A shot fired through the front of the windshield- To Barb and Jerry

[John Dolva]

Jim, I said nothing about Moorman, besides it's taken after the headshot and not necessarily indicative of JFK's head orientation at the time of the bullet striking his head.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jerry,

You and Josiah do not seem to pay any attention to anything I or others with whom you disagree post. I wonder why? If you take a look at windshield (D) in post #143, you can will notice the spiral nebula that was created by a shot from about 200 yards with a high-velocity weapon, which created the sound of a firecracker as it passed through en route to the neck of the dummy in the back seat. So far as I can tell, neither of you has offered a remotely plausible alternative hypothesis that can account for (a) the entry wound to the throat, ( the small shrapnel wounds to his face, © the sound of a firecracker, (d) the witness reports from Parkland, or (e) the confirmation from Ford by the official who replaced it. And some of these witnesses even published articles about their observations.

Nor, for that matter, have you made any effort to explain (f) the differences between the damage to the windshield in Altgens6 and the windshield the Secret Service subsequently produced--which are windshields (A) and © in post #143 nor (g) Martin's proof that the damage in Altgens7 is at the same location as in Atgens6 nor (h) why windshield © bears so little resemblance to windshield (A). Since we have more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit, there is nothing surprising about the Secret Service effecting a substitution. But that (a) though (h) should all be wrong is about as implausible as that a woman with a bag that has a spiral nebua on it should be in exactly the position dictated by a shot to the throat from the south end of the TUP.

I can't wait to hear your alternative that explains all of these data points, Jerry. But then trading in fantasies appears to be your area of specialization. Something I simply do not understand is how you and Josiah and others want to ignore the evidence or nitpick at it, when Josiah commits the gross blunder of displaying the windshield of a vehicle that has not been hit by high-velocity bullets. I would have though the whole forum would have descended on such a manifest absurdity, but apparently any sleight-of-hand that he wants to pull is welcomed by the brain trust on this form, which, of course, includes you, Jerry. It might be nice if, once in a while, you would concede the necessity to account for (a) through (g), even though you appear to have no reasonable alternative explanation apart from the absurdities that Josiah has pulled out of his hat. From a logical point of view, your position is hopelessly untenable.

Jim

....now he produces the windshield of a car that has obviously been hit by low velocity rounds. He has systematically ignored the results that Jim Lewis has obtained by firing high-velocity rounds through junked cars from about 200 yards range, even though the relevant page from HOAX was posted long ago....

So Jim, how about posting some photos of the high-velocity "spiral nebula"? Every ballistics and forensics text I've read indicates that that the size of windshield bullet holes is a function of slug caliber and angle of incidence. Don't be shy! Let's see those high-velocity holes.

Jerry

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Geez, John, I thought you knew a little more about the case. Mary was told it was taken about 1/8th of a second after the head shot, which was the one that entered his right temple. I presumed you would at least read the article through to notice John Costella's observation that, the entire debate may have been intended as a distraction from the orientation of his head as Mary caught it in her Polaroid. There is much more about the Moorman debate at http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/ . I have no idea what you take to be the alternatives. Arlene Specter offered a fantastic scenario where Jack was standing and turned around, to which I shall return below. For all I know, given what you don't know, you may have been taken in by him. Here I highlight what I took for granted you would read:

Jim,

I still sit on Tink's side when it comes to the extant Moorman and what camera position it implies, so make sure that the issues are disentangled.

Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The explanation I like best is David Lifton's in BEST EVIDENCE about the time they got hold of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL.

The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316, and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required-as you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318 but does not rotate left or right.

Indeed, maybe that's the point of all this Moorman guff. Forget about the pedestal for the moment, and look at JFK. Place the Moorman next to Zapruder frame 315 or 316, and you have two (allegedly genuine) different views of the same instant of time. That shows you that the "red blob" that explodes out the front of his head in the Z-toon is indeed supposed to be coming out of his right temple. If his head had been rotated massively to the left, we'd be able to see his face in the Moorman-but we don't.

John

If you are interested in the orientation of JFK's head at the time of the right-temple shot, then Mary's Polaroid captured it. I assumed you knew, for example, that Arlene Specter's claim that he was standing and turned around to waive to bystanders at the time of his throat shot was pure fantasy, which reflects the desperation of his attempt to deny that JFK was hit in the throat from in front, a wound that was widely broadcast on radio and television the afternoon and evening of the assassination. But then, we are observing a similar degree of desperation by Jerry and Josiah in their efforts to distract attention from the consideration that the only hypothesis that can account for all of the data presented by (a) though (g) is that the bullet passed through the windshield en route to his throat.

