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

[Jack White]

Woman #8 and her baby.

[Cliff Varnell]

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

I did.

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

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Woman #8 and her baby.

Jack, are you sure this isn't just a Woman in a white dress clapping the motorcade?

[John Dolva]

??

[Jack White]

Woman #8 and her baby.

Jack, are you sure this isn't just a Woman in a white dress clapping the motorcade?

Yes. She is cradling something in her arms. It is wrapped in a white blanket. I say it

appears to be a baby, and maybe explains her odd apron.

Look at her left arm. The upper arm is obscured by what she is holding. Both arms are

seen only below the elbow because she is holding something. Tell me where her upper

arms are.

It is unimportant that she is holding a baby in Croft in relation to the spiral nebula.

But it may be important in comparison to other photos.

[John Dolva]

There are blurs, she is clapping. Her blouse arms are loose. She is shown from an angle. Her shoulder and head clearly are in front of the man standing near the entrance of the TSBD building.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

Not to make the point too strongly, but we are dealing with NINE data points, where you are offering an explanation that might account for ONE. How about ( and © and (d) and (e) and (f) and (g) and (h) and (i)? Yours is the kind of response I would expect from Josiah, the PI, who specializes in focusing on one aspect of multi-faceted argument to the exclusion of the rest. So, if he was shot by Black Dog Man, as you suggest, what explains the small shrapnel wounds to the face, the damage to the windshield, the sound of a firecracker, the witness reports from Parkland, the reporter's column, the confirmation from the official at Ford, the dissimilarity in the windshield later produced, and that his aide was moved from the limo--where he would have created a barrier to a shot through the windshield--to the last car? If the shot to the throat is so "readily explained", then how about the EIGHT other data points?

Jim

[NOTE: In setting Jim Lewis to one side, I only meant about the features of the image, not the sound the shot makes passing through.]

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 addition, (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 (cool.gif. 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).

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 James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

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.....

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....

EVEN IF WE SET JIM LEWIS' WORK TO ONE SIDE, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THE DATA....

Josiah,

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

Jerry

So let's take a very good look at Altgens #6 and the close-up of the windshield you posted:

For the last week or so, you've been claiming that your informant Lewis shot windshields and produced the effect we see in Altgens #6. And this is the evidence you had for that claim?

If the editor of the National Enquirer claimed to have evidence for a three-headed sheep and finally published a photo from far away of three sheep in a pasture, it would be like what you've done. When you don't have the evidence you just make it up, don't you. For weeks you've been spouting as a fact the claim that Lewis shot windshields and produced what we see in Altgens #6. When it finally comes out that the only photo you've seen of this, shows nothing like what you've claimed, what do you do? When your little subterfuge is exposed all you can add is "set Jim Lewis to the side, if you want" and then go wandering down some other path.

What a joke!

Josiah Thompson

Edited March 18, 2010 by Josiah Thompson

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Not to make the point too strongly, but we are dealing with NINE data points, where you are offering an explanation that might account for ONE. How about ( and © and (d) and (e) and (f) and (g) and (h) and (i)? Yours is the kind of response I would expect from Josiah, the PI, who specializes in focusing on one aspect of multi-faceted argument to the exclusion of the rest. So, if he was shot by Black Dog Man, as you suggest, what explains the small shrapnel wounds to the face,

A shot or shots other than the throat shot.

the damage to the windshield,

A shot or shots other than the throat shot.

the sound of a firecracker,

Consistent with the reasonable conclusion that Mitchell WerBell III designed

a sound-suppressed weapon that delivered a blood soluble flechette to JFK's

throat circa Z190.

the witness reports from Parkland,

How do those establish that the throat shot came through the windshield?

the reporter's column, the confirmation from the official at Ford, the dissimilarity in the windshield later produced, and that his aide was moved from the limo--where he would have created a barrier to a shot through the windshield--to the last car?

How does any of this establish the throat shot as the one that went through

the windshield?

Beg the question much?

If the shot to the throat is so "readily explained", then how about the EIGHT other data points?

None of which establishes a connection between the throat shot and the t&t shot.

This speculation of yours and Weldon's ignores the throat x-ray, the witness testimony

of Rosemary Willis, the fact that JFK seized up paralyzed in two seconds consistent

with known CIA weapons testing and consistent with the preliminary conclusions of

the autopsists immediately after the autopsy.

© the location of the damage in Altgens6 and Algens7,

This has not been established.

