THE TWYMAN/FETZER SHELL GAME

[John Dolva]

I've assembled one from two pics of a cartridge and a bullet.

[Mike Williams]

consider the shadows

KK

I don't think so. Have you ever seen a live WCC 6.5mm round?

Todd,

Quite right as the bullet is 1 1/8" long and round nosed to boot!

[John Dolva]

[Karl Kinaski]

@John Dolva: LOL...i guess you know what happens when you enlarge a pic too much: one can admire the lines of chaos..

KK

[Mike Williams]

@John Dolva: LOL...i guess you know what happens when you enlarge a pic too much: one can admire the lines of chaos..

KK

KK You said it!

That thing looks like a howitzer shell!

Best to ya buddy,

Mike

[John Dolva]

yup, spot on.

[Josiah Thompson]

I believe Todd Vaughan started this thread to show the falsity of Fetzer’s claim that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor. I know that was the reason I went to the trouble of consulting the book and pages cited by Fetzer, scanning the pages and then posting them here. Fetzer’s response, as we’ve seen, was non-existent.

Here, once again and without comment, is what Fetzer posted:

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ May 20 2010, 09:17 PM)

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, where the photos are substantiated by a exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round were found), on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and 2 spent rounds were found), and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing and the changed "evidence sheet" in which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3." Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969).

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. That another spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence" about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward. That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research.

Jim

The pages he cites and the interpretations he makes of these pages have been shown decisively to be wrong. Since Fetzer has chosen not to reply or tangle with any of the arguments or evidence presented, it would seem fair to conclude that he has nothing to say. His silence is deafening.

It seems to me that this thread has shown the real usefulness of discussion and debate on this Forum. The wonders of the internet permit actual evidence to be not just talked about but shown. In a case like this where Fetzer was party to discussions years ago that showed exactly what this thread has shown, it permits the burying of a claim that was buried years ago. This Forum’s thread can be cited in the future if Fetzer ever decides to try again what he tried here. And what was that? By citing the actual pages of a book few people had read, he hoped to bluff his way through. When the actual pages he cites are shown, this becomes impossible. I am grateful to Todd Vaughan for starting this thread and to Dean Hagerman, Mike Williams, David Healy, John Dolva, Greg Burnham, Doug Weldon and Mark Knight for joining the discussion. I am particularly grateful to Bernice Moore, Karl Kinaski, Robin Ungar and Pat Speer for their contributions to the resolution of the claim.

It helps none of us to continually contaminate the field of evidence with claims that have been refuted over and over again. Perhaps this thread could be taken as an example of what we can achieve in this regard.

Josiah Thompson

[William Kelly]

I believe Todd Vaughan started this thread to show the falsity of Fetzer's claim that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor. I know that was the reason I went to the trouble of consulting the book and pages cited by Fetzer, scanning the pages and then posting them here. Fetzer's response, as we've seen, was non-existent.

Here, once again and without comment, is what Fetzer posted:

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ May 20 2010, 09:17 PM)

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, where the photos are substantiated by a exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round were found), on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and 2 spent rounds were found), and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing and the changed "evidence sheet" in which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3." Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969).

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. That another spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence" about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward. That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research.

Jim

The pages he cites and the interpretations he makes of these pages have been shown decisively to be wrong. Since Fetzer has chosen not to reply or tangle with any of the arguments or evidence presented, it would seem fair to conclude that he has nothing to say. His silence is deafening.

It seems to me that this thread has shown the real usefulness of discussion and debate on this Forum. The wonders of the internet permit actual evidence to be not just talked about but shown. In a case like this where Fetzer was party to discussions years ago that showed exactly what this thread has shown, it permits the burying of a claim that was buried years ago. This Forum's thread can be cited in the future if Fetzer ever decides to try again what he tried here. And what was that? By citing the actual pages of a book few people had read, he hoped to bluff his way through. When the actual pages he cites are shown, this becomes impossible. I am grateful to Todd Vaughan for starting this thread and to Dean Hagerman, Mike Williams, David Healy, John Dolva, Greg Burnham, Doug Weldon and Mark Knight for joining the discussion. I am particularly grateful to Bernice Moore, Karl Kinaski, Robin Ungar and Pat Speer for their contributions to the resolution of the claim.

