Jesse Ventura's JFK "Conspiracy Theory" program

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim,

Does the name "Hany Farid" ring a bell? Have you--even now--bothered to read "The Darthmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", which I co-authored with Jim Marrs? Have you read it yet? Because I have just received a fascinating email from David Mantik, in which Rollie Zavada, who has so favorably impressed you, is citing this man Hany Farid for support. What's wrong with this picture?

Jim

From: Rollie Zavada [zavadarc@netacc.net]

Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 2:39 PM

To: Doug Horne; David Lifton; David Healy; Mantik, David W.

Subject: 3-D analysis of Frame 317

All,

In my presentation to the JFK Lancer Conference November 13, on The ZAPRUDER 8mm Film Understanding the Tools Available for Authentication, I mentioned that I became aware of the digital photography forensic analysis expertise of Dr. Hany Farid through my former work associations. Dr. Samir Farid, Hany’s father, worked in Kodak Research Laboratories and was aware of my interest in the Zapruder film. Through an associate he made me aware of Hany’s analysis of the photograph of Oswald holding a rifle in a backyard. Reviewing that work led me to call Hany last spring to determine his possible willingness to analyze a frame of the Zapruder film.

Very fortunately, Hany was willing if the study could be delayed to late summer, and I chose frame 317 because of the reference to the comments Doug Horne made in his: Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV, Chapter 14, November 24, 2009, pp 1294 – 1297, and pp 1356 – 1363 (of the addendum – which has the direct reference to frame 317 and the study undertaken by Sydney Wilkinson and a group in Hollywood)”

Dr. Farid has now completed his analysis and it is published on his website.

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/publications/tr10a.html

Simply stated: “This analysis shows that the shadow, which some have argued is the result of manipulation, is consistent with the 3-D geometry of the scene and position of the sun.”

Because of your position on the authenticity of the film, I encourage you to go to the website and download the full report.

If you are interested in an outstanding lecture on the subject of how lighting is used in forensic analysis, go to: Dr. Hany Farid, Dartmouth Univ.; NIST Colloquium Series: Digital Forensics, <

Rollie Zavada

Well, they will be on DVD soon.

I talked about the whole issue of revisionism in history and related it to the JFK case. Namely the idea that revisionism cannot be judged on its own. It has to be measured against a background of tradition. If not, it exists in a vacuum.

So I talked about what i Consider two early disinfo tracts: Farewell America and the Torbitt Document and their relation to Garrison.

I then discussed three modern parallels to these: Family of Secrets, Ultimate Sacrifice, and Hankey's film, JFK 2. These attempts at revisionism fail since they are not founded on any tradition or soundly based facts. In fact, they actually violate tradition and the established record.

There is a discussion of the Costner, Hunt interlude at Lancer forum right now.

PS Zavada was there. I thought he was good. He made a cogent argument about the pin registration in a Bell and H camera at 8mm being too unsteady to blow up and then reduce down without him being able to detect it.

Edited November 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[David Von Pein]

You are grasping after straws. This is another excellent example of your use of special pleading, where you cannot respond to the points I have made and, in desperation, have to fabricate one.

Only in the super-strange world of conspiracy theorists could an AUTHENTICATED-AS-UNALTERED autopsy photograph [7 HSCA 41] be considered "desperation" and a "fabricated" argument.

You, James H. Fetzer, are mind-boggling.

Naturally, you must also think that the 20+ photographic experts on the HSCA's Photo Panel were full of BS when they said this on p.41 of HSCA vol. 7:

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."

All lies, right JHF?

Edited November 26, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Fascinating! You seem to think science stands still. THE HSCA FINAL REPORT was published in 1979. ASSASSINATION SCIENCE was published in 1998, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA in 2000, and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX in 2003. You are standing back at the station in 1979 when the train pulled out in 1998--and it hasn't stopped moving yet! Catch up or bow out. Your views are past their expiration dates.

You are grasping after straws. This is another excellent example of your use of special pleading, where you cannot respond to the points I have made and, in desperation, have to fabricate one.

Only in the super-strange world of conspiracy theorists could an AUTHENTICATED-AS-UNALTERED autopsy photograph [7 HSCA 41] be considered "desperation" and a "fabricated" argument.

You, James H. Fetzer, are mind-boggling.

Naturally, you must also think that the 20+ photographic experts on the HSCA's Photo Panel were full of BS when they said this on p.41 of HSCA vol. 7:

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."

All lies, right JHF?

Edited November 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dawn Meredith]

Yea, it's a shame that Ventura doesn't bother dealing with the real evidence of conspiracy, and who was actually behind the assassination.