[/b]...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).[/b]

G and H are irrelevant and I seriously question the idea that JFK's aide would

have prevented BDM from hitting Kennedy.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Geez, Jerry. You previously posted, "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." I don't alter photos, by the way, Jerry. That's Josiah's thing.

Now that he has shown you the light and you can see the difference so clearly? I think you betray yourself, Jerry. It looks right to me, albeit from an angle. I am trying to track Jim down for better photos. But while you and Dolva and others crap in your pants at the least missing detail--I next expect Dolva to ask how many grains were in the bullets that Lewis was firing--when Josiah posts rubbish about the wound to the throat being an exit wound, shows photos of a car windshield obviously not hit by high-velocity bullets, or the preposterous woman-with-bag-with-spiral-nebula-image in exactly the right position at exactly the right time to simulate a bona fide bullet hole, then you swallow it whole! No double-standard there!

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

[Cliff Varnell]

when Josiah posts rubbish about the wound to the throat being an exit wound,

And an exit wound made by a fragment from the head shots, at that?

Rubbish, truly.

One gets the impression there are parts of the Zapruder film Tink Thompson

has yet to watch.

But what about the mote in your own eye, Jim?

I find the following to be an egregious piece of fluff:

The ‘magic bullet’ theory and a coup d’etat in America

http://www.infowars.com/the-magic-bullet-t...tat-in-america/

Jerry Mazza

Infowars.com

March 8, 2010

Whether you know it or not, the “magic bullet” theory is the critical keystone of the US Government’s claim that a “lone gunman,” Lee Harvey Oswald, assassinated President John F. Kennedy. This theory has been conclusively proven false as of November, 2009, with the publication of Reasoning about Assassinations, by Dr. James Fetzer, based upon research by a team of experts.

I hate to burst your bubble Jim, but Gaeton Fonzi conclusively proved the

SBT false back in 1966 when he confronted Arlen Specter with the JFK

clothing evidence.

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/fon...th_Specter.html

Back in '66 Salandria won debates by challenging his opponents with the clothing evidence.

But like Peter Dale Scott, Vincent Salandria is a universally respected figure whose essential

conclusions are near-universally ignored.

JFK's T3 back wound and throat entrance wound are prima facie evidence of

conspiracy, and require no *team of experts* to establish.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

Just for my understanding, do you believe in the suggestions you are making or displaying your ingenuity in argument? I was marshaling evidence for why a through-and-through hole in the windshield can explain all of these data points. You seem to be taking a Thompsonian line of offering ad hoc explanations for each of the data points separately. Do I understand you correctly? Are you endorsing all of these improbable explanations as preferable to the hypothesis of a bullet through the windshield that hit JFK in the throat, made the sound of a firecracker, caused small shards of glass to cut his face, which was observed by the witnesses as they reported, described in a published article, and facilitated by moving the president's military aide out of the anticipated trajectory? I didn't think anyone took the idea of a flachette seriously, since the probability of aiming and hitting a moving target with such a device are miniscule. Moreover, your claim about paralysis seems to have a simpler explanation. Robert Livingston, M.D., explained to me that raising his hands to his throat was probably due to the Thorburn Reflex. Lattimer, of course, also advanced that hypothesis, but the advantage of Livingston over Lattimer is that Livingston was a world authority on the human brain and Lattimer a urologist. In any case, the probability of these ad hoc explanations being true at the same time is equal to their product, which, since the flachette hit by itself is miniscule, must be some tiny fraction of a very small probability. The probability of the effects I have enumerated, by contrast, is very high, if the hypothesis of a shot through the windshield were true. So the windshield shot hypothesis has a high likelihood on the evidence, your alternatives in combination very low. If you want to be rational and allocate your subjective degrees of belief at least roughly in accord with the objective strength of the evidence, then you are barking up the wrong tree. But then I doubt that you are serious about this anyway. It seems to be increasingly difficult to find serious students of the death of JFK on this forum.