It helps none of us to continually contaminate the field of evidence with claims that have been refuted over and over again. Perhaps this thread could be taken as an example of what we can achieve in this regard.

Josiah Thompson

Hey Tink,

Now that you've settled that issue, can we go back to the Zapruder film for a moment?

I will bring up another thread to post where you can answer, if you will, but have you read the transcripts or heard the tapes of interviews that are part of the Sixth Floor Muse Oral History Project?

There is one interview with Zapruder's partner, his daughter, a guy from Jameson lab, one or two from Kodak and others that may contain some interesting insights and help answer some of the outstanding questions, especially following the chain of custody from Zapruder to Secret Service to NPIC.

Thanks,

BK

[Josiah Thompson]

I believe Todd Vaughan started this thread to show the falsity of Fetzer's claim that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor. I know that was the reason I went to the trouble of consulting the book and pages cited by Fetzer, scanning the pages and then posting them here. Fetzer's response, as we've seen, was non-existent.

Here, once again and without comment, is what Fetzer posted:

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ May 20 2010, 09:17 PM)

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, where the photos are substantiated by a exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round were found), on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and 2 spent rounds were found), and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing and the changed "evidence sheet" in which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3." Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969).

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. That another spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence" about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward. That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research.

Jim

The pages he cites and the interpretations he makes of these pages have been shown decisively to be wrong. Since Fetzer has chosen not to reply or tangle with any of the arguments or evidence presented, it would seem fair to conclude that he has nothing to say. His silence is deafening.

It seems to me that this thread has shown the real usefulness of discussion and debate on this Forum. The wonders of the internet permit actual evidence to be not just talked about but shown. In a case like this where Fetzer was party to discussions years ago that showed exactly what this thread has shown, it permits the burying of a claim that was buried years ago. This Forum's thread can be cited in the future if Fetzer ever decides to try again what he tried here. And what was that? By citing the actual pages of a book few people had read, he hoped to bluff his way through. When the actual pages he cites are shown, this becomes impossible. I am grateful to Todd Vaughan for starting this thread and to Dean Hagerman, Mike Williams, David Healy, John Dolva, Greg Burnham, Doug Weldon and Mark Knight for joining the discussion. I am particularly grateful to Bernice Moore, Karl Kinaski, Robin Ungar and Pat Speer for their contributions to the resolution of the claim.

It helps none of us to continually contaminate the field of evidence with claims that have been refuted over and over again. Perhaps this thread could be taken as an example of what we can achieve in this regard.

Josiah Thompson

Hey Tink,

Now that you've settled that issue, can we go back to the Zapruder film for a moment?

I will bring up another thread to post where you can answer, if you will, but have you read the transcripts or heard the tapes of interviews that are part of the Sixth Floor Muse Oral History Project?

There is one interview with Zapruder's partner, his daughter, a guy from Jameson lab, one or two from Kodak and others that may contain some interesting insights and help answer some of the outstanding questions, especially following the chain of custody from Zapruder to Secret Service to NPIC.

Thanks,

BK

It's interesting that you mention these oral histories, Bill. I've been corresponding with some folks about putting together a definitive time-line for the Z film and these would be a part of that. Is there anyway transcripts can be seen on the internet? My understanding is that the Z film was screened for the the Zapruder family over that weekend.

Josiah Thompson

[William Kelly]

I believe Todd Vaughan started this thread to show the falsity of Fetzer's claim that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor. I know that was the reason I went to the trouble of consulting the book and pages cited by Fetzer, scanning the pages and then posting them here. Fetzer's response, as we've seen, was non-existent.