Jim

Jim, I said nothing about Moorman, besides it's taken after the headshot and not necessarily indicative of JFK's head orientation at the time of the bullet striking his head.

Edited March 18, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

nor (g) Martin's proof that the damage in Altgens7 is at the same location as in Atgens6

Wow! Lets all give the good professor a hand for transforming a speculation directly into a proof with a few simple clicks of the keyboard!

Now that he has made the claim that Martin has offered a proof, then perhaps the good professor can produce thw work that backs it up.

[Jerry Logan]

Jim, We all saw the page, what no one can see is the size of the hole, much less the hole itself, nor the size or shape of the "spiral nebula." Even in the dreadful reproduction you've posted the crack pattern is obviously much smaller than the Altgens 6 "nebula". BTW, you seem to have inadvertently obscured the size of the rear view mirror in your version of Altgens 6 thereby leaving the impression that the Altgens "nebula" is much smaller that it actually was. It's been my experience that when someone has an image that clearly demonstrates their point they offer the clearest, sharpest version they can. So I repeat, Don't be shy! Let's see those high-velocity holes.

Jerry,

......If you take a look at windshield (D) in post #143, you can will notice the spiral nebula that was created by a shot from about 200 yards with a high-velocity weapon, which created the sound of a firecracker as it passed through en route to the neck of the dummy in the back seat. ...... Something I simply do not understand is how you and Josiah and others want to ignore the evidence or nitpick at it, when Josiah commits the gross blunder of displaying the windshield of a vehicle that has not been hit by high-velocity bullets. ......

Jim

....now he produces the windshield of a car that has obviously been hit by low velocity rounds. He has systematically ignored the results that Jim Lewis has obtained by firing high-velocity rounds through junked cars from about 200 yards range, even though the relevant page from HOAX was posted long ago....

So Jim, how about posting some photos of the high-velocity "spiral nebula"? Every ballistics and forensics text I've read indicates that that the size of windshield bullet holes is a function of slug caliber and angle of incidence. Don't be shy! Let's see those high-velocity holes.

Jerry

**edited for content**

Edited March 18, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Josiah Thompson]

Jerry,

You and Josiah do not seem to pay any attention to anything I or others with whom you disagree post. I wonder why? If you take a look at windshield (D) in post #143, you can will notice the spiral nebula that was created by a shot from about 200 yards with a high-velocity weapon....

Great! So let’s take a look at “windshield (D) in post #143.” Here it is... first as Fetzer published it and second zoomed in on:

What the photo shows is damage to a windshield that looks like all other damage to windshields caused by the penetration of a bullet... that is, a central hole surrounded by a halo of shattered glass. This bears no relation at all to your socalled “spiral nebula.”

This is just laughable. For days you keep talking about a photo that you claim shows the “spiral nebula” and proves that a through-and-through shot would produce what we see in Altgens #6. Then you produce this!

Come on, Professor, you ought to learn from the editor of the National Enquirer who carefully avoided ever saying he had a photo of the three-headed sheep. With each week you become more and more a parody of yourself. Keep it up.

Josiah Thompson

[Don Jeffries]

Josiah,

Let's say you had been hired as a defense investigator for Lee Harvey Oswald, but have your present day perspective on the case. What witnesses do you trust, at this point? In your view, what now is the evidence for conspiracy?

[Jack White]

Woman #9 holds a baby in both Altgens and Croft.

[Jerry Logan]

Jerry,

You and Josiah do not seem to pay any attention to anything I or others with whom you disagree post. I wonder why? If you take a look at windshield (D) in post #143, you can will notice the spiral nebula that was created by a shot from about 200 yards with a high-velocity weapon....

Great! So let’s take a look at “windshield (D) in post #143.” Here it is... first as Fetzer published it and second zoomed in on:

What the photo shows is damage to a windshield that looks like all other damage to windshields caused by the penetration of a bullet... that is, a central hole surrounded by a halo of shattered glass. This bears no relation at all to your socalled “spiral nebula.”

This is just laughable. For days you keep talking about a photo that you claim shows the “spiral nebula” and proves that a through-and-through shot would produce what we see in Altgens #6. Then you produce this!