Cliff,

Not to make the point too strongly, but we are dealing with NINE data points, where you are offering an explanation that might account for ONE. How about ( and © and (d) and (e) and (f) and (g) and (h) and (i)? Yours is the kind of response I would expect from Josiah, the PI, who specializes in focusing on one aspect of multi-faceted argument to the exclusion of the rest. So, if he was shot by Black Dog Man, as you suggest, what explains the small shrapnel wounds to the face,

A shot or shots other than the throat shot.

the damage to the windshield,

A shot or shots other than the throat shot.

the sound of a firecracker,

Consistent with the reasonable conclusion that Mitchell WerBell III designed

a sound-suppressed weapon that delivered a blood soluble flechette to JFK's

throat circa Z190.

the witness reports from Parkland,

How do those establish that the throat shot came through the windshield?

the reporter's column, the confirmation from the official at Ford, the dissimilarity in the windshield later produced, and that his aide was moved from the limo--where he would have created a barrier to a shot through the windshield--to the last car?

How does any of this establish the throat shot as the one that went through

the windshield?

Beg the question much?

If the shot to the throat is so "readily explained", then how about the EIGHT other data points?

None of which establishes a connection between the throat shot and the t&t shot.

This speculation of yours and Weldon's ignores the throat x-ray, the witness testimony

of Rosemary Willis, the fact that JFK seized up paralyzed in two seconds consistent

with known CIA weapons testing and consistent with the preliminary conclusions of

the autopsists immediately after the autopsy.

© the location of the damage in Altgens6 and Algens7,

This has not been established.

[/b]...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).[/b]

G and H are irrelevant and I seriously question the idea that JFK's aide would

have prevented BDM from hitting Kennedy.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

The article was written by Jerry Mazza! I was thrilled that a mainstream journalist would go near it. I don't think it would have drawn many readers to say that Gaeton Fonzi did something back in 1966! What would have been the point of that? Besides, Gaeton did not present his findings at Cambridge and have them published in a peer-reviewed international journal. This was a matter of "getting the word out", Cliff. I hope you can appreciate that. Would you be happier if it hadn't been published at all? Josiah would, but would you? The next time you get some mainstream coverage for crucial evidence that establishes the existence of a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, let me know. Jerry did a good thing. I suppose we could probably go back to RUSH TO JUDGMENT, by the way, if we were so inclined. And since David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., only performed his CAT scan long after Gaeton did his thing, the evidence I presented not only demonstrated that the "magic bullet" theory is false but that Gerald Ford had had the description of the wound changed to make it more plausible and that David Mantik has proven that it is not only false but not even anatomically possible! So I think you may want to reconsider your position. Gaeton did not do those things, but we did! This cheap, petty carping to diminish success in getting the word out is something I would expect from Josiah and Jerry, but not from you, Cliff. This only reinforces my impression that you are not really serious about these things. That is very disappointing.

Jim

when Josiah posts rubbish about the wound to the throat being an exit wound,

And an exit wound made by a fragment from the head shots, at that?

Rubbish, truly.

One gets the impression there are parts of the Zapruder film Tink Thompson

has yet to watch.

But what about the mote in your own eye, Jim?

I find the following to be an egregious piece of fluff:

The ‘magic bullet’ theory and a coup d’etat in America

http://www.infowars.com/the-magic-bullet-t...tat-in-america/

Jerry Mazza

Infowars.com

March 8, 2010

Whether you know it or not, the “magic bullet” theory is the critical keystone of the US Government’s claim that a “lone gunman,” Lee Harvey Oswald, assassinated President John F. Kennedy. This theory has been conclusively proven false as of November, 2009, with the publication of Reasoning about Assassinations, by Dr. James Fetzer, based upon research by a team of experts.

I hate to burst your bubble Jim, but Gaeton Fonzi conclusively proved the

SBT false back in 1966 when he confronted Arlen Specter with the JFK

clothing evidence.

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/fon...th_Specter.html

Back in '66 Salandria won debates by challenging his opponents with the clothing evidence.

But like Peter Dale Scott, Vincent Salandria is a universally respected figure whose essential

conclusions are near-universally ignored.

JFK's T3 back wound and throat entrance wound are prima facie evidence of

conspiracy, and require no *team of experts* to establish.

Edited March 18, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Just for my understanding, do you believe in the suggestions you are making or displaying your ingenuity in argument?

I was marshaling evidence for why a through-and-through hole in the windshield can explain all of these data points.

But your data points have nothing to do with the throat wound.

The notion that the eight other "data points" support the a) data point is a non-sequitur.

1) There was an entrance wound in the throat.

2) There was a shot thru the windshield from the front.

THEREFORE

3) The shot that struck the throat also struck the windshield.

Non sequitur, Professor.

There is nothing that establishes the throat shot as the t&t windshield shot.

Nothing.

