is tilted towards the front. To my eyes, this clip shows an exploding bullet fired from the right front.

I can see no signs that any bullet strikes the back of JFK's head in this clip OR anywhere else in the ZFILM OR in any other film either.

The crime was "solved" when this explosive entry wound on the right side was later declared (after post-mortem tampering?) to be an exit wound.

[John Dolva]

No, Raymond, I don't say it shows a rear strike at all.

It shows a massive blow out of the posterior top of JFK's head. ie a massive ''rear of head'' injury. His head was facing the southern end of the underpass, the right of his head was facing the North Knoll.

__________________

re limo speed :

Using the following principles some relavant data may be derived

http://web.me.com/dtrapp/ePhysics.f/WDmomentum.html

Impulse And Momentum

Summary and Practical Applications of Physics Skills

© by William Dietsch 2004

rule

Momentum

• Momentum is a dynamical quantity, carried by all material objects, while in motion. In physics, momentum is the calculated product of the scalar mass of a body and its vector velocity. All moving bodies have momentum, regardless of their size or velocity. The rules of momentum apply universally to all objects in the universe. As with many scientific terms, momentum is often adopted by the general public with wider meanings describing things such as political fortune (e.g., "Candidate X's campaign is gaining momentum") or the progress of sporting event (e.g., "Team Y seems to have momentum on its side."). The definition of momentum in physics is much more specific and precisely defined by mathematics.

• An object with a large mass and low velocity can have a momentum equal to an object with a small mass and a high velocity.

• The simple laws of momentum do not distinguish between the aforementioned objects, if the products of mass and velocity are equal, they are treated as identical.

• Equation for the calculation of the momentum P (units of kg m/s) of a body with velocity v (units of m/s) and mass m (units of kg) is:

P = mv.

Impulse

• Impulse describes the cause of momentum changes. The calculated product of a force and the duration of its application (time in seconds) is equal to the impulse. The equation for the calculation of impulse by the application of a force F (units of Newtons) for a duration of time Δt (units of seconds) is:

I = F Δt = Δ P

• Impulse causes a corresponding change in the momentum of a body.

Conservation Of Momentum In Explosions And Collisions

When bodies interact, in a closed system (no external forces act on a closed system from outside), the vector sum of the momenta BEFORE the interaction is equal to the vector sum of the momenta AFTER the interaction.

• Collisions occur when two or more objects strike each other at some central point of impact.

It may be a sign that a collision is elastic when the bodies move freely apart after colliding. An example of a (nearly) elastic collision is when billiard balls hit together and move off separately. When the objects in the collision remain entangled after colliding, it is a sign that the collision is inelastic. An examples of an inelastic collision is when a train car collides with another and they couple or when a paintball sticks to its target. (Usually elastic is defined in terms of conservation of mechanical energy, a topic discussed later.)

When objects fly apart from rest or a center of mass, an explosion is said to have occurred. The obvious example of an explosion is a bomb sending pieces flying apart. The individual fragments carry momentum but the vector sum of all momenta in the explosion is equal to the starting momentum (zero with respect to the center of mass). Jump from a canoe and it moves away from you, is a less expected example of an explosion.

Problems:

...

8. A car moving at 11 m/s crashes into an obstacle and stops in 0.26 s. Compute the force that a seatbelt exerts on a 21 kg child to bring him/her to a stop.

or ''The Mass of the Limo should be known, (addiing mass of persons), hence momentum, Connallys mass should be known, if the velocity of Connallys forward roll can be deduced, can the reduction of the Limo (and contents) momentum be derived, hence velocity, or : how much did the Limo slow?''

______________

EDIT ADD : When a closed system is compromised and an explosive cavitation (approx 20:1 in diameter to bullet) (pulsing at an extremely high rate as in a supersonic bullet strike) occurs, this pressure is relieved through the weakest points, plus it further compromises the container (skull), shattering bone and tearing scalp whereby further pulse pressures may be relieved.

Edited January 13, 2010 by John Dolva

[Don Jeffries]

No disrespect to you. I just don't find the question you ask to be interesting to me. Have I got things wrong? I thought folks could answer the questions that interested them and ignore those that didn't interest them. I just have other interests than pursuing questions about the throat wound now.

Josiah Thompson

Thanks for finally responding to me by telling me that you don't find my question interesting enough.

Btw, I wasn't really questioning you about your opinion on the throat wound. I was simply pointing out that you had used very different wording on another thread to describe the evidence for an entrance wound to the throat vs. an exit wound to the throat. You seemed interested enough to venture your thoughts about it then.

I find it fascinating that someone who has been researching this case for as long as you have doesn't have an interest in the throat wound. After all, an entrance wound to the throat is proof positive of conspiracy.