Here, once again and without comment, is what Fetzer posted:

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ May 20 2010, 09:17 PM)

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, where the photos are substantiated by a exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round were found), on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and 2 spent rounds were found), and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing and the changed "evidence sheet" in which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3." Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969).

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. That another spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence" about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward. That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research.

Jim

The pages he cites and the interpretations he makes of these pages have been shown decisively to be wrong. Since Fetzer has chosen not to reply or tangle with any of the arguments or evidence presented, it would seem fair to conclude that he has nothing to say. His silence is deafening.

It seems to me that this thread has shown the real usefulness of discussion and debate on this Forum. The wonders of the internet permit actual evidence to be not just talked about but shown. In a case like this where Fetzer was party to discussions years ago that showed exactly what this thread has shown, it permits the burying of a claim that was buried years ago. This Forum's thread can be cited in the future if Fetzer ever decides to try again what he tried here. And what was that? By citing the actual pages of a book few people had read, he hoped to bluff his way through. When the actual pages he cites are shown, this becomes impossible. I am grateful to Todd Vaughan for starting this thread and to Dean Hagerman, Mike Williams, David Healy, John Dolva, Greg Burnham, Doug Weldon and Mark Knight for joining the discussion. I am particularly grateful to Bernice Moore, Karl Kinaski, Robin Ungar and Pat Speer for their contributions to the resolution of the claim.

It helps none of us to continually contaminate the field of evidence with claims that have been refuted over and over again. Perhaps this thread could be taken as an example of what we can achieve in this regard.

Josiah Thompson

Hey Tink,

Now that you've settled that issue, can we go back to the Zapruder film for a moment?

I will bring up another thread to post where you can answer, if you will, but have you read the transcripts or heard the tapes of interviews that are part of the Sixth Floor Muse Oral History Project?

There is one interview with Zapruder's partner, his daughter, a guy from Jameson lab, one or two from Kodak and others that may contain some interesting insights and help answer some of the outstanding questions, especially following the chain of custody from Zapruder to Secret Service to NPIC.

Thanks,

BK

It's interesting that you mention these oral histories, Bill. I've been corresponding with some folks about putting together a definitive time-line for the Z film and these would be a part of that. Is there anyway transcripts can be seen on the internet? My understanding is that the Z film was screened for the the Zapruder family over that weekend.

Josiah Thompson

See Zapruder Film Provenance thread for list of people associated with Z-film that are part of the Sixth Floor OH Project.

BK

[Don Jeffries]

With all due respect, I believe that significant doubts remain about how many shells were actually found on the sixth floor.

This issue is very similar to the Mauser/Carcano question, or the hole in the windshield debate, which has been discussed on this forum extensively. Josiah Thompson and others appear strangely anxious to dispel what were once suspicions all CTers shared, and attribute them to "mistakes" that can be innocently explained. Of course, we all realize that no one is perfect; law enforcement and journalists are only human and can certainly be expected to inadvertently err on occasion. However, in this case, those "mistakes" are far too numerous to be dismissed out of hand.

Much as the only two legal documents testifying to the weapon discovered on the sixth floor identify it as a German Mauser, a document that reports two shells and a live round tends to complicate things for future researchers. The fact that it was changed to three shells only makes it more suspicious to some of us, kind of like Marion Baker crossing out "drinking a coke" in his original report.

This boils down to how one interprets photos, and which witnesses one trusts, as all the film alteration threads have shown. As was the case with the windshield hole debate, I find the intense desire on the part of some critics to put this to rest to be premature and condescending. As I've noted so often before, I just don't understand the continuing desire on the part of so many researchers to shelve various doubts that most critics considered legitimate for decades. This is especially perplexing considering the fact that they offer up no new conclusive evidence in doing so. So, you're going to definitively rule out the possibility that there were only two shells found on the sixth floor because....why? The Dallas Police wouldn't have lied? Once again, more innocent "mistakes?" Because you tell us that what you see in a photo is the absolute truth?