You are conflating an argument for a t&t hole in the windshield

for an argument that the t&t hole in the windshield was caused

by the same round as the one that struck JFK in the throat.

The latter does not follow the former, Jim.

You seem to be taking a Thompsonian line of offering ad hoc explanations for each of the data points separately. Do I understand you correctly? Are you endorsing all of these improbable explanations

What "improbable explanations" do you have me endorsing?

I am proposing that the autopsists got it right the night of the autopsy.

What is so "improbable" about 3 military doctors drawing a preliminary

conclusion which turned out to be correct?

Simplest explanation, actually.

as preferable to the hypothesis of a bullet through the windshield that hit JFK in the throat,

made the sound of a firecracker, caused small shards of glass to cut his face, which was observed by the witnesses as they reported, described in a published article, and facilitated by moving the president's military aide out of the anticipated trajectory?

I've already covered these points. None of them add up to throat-shot/t&t-shot.

If JFK were struck in the throat with a high powered round it would certainly do more

damage than a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse

process, and an air pocket.

This "anticipated trajectory" to which you refer is defied by Willis 5 and BDM's position.

I didn't think anyone took the idea of a flachette seriously, since the probability of aiming and hitting a moving target with such a device are miniscule.

Factually incorrect.

1975 Church Committee testimony of William Colby (emphasis mine):

Church: Have you brought with you some of those devices which

would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people?

Colby: We have indeed.

Church: Does this pistol fire the dart?

Colby: Yes it does, Mr. Chairman. The round thing at the top is

obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a

normal .45, although it is a special. However, it works by

electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a

small dart.

Church: So that when it fires, it fires silently?

Colby: Almost silently; yes.

Church: What range does it have?

Colby: One hundred meters, I believe; about 100 yards, 100

meters.

Church: About 100 meters range?

Colby: Yes.

Church: And the dart itself, when it strikes the target, does the

target know that he has been hit and [is] about to die?

Colby: That depends, Mr. Chairman, on the particular dart used.

There are different kinds of these flechettes that were used in

various weapons systems, and a special one was developed which

potentially would be able to enter the target without perception.

Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved

designing a gun that could strike at a human target without

knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also the toxin

itself would not appear in the autopsy?

Colby: Well there was an attempt--

Church: Or the dart?

Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was

hit.

Moreover, your claim about paralysis seems to have a simpler explanation. Robert Livingston, M.D., explained to me that raising his hands to his throat was probably due to the Thorburn Reflex.

So a shallow wound in the back between 1 to 2 inches right of his spine

at the level of his third thoracic vertebra induced Thorburn Relex?

No, Jim, Dr. Livingston is entitled to his opinions but he is not entitled

to his own facts. His diagnosis was based on the fraudulent notion that

JFK was struck at the back base of the neck.

Such is not the case. Livingston needs to do his homework. Even the

Thompsonites find the Thorburn scenario ridiculous.

Lattimer, of course, also advanced that hypothesis, but the advantage of Livingston over Lattimer is that Livingston was a world authority on the human brain and Lattimer a urologist.

And neither of them knows where JFK's back wound was. IOW, neither of them

know the first thing about the John F. Kennedy assassination.

In any case, the probability of these ad hoc explanations being true at the same time is equal to their product, which, since the flachette hit by itself is miniscule, must be some tiny fraction of a very small probability.

Your unproven assumptions are dazzling, Dr. Fetzer. Many data points directly

support the conclusion that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds, which was

the preliminary conclusion of the men who actually examined the body.

The damage shown in the neck x-ray is utterly consistent with this scenario:

JFK suffered a nicked trachea, a bruised lung tip, a hair-line fracture of the

right T1 transverse process, and an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1.

No exit wound. No bullet recovered.

Same with the back wound: shallow with no exit and no bullet recovered.

JFK's actions in the limo are consistent with this conclusion: he was struck

circa Z190 and was seized up paralyzed with a "quizzical" look on his face

by circa Z230.

According to Tom Wilson's analysis of Altgens 6 there was a man in the

Dal-Tex who appeared to be aiming a device Steve Kober has identified

as similar to devices that fire blood soluble rounds.

The statements of close witnesses Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, Linda Willis

corroborate what we see in the Zapruder : JFK "clutching" at his throat

during the crucial sequence Z186 (Betzner 3) thru Z255 (Altgens 6).

The evidence of JFK being hit with blood soluble rounds is substantial;

and that is not the idle theory of a hobbyist.