Come on, Professor, you ought to learn from the editor of the National Enquirer who carefully avoided ever saying he had a photo of the three-headed sheep. With each week you become more and more a parody of yourself. Keep it up.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

You think these don't look the same? :>))

Jerry

Edited March 18, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim Lewis has described the damage as having the shape of a spiral nebula. He has repeated his experiments many times. He has been able to hit a dummy in the back seat from 200 yards. And the bullets make the sound of a firecracker when they pass through. You have offered the photograph of a car whose windshield has obviously not been hit by high-velocity bullets. You have tried to convert the throat entrance wound into an exit. And you have offered the manifest absurdity of a woman with a bag with a design that looks exactly like a spiral nebula at exactly the right location at exactly the right time. How dumb is that--especially when Martin has established that the damage in Altgens7 is at exactly the same location as the damage in Altgens6? And how do you explain that?

Jerry claims, "We all saw the page, what no one can see is the size of the hole, much less the hole itself, nor the size or shape of the "spiral nebula." Even in the dreadful reproduction you've posted the crack pattern is obviously much smaller than the Altgens 6 "nebula". BTW, you seem to have inadvertently obscured the size of the rear view mirror in your version of Altgens 6 thereby leaving the impression that the Altgens "nebula" is much smaller that it actually was." Josiah claims, "What the photo shows is damage to a windshield that looks like all other damage to windshields caused by the penetration of a bullet... that is, a central hole surrounded by a halo of shattered glass. This bears no relation at all to your so called 'spiral nebula.'" So which is it? We don't even need it to prove the case.

Indeed, by denying the through-and-through hole in the windshield, how can you explain (a) the entry wound to the throat, ( the small shrapnel wounds to the face, © the location of the damage in Altgens6 and Algens7, (d) the reports that the first shot sounded like a firecracker, (e) the witness reports from Parkland, (f) the reporter's column about the hole, (g) the confirmation by the official at Ford who replaced it and, in additiion, (h) that the substitute windshield bears no resemblance to the damage in Altgens6 and (i) that JFK's military aide, who normally would have sat between Kellerman and Greer, was moved to the last vehicle? Otherwise, of course, JFK would not have been hit in the throat because his aide would have posed an obstacle. You can explain none of this.

Why don't you tell us how you explain these data points? Set Jim Lewis to one side, if you want. I will see if I can locate him and ask him to confirm what I have reported. You can't explain the entry wound to the throat (a). You can't explain the shall shrapnel wounds (. You cannot explain the similarity in location of the damage seen in Altgens6 and Altgens7 ©. you can explain the sound of a firecracker (d). You can't explain the witness reports from Parkland (e). You can't explain the reporter's column about the hole (f). You can't explain the confirmation from Ford (g). You can't explain why the substitute bears no similarity to the original (h). And you can't explain why JFK's aide was moved to the very last vehicle (i).

EVEN IF WE SET JIM LEWIS' WORK TO ONE SIDE, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THE DATA. THE FACT IS THAT YOU HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION, MUCH LESS A REASONABLE ONE. DATA POINTS (a) THROUGH (i) CAN BE EXPLAINED WITH HIGH PROBABILITY ON THE HYPOTHESIS THAT JFK WAS SHOT IN THE THROAT BY A BULLET THAT PASSED THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD. THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE AND THERE IS NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE. WHEN THERE IS NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE, THEN AN HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT". THIS HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IF YOU HAVE A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE, WHAT IS IT?

Jerry,

You and Josiah do not seem to pay any attention to anything I or others with whom you disagree post. I wonder why? If you take a look at windshield (D) in post #143, you can will notice the spiral nebula that was created by a shot from about 200 yards with a high-velocity weapon....

Great! So let’s take a look at “windshield (D) in post #143.” Here it is... first as Fetzer published it and second zoomed in on:

What the photo shows is damage to a windshield that looks like all other damage to windshields caused by the penetration of a bullet... that is, a central hole surrounded by a halo of shattered glass. This bears no relation at all to your socalled “spiral nebula.”

This is just laughable. For days you keep talking about a photo that you claim shows the “spiral nebula” and proves that a through-and-through shot would produce what we see in Altgens #6. Then you produce this!

Come on, Professor, you ought to learn from the editor of the National Enquirer who carefully avoided ever saying he had a photo of the three-headed sheep. With each week you become more and more a parody of yourself. Keep it up.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

You think these don't look the same? :>))

Jerry

Edited March 18, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

How dumb is that--especially when Martin has established that the damage in Altgens7 is at exactly the same location as the damage in Altgens6? And how do you explain that?

Watch the shape shifitng in action...

First it was:

" Martin has explained that the damage is in the same location in Altgens7 as it is in Altgens6"

Then it was:

"Martin's proof that the damage in Altgens7 is at the same location as in Atgens6"

And now it"s:

"Martin has established that the damage in Altgens7 is at exactly the same location as the damage in Altgens6?"

I'll cut the professor SOME slack if he can produce the WORK that supports his ever shifting claims.