Over the past few years, we have seen, on this forum and others, a slew of witnesses friendly to CTers bashed and discredited by those who purport to believe in conspiracy. We have also seen the growing trend, which began in the aftermath of Oliver Stone's film, of ironclad CTers suddenly and inexplicably becoming LNers. There is no question that the critical community, as a whole, has shifted towards a less extreme, more pragmatic definition of conspiracy theory in the JFK assassination. That would be all well and fine, if someone had actually destroyed long cherished CTer beliefs, or produced some compelling evidence showing that the early critics were wrong to raise questions about the suspcious deaths of witnesses, or the Umbrella Man, or the performance of the Secret Service, or the figure in the TSBD doorway captured on film by Altgens or a myriad of other examples. They haven't- unless you consider Posner and Bugliosi to have produced anything of substance.

So, at this point, what does it even mean to be a CTer? Once, that meant believing Oswald was a patsy who shot no one that day, including Tippit. It meant believing shots definitely came from in front. It meant distrusting the Dallas Police (with the exception of Roger Craig). It meant taking anything government "experts" said about anything with a huge grain of salt. It meant understanding that FBI, CIA and Secret Service personnel had lied about many things and participated in a huge coverup of the events of November 22, 1963. It meant realizing that JFK WAS different, and WAS a threat to many powerful forces at that time. It meant knowing that the record indicates JFK had definitely instituted a policy of withdrawal from Viet Nam. It meant undestanding that Oswald was a "rather poor shot," the Mannlicher Carcano was a less than reliable weapon, and that the shots attributed to him could not be duplicated, despite several attempts under more favorable circumstances.

If none of us had initially believed that all those examples I listed (and many more) represented legitimate doubts about who really killed JFK, then how many of us would even have bothered to become interested in the subject?

[Pat Speer]

With all due respect, I believe that significant doubts remain about how many shells were actually found on the sixth floor.

This issue is very similar to the Mauser/Carcano question, or the hole in the windshield debate, which has been discussed on this forum extensively. Josiah Thompson and others appear strangely anxious to dispel what were once suspicions all CTers shared, and attribute them to "mistakes" that can be innocently explained. Of course, we all realize that no one is perfect; law enforcement and journalists are only human and can certainly be expected to inadvertently err on occasion. However, in this case, those "mistakes" are far too numerous to be dismissed out of hand.

Much as the only two legal documents testifying to the weapon discovered on the sixth floor identify it as a German Mauser, a document that reports two shells and a live round tends to complicate things for future researchers. The fact that it was changed to three shells only makes it more suspicious to some of us, kind of like Marion Baker crossing out "drinking a coke" in his original report.

This boils down to how one interprets photos, and which witnesses one trusts, as all the film alteration threads have shown. As was the case with the windshield hole debate, I find the intense desire on the part of some critics to put this to rest to be premature and condescending. As I've noted so often before, I just don't understand the continuing desire on the part of so many researchers to shelve various doubts that most critics considered legitimate for decades. This is especially perplexing considering the fact that they offer up no new conclusive evidence in doing so. So, you're going to definitively rule out the possibility that there were only two shells found on the sixth floor because....why? The Dallas Police wouldn't have lied? Once again, more innocent "mistakes?" Because you tell us that what you see in a photo is the absolute truth?

Over the past few years, we have seen, on this forum and others, a slew of witnesses friendly to CTers bashed and discredited by those who purport to believe in conspiracy. We have also seen the growing trend, which began in the aftermath of Oliver Stone's film, of ironclad CTers suddenly and inexplicably becoming LNers. There is no question that the critical community, as a whole, has shifted towards a less extreme, more pragmatic definition of conspiracy theory in the JFK assassination. That would be all well and fine, if someone had actually destroyed long cherished CTer beliefs, or produced some compelling evidence showing that the early critics were wrong to raise questions about the suspcious deaths of witnesses, or the Umbrella Man, or the performance of the Secret Service, or the figure in the TSBD doorway captured on film by Altgens or a myriad of other examples. They haven't- unless you consider Posner and Bugliosi to have produced anything of substance.