I thought because Dick Russell helped write Ventura's book that Dick would steer him towards the good stuff.

Instead, he deals with Prof. Fetzer, Jim Marrs and Judyth.

BK

____________________________

Geez, so nice to see nothing's changed here at the swamp. Just one researcher putting down other researchers..So educational.

Dawn

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim and Dawn,

I don't think he has even watched the show. He says

Jesse didn't deal with the real issues, such as who

was behind the assassination. He seems to believe

that Judyth was a part of it, too. Here's a test of

his understanding. How many of these issues were in

the show, Bill? Who did Jesse suggest was responsible

for the assassination or the cover-up? How much time

was devoted to Len Osanic? to Jim Fetzer? to Jim Marrs?

to Judyth Vary Baker? to Fletcher Prouty? to Jimmy Di?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice for the following:

CIA documents

Watergate

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Operation 40

Richard Nixon

Len Osanic

Fletcher Prouty

Oswald as the "patsy"

6th Floor Museum

Gary Mack

grassy knoll

Bill Newman

Warren Commission

Arlen Specter

the "magic bullet"

Gerald Ford

the back wound

"back and to the left"

marksman

Mannlicher-Carcano

Jim Fetzer

bolt throwing off target

11.74 seconds

8.84 seconds

8.70 seconds

George H.W. Bush

From TSBD to

rooming house

supposed route

witnesses

J.D. Tippit

shell casings

Jim Marrs

Texas Theater

Marina

backyard photos

Atsugi

defection

marriage

return

George DeMorenschild

HSCA investigation

letter to Bush

"suicide"

Russ Baker

Bush calls FBI

student Parrot

the third tramp

E. Howard Hunt

St. John Hunt

"back-bencher"

"The Big Event"

David Morales

Frank Sturgis

Cord Meyer

LBJ

Where was Judy Baker on the show?

I did not see her.

Edited November 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest Robert Morrow]

That David Von Pein wants to sell us a bill of goods about the Tippit shooting, when I have already explained why he is wrong:

He also implied that Lee did NOT shoot Tippit, not that he had. He began by observing that Lee had "supposedly" taken a

route far out of his way to the Texas Theater and pointed out the oddity of stopping to remove cartridges from a revolver.

In fact four casings ejected from automatics were found at the scene and were initialed by the first arriving officer.

There were two of one make and two of another. Acquilla Clemons, who was sitting on her porch across the street, said that

two men had shot Tippit and neither of them looked like Oswald. Subsequently, revolver casings were substituted for those

found at the scene, only now there were three of one make and only on of the other, none of which had the officer's initials.

where Robert Groden, THE SEARCH FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD, provides an excellent account, which has now been supplemented

by DiEugenio's time-line, does not bother me nearly as much as that he and Robert Morrow both believe the Zapruder film is authentic,

when we know that witnesses in Dealey Plaza, such as Beverly Oliver, saw his brains blown out to the left-rear, that others, such as

Audrey Rike, felt the massive defect when he was lifting the body into the ceremonial bronze coffin, and that virtually all of the

physicians at Parkland, who were experienced with gunshot wounds, confirmed that both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was seen

extruding from the wound--a wound that is NOT seen in frames 313-316, for example, but IS visible in later frames like 374!

Now in "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", which you can google, I have presented the data virtually side-by-side

for ease of access, including the McClelland and Crenshaw diagrams, multiple quotes from physicians at Parkland, and frame 374.

What is there left to argue about? DiEugeio thinks Rollie Zavada is SINCERE and THEREFORE the film has not been faked? When

a group of Hollywood film restoration experts has found that the blow-out in those early frames was painted over in black--and

it was done very crudely!--what is there left to argue about? The blow-out existed in fact (which we know from the multitude

of witnesses, including the physicians) and it is visible in frame 374, but it is missing from frames 313-316! Case closed!

And have they never read the article Jim Marrs and I published some time ago, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", in which we

explain the multiple indications that the backyard photos were faked, which include (1) that the chin is not Oswald's chin, (2)

that there is an insert line between the chin and the lower lip, (3) that the finger-tips of his right hand holding the two newspapers

are cut off, and (4) that by using the newspapers he is holding, whose dimensions are known, Jack White has been able to

demonstrate that either the man in the photo is too short to be Lee Oswald or else the newspapers were introduced too large?!

These are only a few of the ways we know that the backyard photos are faked, which is what Lee said when he was shown one of

them. Moreover, there are at least four photos in the set, where the tilt and expression of the face is the same in each of the four!