That conclusion was drawn by the men who were there.

The probability of the effects I have enumerated, by contrast, is very high, if the hypothesis of a shot through the windshield were true. So the windshield shot hypothesis has a high likelihood on the evidence, your alternatives in combination very low. If you want to be rational and allocate your subjective degrees of belief at least roughly in accord with the objective strength of the evidence, then you are barking up the wrong tree. But then I doubt that you are serious about this anyway. It seems to be increasingly difficult to find serious students of the death of JFK on this forum.

Assertions are not argument. You ignore the witness testimony, the Dealey Plaza

photo evidence, the neck x-ray, the historical record of CIA operations, and the

conclusions of the autopsists. What you promote instead is unrelenting non sequitur,

and zero relevant facts.

Quote your fellow experts all you want, Jim.

I prefer the actual evidence.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

You are flooring me! The wound to the back had nothing to do with the Thorburn Reflex. That was because of the shot to the throat. The Thorburn Reflex is a bona fide phenomenon. I discussed this with him myself. Good God! That comes from a world authority on the human brain. People like Tink offer moronic drivel about the throat wound as a wound of exit and you are going to defer to him over a world authority on the human brain? Egad! The principle of reasoning involved is called "inference to the best explanation". The hole in the windshield and the wound to the throat and the cuts in his face and the sound of a firecracker are all explainable with high probability as effects of a shot fired from the location that Doug Weldon so thoroughly researched. The most likely explanation for damage in Altgens6 and Altgens7 to be in the same location and for witnesses at Parkland and even in Washington to report a hole in the windshield is because there was a hole in the windshield! I will grant this alternative. David suspects that the throat wound may have been caused by a chunk of glass that was propelled in the same direction as the bullet, which, however, was deflected and hit the roadway behind the limousine. You may be more comfortable with that possibility, given the damage you note, where there may also have been a chest X-ray substitution. But that would still mean that the wound was caused by the bullet that created the through-and-through hole in the windshield. Your appeal to an odd device to fire a flechette strikes me as quite unreasonable for a moving target, regardless of its purported range. If you are trusting Humes and Boswell and Fincke, you have no idea what you are talking about. HUMES PERFORMED SURGERY TO THE HEAD BEFORE THE START OF THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT. Haven't you heard of Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB? I just interviewed David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the leading expert on the medical evidence in the world today, on "The Real Deal". His review of Horne's work on the medical evidence may be found archived on my public issues web site at http://www.assassinationscience.com. That JFK's military aide was moved from the limo was an obviously necessary step to prepare for the shot through the windshield. I am stunned you don't grasp this. Do you understand that the autopsy X-rays were altered, that another brain was substitute for that of JFK, and that the Zapruder film was recreated to remove the limo stop and other events? Are you even aware of the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning? What do you think happened? SPELL IT OUT. Your position strikes me as quite bizarre. Tell me more.

Jim

Cliff,

Just for my understanding, do you believe in the suggestions you are making or displaying your ingenuity in argument?

I was marshaling evidence for why a through-and-through hole in the windshield can explain all of these data points.

But your data points have nothing to do with the throat wound.

The notion that the eight other "data points" support the a) data point is a non-sequitur.

1) There was an entrance wound in the throat.

2) There was a shot thru the windshield from the front.

THEREFORE

3) The shot that struck the throat also struck the windshield.

Non sequitur, Professor.

There is nothing that establishes the throat shot as the t&t windshield shot.

Nothing.

You are conflating an argument for a t&t hole in the windshield

for an argument that the t&t hole in the windshield was caused

by the same round as the one that struck JFK in the throat.

The latter does not follow the former, Jim.

You seem to be taking a Thompsonian line of offering ad hoc explanations for each of the data points separately. Do I understand you correctly? Are you endorsing all of these improbable explanations

What "improbable explanations" do you have me endorsing?

I am proposing that the autopsists got it right the night of the autopsy.

What is so "improbable" about 3 military doctors drawing a preliminary

conclusion which turned out to be correct?

Simplest explanation, actually.

as preferable to the hypothesis of a bullet through the windshield that hit JFK in the throat,

made the sound of a firecracker, caused small shards of glass to cut his face, which was observed by the witnesses as they reported, described in a published article, and facilitated by moving the president's military aide out of the anticipated trajectory?

I've already covered these points. None of them add up to throat-shot/t&t-shot.