So, at this point, what does it even mean to be a CTer? Once, that meant believing Oswald was a patsy who shot no one that day, including Tippit. It meant believing shots definitely came from in front. It meant distrusting the Dallas Police (with the exception of Roger Craig). It meant taking anything government "experts" said about anything with a huge grain of salt. It meant understanding that FBI, CIA and Secret Service personnel had lied about many things and participated in a huge coverup of the events of November 22, 1963. It meant realizing that JFK WAS different, and WAS a threat to many powerful forces at that time. It meant knowing that the record indicates JFK had definitely instituted a policy of withdrawal from Viet Nam. It meant understanding that Oswald was a "rather poor shot," the Mannlicher Carcano was a less than reliable weapon, and that the shots attributed to him could not be duplicated, despite several attempts under more favorable circumstances.

If none of us had initially believed that all those examples I listed (and many more) represented legitimate doubts about who really killed JFK, then how many of us would even have bothered to become interested in the subject?

Don, I respectfully disagree. Regarding this thread, I don't think Tink or anyone else thinks the evidence photos PROVE three bullets were found. The evidence photos could have been staged afterward. I certainly am open-minded regarding such. What they DO prove, however, is that the nearest shell in the photo looking west is just that, a shell. Twyman claimed it was an intact bullet. He was wrong. We should all agree he was wrong. Continuing to claim he was right only hurts our cause, if you will. That doesn't mean we have to agree three shells were found. That doesn't mean we have to agree three shots were fired from the sniper's nest.

As far as the rest of your complaint... I have read many of the early books on the assassination. A number of them were non-committal as to Oswald's involvement. Tink's book, if I recall, focused on the likelihood of multiple shooters and never really discussed whether or not Oswald was the SN shooter. Several of the mafia-did-it books, furthermore, proposed that Oswald was the SN shooter. Such thinking was not uncommon among many of the CTs of the HSCA era.

If you look through the personal letters of Harold Weisberg, furthermore, you will find that the early researchers were greatly divided over a number of issues, and that Weisberg himself--widely known as the "Dean" of the conspiracy research community, quite often scoffed at and mocked the findings of other researchers. He wrote a book denouncing Mark Lane. If my understanding is correct, he even leaked Stone's script for JFK to the media, and helped ignite the backlash.

While John Kelin's book paints a picture of the early researchers working as a community, his book also paints a picture of the breakdown of this community by 1967, when Garrison became the focus, and several researchers, most notably Epstein and Meagher, if I recall, became convinced he was a charlatan.

The community divided again with the HSCA, with Best Evidence, and then again with The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.

In short, then, I don't think there's been a consensus in CT-land in decades.

P.S. I have never for one second believed Oswald to be the man on the steps in the Altgens photo. And it wasn't because I trusted Posner and Bugliosi. It's because Robert Groden took the time to meet Lovelady, and tell his story, and publish a photo of the shirt Lovelady was wearing in the picture. (If I recall, there's news footage in the police station showing Lovelady in this shirt as well.) In any event, the point is that the best debunking of CT myths has always been performed by other CTs.

[William Kelly]

With all due respect, I believe that significant doubts remain about how many shells were actually found on the sixth floor.

This issue is very similar to the Mauser/Carcano question, or the hole in the windshield debate, which has been discussed on this forum extensively. Josiah Thompson and others appear strangely anxious to dispel what were once suspicions all CTers shared, and attribute them to "mistakes" that can be innocently explained. Of course, we all realize that no one is perfect; law enforcement and journalists are only human and can certainly be expected to inadvertently err on occasion. However, in this case, those "mistakes" are far too numerous to be dismissed out of hand.