Now it does not surprise me that David von Pein is going to come onto this forum and try to convince us of things that are not

true and have been proven to be false. But that DiEugenio or Morrow should continued to hold beliefs in the authenticity of the

film or that the backyard photos are genuine simply nauseates me. They are both seasoned students of the assassination, both

of whom should know better. Yet their attitudes here are simply inexcusable. No serious student of the death of JFK should

have to be spoon-fed how we know that the Zapruder is a fake, when I have published books with dozens of proofs and John P.

Costella has presented a visual tutorial, not to mention the many articles I have written about it, including "Zapruder JFK Film

impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", and "The JFK 'Head Shot'

Paradox". If you haven't read them and don't know what I am talking about, then that simply proves my point all the more.

In the year 2010, no one on this forum who is both competent and honest should be in the position to deny that the backyard

photos are faked. Jesse may believe what Marina has told him, but she cannot have taken these photographs, because no one

took them: they were faked! And once Jack White had testified before the HSCA about the multiple indications of fakery, no

serious student should have had any excuse to linger in doubt. Jim Marrs and I included Jack's findings in our article about this,

which means that, if you two needed a refresher course, we have already provided one. Kindly cease presenting indefensible

positions about either the Zapruder film or the backyard photographs! It is incredibly embarrassing for the two of you, whom

in other respects I admire, to place yourself on the same plane as David von Pein by upholding positions that are not only false

but have been proven to be false repeatedly in the past, lest we be forced to conclude that you are not both competent and honest.

Let me ask Professor Fetzer this:

Do you endorse what Jesse Ventura did when he was talking about the Tippit murder on Tenth Street when Ventura tried to leave doubts in his viewers' minds concerning whether or not Lee Oswald dumped any bullet shells on the ground at the Tippit murder scene?

Jesse's words in that Tippit segment were nothing but plain BS, because he KNEW (or he should know anyway) that multiple witnesses (Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, and Domingo Benavides) all saw the gunman physically dumping shells out of his gun as he fled the scene.

And you don't need to dump shells from an automatic weapon; therefore, this PROVES that the gunman was in possession of a REVOLVER and not an AUTOMATIC pistol.

James Fetzer, not buying that the Zapruder film was a fake. Robert Groden has a blow up of one of the frames of the Zapruder film after the fatal head shot and it clearly shows an outward "volcano" effect of the back of JFK's head. There is your blowout. Just because some folks think the back of JFK's head appears intact in the Zapruder film, post kill shot (and not in close analysis) does not mean it was. I think it was severely damaged like a cracked eggshell at that point, only fully collapsing later on the road to Parkland and at the hospital when the back head wound at that point was quite large. By that time blood and brains had time to ooze out and fully deform the back of the head.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[Dawn Meredith]

That David Von Pein wants to sell us a bill of goods about the Tippit shooting, when I have already explained why he is wrong:

He also implied that Lee did NOT shoot Tippit, not that he had. He began by observing that Lee had "supposedly" taken a

route far out of his way to the Texas Theater and pointed out the oddity of stopping to remove cartridges from a revolver.

In fact four casings ejected from automatics were found at the scene and were initialed by the first arriving officer.

There were two of one make and two of another. Acquilla Clemons, who was sitting on her porch across the street, said that

two men had shot Tippit and neither of them looked like Oswald. Subsequently, revolver casings were substituted for those

found at the scene, only now there were three of one make and only on of the other, none of which had the officer's initials.

where Robert Groden, THE SEARCH FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD, provides an excellent account, which has now been supplemented

by DiEugenio's time-line, does not bother me nearly as much as that he and Robert Morrow both believe the Zapruder film is authentic,

when we know that witnesses in Dealey Plaza, such as Beverly Oliver, saw his brains blown out to the left-rear, that others, such as

Audrey Rike, felt the massive defect when he was lifting the body into the ceremonial bronze coffin, and that virtually all of the

physicians at Parkland, who were experienced with gunshot wounds, confirmed that both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was seen

extruding from the wound--a wound that is NOT seen in frames 313-316, for example, but IS visible in later frames like 374!

Now in "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", which you can google, I have presented the data virtually side-by-side

for ease of access, including the McClelland and Crenshaw diagrams, multiple quotes from physicians at Parkland, and frame 374.

What is there left to argue about? DiEugeio thinks Rollie Zavada is SINCERE and THEREFORE the film has not been faked? When

a group of Hollywood film restoration experts has found that the blow-out in those early frames was painted over in black--and

it was done very crudely!--what is there left to argue about? The blow-out existed in fact (which we know from the multitude

of witnesses, including the physicians) and it is visible in frame 374, but it is missing from frames 313-316! Case closed!