If JFK were struck in the throat with a high powered round it would certainly do more

damage than a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse

process, and an air pocket.

This "anticipated trajectory" to which you refer is defied by Willis 5 and BDM's position.

I didn't think anyone took the idea of a flachette seriously, since the probability of aiming and hitting a moving target with such a device are miniscule.

Factually incorrect.

1975 Church Committee testimony of William Colby (emphasis mine):

Church: Have you brought with you some of those devices which

would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people?

Colby: We have indeed.

Church: Does this pistol fire the dart?

Colby: Yes it does, Mr. Chairman. The round thing at the top is

obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a

normal .45, although it is a special. However, it works by

electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a

small dart. [self-propelled, like a rocket.]

Church: So that when it fires, it fires silently?

Colby: Almost silently; yes.

Church: What range does it have?

Colby: One hundred meters, I believe; about 100 yards, 100

meters.

Church: About 100 meters range?

Colby: Yes.

Church: And the dart itself, when it strikes the target, does the

target know that he has been hit and [is] about to die?

Colby: That depends, Mr. Chairman, on the particular dart used.

There are different kinds of these flechettes that were used in

various weapons systems, and a special one was developed which

potentially would be able to enter the target without perception.

Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved

designing a gun that could strike at a human target without

knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also the toxin

itself would not appear in the autopsy?

Colby: Well there was an attempt--

Church: Or the dart?

Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was

hit.

Moreover, your claim about paralysis seems to have a simpler explanation. Robert Livingston, M.D., explained to me that raising his hands to his throat was probably due to the Thorburn Reflex.

So a shallow wound in the back between 1 to 2 inches right of his spine

at the level of his third thoracic vertebra induced Thorburn Relex?

No, Jim, Dr. Livingston is entitled to his opinions but he is not entitled

to his own facts. His diagnosis was based on the fraudulent notion that

JFK was struck at the back base of the neck.

Such is not the case. Livingston needs to do his homework. Even the

Thompsonites find the Thorburn scenario ridiculous.

Lattimer, of course, also advanced that hypothesis, but the advantage of Livingston over Lattimer is that Livingston was a world authority on the human brain and Lattimer a urologist.

And neither of them knows where JFK's back wound was. IOW, neither of them

know the first thing about the John F. Kennedy assassination.

In any case, the probability of these ad hoc explanations being true at the same time is equal to their product, which, since the flachette hit by itself is miniscule, must be some tiny fraction of a very small probability.

Your unproven assumptions are dazzling, Dr. Fetzer. Many data points directly

support the conclusion that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds, which was

the preliminary conclusion of the men who actually examined the body.

The damage shown in the neck x-ray is utterly consistent with this scenario:

JFK suffered a nicked trachea, a bruised lung tip, a hair-line fracture of the

right T1 transverse process, and an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1.

No exit wound. No bullet recovered.

Same with the back wound: shallow with no exit and no bullet recovered.

JFK's actions in the limo are consistent with this conclusion: he was struck

circa Z190 and was seized up paralyzed with a "quizzical" look on his face

by circa Z230.

According to Tom Wilson's analysis of Altgens 6 there was a man in the

Dal-Tex who appeared to be aiming a device Steve Kober has identified

as similar to devices that fire blood soluble rounds.

The statements of close witnesses Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, Linda Willis

corroborate what we see in the Zapruder : JFK "clutching" at his throat

during the crucial sequence Z186 (Betzner 3) thru Z255 (Altgens 6).

The evidence of JFK being hit with blood soluble rounds is substantial;

and that is not the idle theory of a hobbyist.

That conclusion was drawn by the men who were there.

The probability of the effects I have enumerated, by contrast, is very high, if the hypothesis of a shot through the windshield were true. So the windshield shot hypothesis has a high likelihood on the evidence, your alternatives in combination very low. If you want to be rational and allocate your subjective degrees of belief at least roughly in accord with the objective strength of the evidence, then you are barking up the wrong tree. But then I doubt that you are serious about this anyway. It seems to be increasingly difficult to find serious students of the death of JFK on this forum.

Assertions are not argument. You ignore the witness testimony, the Dealey Plaza

photo evidence, the neck x-ray, the historical record of CIA operations, and the

conclusions of the autopsists -- all in favor of unrelenting non sequitur and zero

relevant facts.

Quote your fellow experts all you want, Jim.

I prefer the actual evidence.

Edited March 18, 2010 by James H. Fetzer