Much as the only two legal documents testifying to the weapon discovered on the sixth floor identify it as a German Mauser, a document that reports two shells and a live round tends to complicate things for future researchers. The fact that it was changed to three shells only makes it more suspicious to some of us, kind of like Marion Baker crossing out "drinking a coke" in his original report.

This boils down to how one interprets photos, and which witnesses one trusts, as all the film alteration threads have shown. As was the case with the windshield hole debate, I find the intense desire on the part of some critics to put this to rest to be premature and condescending. As I've noted so often before, I just don't understand the continuing desire on the part of so many researchers to shelve various doubts that most critics considered legitimate for decades. This is especially perplexing considering the fact that they offer up no new conclusive evidence in doing so. So, you're going to definitively rule out the possibility that there were only two shells found on the sixth floor because....why? The Dallas Police wouldn't have lied? Once again, more innocent "mistakes?" Because you tell us that what you see in a photo is the absolute truth?

Over the past few years, we have seen, on this forum and others, a slew of witnesses friendly to CTers bashed and discredited by those who purport to believe in conspiracy. We have also seen the growing trend, which began in the aftermath of Oliver Stone's film, of ironclad CTers suddenly and inexplicably becoming LNers. There is no question that the critical community, as a whole, has shifted towards a less extreme, more pragmatic definition of conspiracy theory in the JFK assassination. That would be all well and fine, if someone had actually destroyed long cherished CTer beliefs, or produced some compelling evidence showing that the early critics were wrong to raise questions about the suspcious deaths of witnesses, or the Umbrella Man, or the performance of the Secret Service, or the figure in the TSBD doorway captured on film by Altgens or a myriad of other examples. They haven't- unless you consider Posner and Bugliosi to have produced anything of substance.

So, at this point, what does it even mean to be a CTer? Once, that meant believing Oswald was a patsy who shot no one that day, including Tippit. It meant believing shots definitely came from in front. It meant distrusting the Dallas Police (with the exception of Roger Craig). It meant taking anything government "experts" said about anything with a huge grain of salt. It meant understanding that FBI, CIA and Secret Service personnel had lied about many things and participated in a huge coverup of the events of November 22, 1963. It meant realizing that JFK WAS different, and WAS a threat to many powerful forces at that time. It meant knowing that the record indicates JFK had definitely instituted a policy of withdrawal from Viet Nam. It meant undestanding that Oswald was a "rather poor shot," the Mannlicher Carcano was a less than reliable weapon, and that the shots attributed to him could not be duplicated, despite several attempts under more favorable circumstances.

If none of us had initially believed that all those examples I listed (and many more) represented legitimate doubts about who really killed JFK, then how many of us would even have bothered to become interested in the subject?

Hi Don,

I know some people are still convinced that the shell in the photo is full bullet, but that is a matter of perspective.

You can believe there were only two shells discovered, that the rifle was a Mauser, that there was a bullet hole in the windshild and that all the Dallas Police were liers, but you also don't have to embrace every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike. By refusing to acknowledge that some of them are incorrect, those that are correct and indicative of conspiracy go unpursued.

And you should be carefull, Roger Craig was not a Dallas Policeman, but a deputy sheriff under Bill Decker. There were an estimated fifty sheriff's officers standing around outside their jail and courthouse watching the motorcade and witnessing the assassination, and many of these officers were the first to run to the grassy knoll and enter and search the TSBD. They weren't Dallas policemen, who worked for the city of Dallas. They were Sheriff's officers who worked for the Dallas county.

As for evidence of conspiracy, there certainly is enough real evidence of conspiracy that I don't think you need to use the fabricated evidence, the lies, or the propaganda and cover stories, though everyone follows what they like best.

As my associate John Judge likes to say, "They let you believe anything but know nothing."

I prefer to follow the evidence that leads to those actually responsible for the assassination, and figure out who did it and how it was acomplished.

And I think Doug Horne draws a new line in the sand, with those who try to pin the blame on Oswald or the mafia, CIA or Cubans all on one side, and those who recognize that whatever happened at Dealey Plaza was a coup on the other. Part of the Contingency Plans for a Coup at Dealey Plaza included the framing of Oswald as the Patsy.