And have they never read the article Jim Marrs and I published some time ago, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", in which we

explain the multiple indications that the backyard photos were faked, which include (1) that the chin is not Oswald's chin, (2)

that there is an insert line between the chin and the lower lip, (3) that the finger-tips of his right hand holding the two newspapers

are cut off, and (4) that by using the newspapers he is holding, whose dimensions are known, Jack White has been able to

demonstrate that either the man in the photo is too short to be Lee Oswald or else the newspapers were introduced too large?!

These are only a few of the ways we know that the backyard photos are faked, which is what Lee said when he was shown one of

them. Moreover, there are at least four photos in the set, where the tilt and expression of the face is the same in each of the four!

Now it does not surprise me that David von Pein is going to come onto this forum and try to convince us of things that are not

true and have been proven to be false. But that DiEugenio or Morrow should continued to hold beliefs in the authenticity of the

film or that the backyard photos are genuine simply nauseates me. They are both seasoned students of the assassination, both

of whom should know better. Yet their attitudes here are simply inexcusable. No serious student of the death of JFK should

have to be spoon-fed how we know that the Zapruder is a fake, when I have published books with dozens of proofs and John P.

Costella has presented a visual tutorial, not to mention the many articles I have written about it, including "Zapruder JFK Film

impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", and "The JFK 'Head Shot'

Paradox". If you haven't read them and don't know what I am talking about, then that simply proves my point all the more.

In the year 2010, no one on this forum who is both competent and honest should be in the position to deny that the backyard

photos are faked. Jesse may believe what Marina has told him, but she cannot have taken these photographs, because no one

took them: they were faked! And once Jack White had testified before the HSCA about the multiple indications of fakery, no

serious student should have had any excuse to linger in doubt. Jim Marrs and I included Jack's findings in our article about this,

which means that, if you two needed a refresher course, we have already provided one. Kindly cease presenting indefensible

positions about either the Zapruder film or the backyard photographs! It is incredibly embarrassing for the two of you, whom

in other respects I admire, to place yourself on the same plane as David von Pein by upholding positions that are not only false

but have been proven to be false repeatedly in the past, lest we be forced to conclude that you are not both competent and honest.

Let me ask Professor Fetzer this:

Do you endorse what Jesse Ventura did when he was talking about the Tippit murder on Tenth Street when Ventura tried to leave doubts in his viewers' minds concerning whether or not Lee Oswald dumped any bullet shells on the ground at the Tippit murder scene?

Jesse's words in that Tippit segment were nothing but plain BS, because he KNEW (or he should know anyway) that multiple witnesses (Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, and Domingo Benavides) all saw the gunman physically dumping shells out of his gun as he fled the scene.

And you don't need to dump shells from an automatic weapon; therefore, this PROVES that the gunman was in possession of a REVOLVER and not an AUTOMATIC pistol.

James Fetzer, not buying that the Zapruder film was a fake. Robert Groden has a blow up of one of the frames of the Zapruder film after the fatal head shot and it clearly shows an outward "volcano" effect of the back of JFK's head. There is your blowout. Just because some folks think the back of JFK's head appears intact in the Zapruder film, post kill shot (and not in close analysis) does not mean it was. I think it was severely damaged like a cracked eggshell at that point, only fully collapsing later on the road to Parkland and at the hospital when the back head wound at that point was quite large. By that time blood and brains had time to ooze out and fully deform the back of the head.

I have not read a single book on the Z fil's authenticity or lack thereof because to me it is a side issue. However, Robert I do not believe anyone is saying that the actual film is a fake but intead that it was tampered with after the fact to hide additional evidence, such as the limo actually stopping. Or how far Connally was actually turned around.

Becuase the kill shot to the head is left in, proving a shot from the front, thus a conspiracy, I find the film valuable. I think we just need to stop using the term "fake" when referring to the Z film. Altered is a better term, and I do believe that this occurred.

I did read (My good friend) Richard Bartholomew's review of Assassination Science in the 90's but it was in bad need of an editor.

Dawn

[Michael Hogan]

But there was a lot to like about the show. And Mike, 1.4 million viewers for an off cable network like Tru Tv is not bad at all.

Remember this is not MSNBC or CNN or Fox.

Yes, there was a lot to like. I just think that for the most part, the show was preaching to a conspiratorial choir, so to speak.

Incidentally, TruTV is owned by Turner Broadcasting, a subsidiary of Time Warner.