Where is it professor? Surely you have the data availble to back up these claims, whatever they might be at the moment?

To quote professor Fetzer directly...

"Why don't you tell us how you explain these data points?"

[Cliff Varnell]

Indeed, by denying the through-and-through hole in the windshield, how can you explain (a) the entry wound to the throat,

Readily explained by a shot from Black Dog Man circa Z190. According to Rosemary Willis

this was a "conspicuous" person who managed to "disappear the next instant"." Rosemary's

ultra-fast head-snap Z214-217 establishes the timing of BDM's sudden disappearance.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

According to the HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo Black Dog Man had "a very distinct straight-line

feature" in the region of his hands.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

There is no innocent explanation for this.

Somehow those two "micro-analyzing" EXPERTS Tink Thompson and Jim Fetzer manage

to ignore the most obvious evidence of the timing and nature of the throat wound.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Jack White]

Indeed, by denying the through-and-through hole in the windshield, how can you explain (a) the entry wound to the throat,

Readily explained by a shot from Black Dog Man circa Z190. According to Rosemary Willis

this was a "conspicuous" person who managed to "disappear the next instant"." Rosemary's

ultra-fast head-snap Z214-217 establishes the timing of BDM's sudden disappearance.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

According to the HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo Black Dog Man had "a very distinct straight-line

feature" in the region of his hands.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

There is no innocent explanation for this.

Somehow those two "micro-analyzing" EXPERTS Tink Thompson and Jim Fetzer manage

to ignore the most obvious evidence of the timing and nature of the throat wound.

There ARE innocent explanations, like retouching. Most photos of this area are retouched,

most specifically the Nix film.

Only two images show BDM...Betzner and Willis5. I believe that both may be altered.

I believe BDM may have been inserted to create confusion.

Most crucial to BDM's absence is Moorman, which does not show BDM. But Moorman

is provably altered, so cannot be considered conclusive.

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

Indeed, by denying the through-and-through hole in the windshield, how can you explain (a) the entry wound to the throat,

Readily explained by a shot from Black Dog Man circa Z190. According to Rosemary Willis

this was a "conspicuous" person who managed to "disappear the next instant"." Rosemary's

ultra-fast head-snap Z214-217 establishes the timing of BDM's sudden disappearance.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

According to the HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo Black Dog Man had "a very distinct straight-line

feature" in the region of his hands.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

There is no innocent explanation for this.

Somehow those two "micro-analyzing" EXPERTS Tink Thompson and Jim Fetzer manage

to ignore the most obvious evidence of the timing and nature of the throat wound.

There ARE innocent explanations, like retouching. Most photos of this area are retouched,

most specifically the Nix film.

So Rosemary Willis was "in" on it?

Only two images show BDM...Betzner and Willis5. I believe that both may be altered.

I believe BDM may have been inserted to create confusion.

I can see Maurice Bishop recruiting the 10-year old Rosemary Willis to

participate in this confusion.

Most crucial to BDM's absence is Moorman, which does not show BDM.

Even more crucial to BDM's absence is Rosemary Willis' description of

him as "conspicuous" and a person who happened to "disappear the next

instant."

What do you think Rosemary's CIA code name was, Jack?

[Jack White]

Indeed, by denying the through-and-through hole in the windshield, how can you explain (a) the entry wound to the throat,

Readily explained by a shot from Black Dog Man circa Z190. According to Rosemary Willis

this was a "conspicuous" person who managed to "disappear the next instant"." Rosemary's

ultra-fast head-snap Z214-217 establishes the timing of BDM's sudden disappearance.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

According to the HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo Black Dog Man had "a very distinct straight-line

feature" in the region of his hands.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

There is no innocent explanation for this.

Somehow those two "micro-analyzing" EXPERTS Tink Thompson and Jim Fetzer manage

to ignore the most obvious evidence of the timing and nature of the throat wound.

There ARE innocent explanations, like retouching. Most photos of this area are retouched,

most specifically the Nix film.

So Rosemary Willis was "in" on it?

Only two images show BDM...Betzner and Willis5. I believe that both may be altered.

I believe BDM may have been inserted to create confusion.

I can see Maurice Bishop recruiting the 10-year old Rosemary Willis to

participate in this confusion.

Most crucial to BDM's absence is Moorman, which does not show BDM.

Even more crucial to BDM's absence is Rosemary Willis' description of

him as "conspicuous" and a person who happened to "disappear the next

instant."

What do you think Rosemary's CIA code name was, Jack?

Please refer us to the testimony of Rosemary Willis regarding blackdogman.