Oswald's nickname for awhile in the Marines was "Ozzie Rabbit," and there was a cartoon caracter by that name at the time, but like the rabbit in Through the Looking Glass, Oswald's the Patsy, and if you follow him or any of the evidence that leads to him, you are distracted enough to allow the real assassin(s) to waltz away.

I'm with you when you say JFK was killed by powerful forces, but you have to pick and choose what is the best evidence to follow to nail those forces down.

Bill Kelly

[William Kelly]

Sorry Pat, I didn't mean to step on you. I agree with what you say. - BK

With all due respect, I believe that significant doubts remain about how many shells were actually found on the sixth floor.

This issue is very similar to the Mauser/Carcano question, or the hole in the windshield debate, which has been discussed on this forum extensively. Josiah Thompson and others appear strangely anxious to dispel what were once suspicions all CTers shared, and attribute them to "mistakes" that can be innocently explained. Of course, we all realize that no one is perfect; law enforcement and journalists are only human and can certainly be expected to inadvertently err on occasion. However, in this case, those "mistakes" are far too numerous to be dismissed out of hand.

Much as the only two legal documents testifying to the weapon discovered on the sixth floor identify it as a German Mauser, a document that reports two shells and a live round tends to complicate things for future researchers. The fact that it was changed to three shells only makes it more suspicious to some of us, kind of like Marion Baker crossing out "drinking a coke" in his original report.

This boils down to how one interprets photos, and which witnesses one trusts, as all the film alteration threads have shown. As was the case with the windshield hole debate, I find the intense desire on the part of some critics to put this to rest to be premature and condescending. As I've noted so often before, I just don't understand the continuing desire on the part of so many researchers to shelve various doubts that most critics considered legitimate for decades. This is especially perplexing considering the fact that they offer up no new conclusive evidence in doing so. So, you're going to definitively rule out the possibility that there were only two shells found on the sixth floor because....why? The Dallas Police wouldn't have lied? Once again, more innocent "mistakes?" Because you tell us that what you see in a photo is the absolute truth?

Over the past few years, we have seen, on this forum and others, a slew of witnesses friendly to CTers bashed and discredited by those who purport to believe in conspiracy. We have also seen the growing trend, which began in the aftermath of Oliver Stone's film, of ironclad CTers suddenly and inexplicably becoming LNers. There is no question that the critical community, as a whole, has shifted towards a less extreme, more pragmatic definition of conspiracy theory in the JFK assassination. That would be all well and fine, if someone had actually destroyed long cherished CTer beliefs, or produced some compelling evidence showing that the early critics were wrong to raise questions about the suspcious deaths of witnesses, or the Umbrella Man, or the performance of the Secret Service, or the figure in the TSBD doorway captured on film by Altgens or a myriad of other examples. They haven't- unless you consider Posner and Bugliosi to have produced anything of substance.

So, at this point, what does it even mean to be a CTer? Once, that meant believing Oswald was a patsy who shot no one that day, including Tippit. It meant believing shots definitely came from in front. It meant distrusting the Dallas Police (with the exception of Roger Craig). It meant taking anything government "experts" said about anything with a huge grain of salt. It meant understanding that FBI, CIA and Secret Service personnel had lied about many things and participated in a huge coverup of the events of November 22, 1963. It meant realizing that JFK WAS different, and WAS a threat to many powerful forces at that time. It meant knowing that the record indicates JFK had definitely instituted a policy of withdrawal from Viet Nam. It meant understanding that Oswald was a "rather poor shot," the Mannlicher Carcano was a less than reliable weapon, and that the shots attributed to him could not be duplicated, despite several attempts under more favorable circumstances.

If none of us had initially believed that all those examples I listed (and many more) represented legitimate doubts about who really killed JFK, then how many of us would even have bothered to become interested in the subject?

