Evidence... not Fetzer!

[John Dolva]

''• 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.''

Cutting, when playing pool :

http://www.ehow.com/video_2361398_hit-cue-ball-pool.html

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Not only did Richard Feynman's study support a double-hit, but a subsequent study by ITEK reached the same conclusion.

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

[Bernice Moore]

don't feel bad fella's been there done that it probably simply means your included now in as some call the ''merry band'' b

Edited January 15, 2010 by Bernice Moore