Don, I respectfully disagree. Regarding this thread, I don't think Tink or anyone else thinks the evidence photos PROVE three bullets were found. The evidence photos could have been staged afterward. I certainly am open-minded regarding such. What they DO prove, however, is that the nearest shell in the photo looking west is just that, a shell. Twyman claimed it was an intact bullet. He was wrong. We should all agree he was wrong. Continuing to claim he was right only hurts our cause, if you will. That doesn't mean we have to agree three shells were found. That doesn't mean we have to agree three shots were fired from the sniper's nest.

As far as the rest of your complaint... I have read many of the early books on the assassination. A number of them were non-committal as to Oswald's involvement. Tink's book, if I recall, focused on the likelihood of multiple shooters and never really discussed whether or not Oswald was the SN shooter. Several of the mafia-did-it books, furthermore, proposed that Oswald was the SN shooter. Such thinking was not uncommon among many of the CTs of the HSCA era.

If you look through the personal letters of Harold Weisberg, furthermore, you will find that the early researchers were greatly divided over a number of issues, and that Weisberg himself--widely known as the "Dean" of the conspiracy research community, quite often scoffed at and mocked the findings of other researchers. He wrote a book denouncing Mark Lane. If my understanding is correct, he even leaked Stone's script for JFK to the media, and helped ignite the backlash.

While John Kelin's book paints a picture of the early researchers working as a community, his book also paints a picture of the breakdown of this community by 1967, when Garrison became the focus, and several researchers, most notably Epstein and Meagher, if I recall, became convinced he was a charlatan.

The community divided again with the HSCA, with Best Evidence, and then again with The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.

In short, then, I don't think there's been a consensus in CT-land in decades.

P.S. I have never for one second believed Oswald to be the man on the steps in the Altgens photo. And it wasn't because I trusted Posner and Bugliosi. It's because Robert Groden took the time to meet Lovelady, and tell his story, and publish a photo of the shirt Lovelady was wearing in the picture. (If I recall, there's news footage in the police station showing Lovelady in this shirt as well.) In any event, the point is that the best debunking of CT myths has always been performed by other CTs.

[Don Jeffries]

Pat/Bill,

Thanks for your comments- I appreciate them. Of course, you're both right on many counts- we shouldn't accept any and all conspiracy theories and the critical community has always been fractured and prone to personality conflicts. I also should have specified Dallas law enforcement in general, not just the police. Pat's points about the early critics are all good ones. While many did speculate that Oswald himself was a shooter, and that the mafia was behind it all, I think that virtually all the major ones (the ones whose works we still read today) questioned almost everything and agreed Oswald was a patsy. I'm all too aware of Weisberg's antipathy towards Lane; when I was a member of Lane's Citizens Committe of Inquiry, we all joked about the "feud" between them. Weisberg was a cranky individual who was not the most pleasant man in person (during a long evening I spent with him in the early 1980s, he spent most of the time dismissing all other critics), but he was one of the most important researchers of all, and he also made an excellent case, imho, for Oswald being the figure in the doorway. That being said....

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. I don't necessarily believe that two shells were found on the sixth floor. You may very well be right, and there were three shells found and no mystery here. I also don't necessarily believe a Mauser, and not the Carcano, was found by Boone and Weitzman on the sixth floor. I don't necessarily think there was a hole in the windshield of the limo, either. My point was- there are legitimate doubts about all these issues, imo, but there appears to be an increasing percentage of my fellow researchers who believe they've been definitely settled.

I usually agree with Bill Kelly, and I strongly concur with his view that there is plenty of strong evidence for conspiracy, without all these tangential issues. I also like the idea of Doug Horne's line in the sand, and I'm firmly on the coup side with him there. However, at this point, I don't know how many researchers would agree with us. That's what concerns me- if we keep giving ground on so many questions that are minor in and of themselves, for no apparent reason, then before we know it, there will be precious little left to build any case for conspiracy on.

I respect both of you very much and hope I've made myself a little clearer.