I would have liked to have seen a short piece on the Joannides story and G. Robert Blakey's reversal, indicating

loss of confidence in the Agency -- to the point he is now in the camp of those who believe the Agency and their

people cannot be trusted.

And that is coming from the man that headed the last goverment investigation.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robert,

You are far too intelligent to pass through this life and not appreciate the extent to which the government went to

conceal the true causes of the death of JFK. If they would alter the autopsy X-rays, substitute someone else's brain,

post agents at the photo processing plants around Dallas for two weeks to make sure they got all the photos and

films, steal the body and alter the wounds (by surgery to the head and mutilating the throat wound), why would you

think they would be squeamish about reworking the film, when it would have given the game away? You know that

Greer brought the limo to a halt after bullets began to be fired, which is only one of at least fifteen indications of

Secret Service complicity in the assassination, do you not? Leaving that in would have blown the case wide open.

There are five physical properties that distinguish the original (developed in Dallas) from the substitute (developed

in Rochester). I am talking about properties of the strips of celluloid, respectively. So we know there were different

films. The chain of custody of the original was clearly broken, since one was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, the

23rd, where it was studied by one team of specialists, the other on Sunday, the 24th, where it was studied by another

team of specialists. The second film appears to have been a transitional version in relation to what we have today

since Homer McMahon, who worked on it Sunday night to prepare a briefing board of hits to passengers for an

unspecified official, reported observing six to eight impacts, which is certainly not what we see in the film today.

There are many features beyond the blow-out to the left-rear that are not seen in the current version of the film,

including brains and blood strewn across the trunk and JFK's motions under the impact of the two head shots he

received after Greer brought the limo to a halt: he fell forward from the hit to the back of his head, then Jackie

eased him up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right temple by the frangible bullet

that blew his brains out to the left-rear with such force that Officer Hargis, when hit by the debris, though that

he himself had been shot. No witness, by the way, reported the back-and-to-the-left motion of JFK's body that

is such a prominent feature of the extant film. The bulging of brains (called the "blob") to the right-front of his

head as well as the blood spray were painted in, while the massive defect (visible in frame 374) was painted out.

Here are some resources I would invite you to consider if you want to understand how we know that the film is

a fake and why it had to be altered. Dawn is not quite right when she suggests that the term "alteration" is a

better term than "fabrication", because each of its frames had to be reshot (using an optical printer) in order to

create a series of images around the sprocket areas (called "ghost panels") which link successive frames due

to images that are created when a film is exposed because of the properties of light relative to its mechanisms.

If they had not reshot the frames (in a laboratory), the deception would have been immediately apparent, since

the non-consecutive "ghost panels" would have exposed the deception. They had to change the film's content.

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-head-shot-paradox.html

Then watch John Costella's "Introduction to the JFK Film Hoax"

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

You might want to start with the last on my list, which is John Costella's video introduction to the faking of the

film. John has a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, which means he is an expert on

the properties of light in relation to the physics of moving bodies. I like Robert Groden personally, but he is not

a scientist and cannot compare with John in relation to technical and scientific questions about the film. I do

not know what he told you, but if you simply compare frame 374 with 313-316, it should be obvious where

the blow-out to the back of the head, which is visible in frame 374, has been painted over black in 313-316.

You may also want to take a look at "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK", which I have linked before.

In the process of recreating the film, they removed multiple impacts of bullets on bodies and shortened the time

line, which means that, for anyone who takes the film to be authentic, it becomes impossible to reconstruct what

actually happened. They did not only remove the limo stop, but also placed Mary Moorman and Jean Hill back on

the grass, when they had both stepped out into the street, where Jean called to JFK and Mary took the picture for

which she is know. Officer Chaney, who was riding to the right-rear, motored forward to inform Chief Curry the

president had been hit, which John discovered when he complied a record of the eyewitness reports about the

shooting, which is archived at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html When he explained to me what he had

found, I published an article about it, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

Jim

That David Von Pein wants to sell us a bill of goods about the Tippit shooting, when I have already explained why he is wrong:

He also implied that Lee did NOT shoot Tippit, not that he had. He began by observing that Lee had "supposedly" taken a

route far out of his way to the Texas Theater and pointed out the oddity of stopping to remove cartridges from a revolver.

In fact four casings ejected from automatics were found at the scene and were initialed by the first arriving officer.

There were two of one make and two of another. Acquilla Clemons, who was sitting on her porch across the street, said that

two men had shot Tippit and neither of them looked like Oswald. Subsequently, revolver casings were substituted for those

found at the scene, only now there were three of one make and only on of the other, none of which had the officer's initials.

where Robert Groden, THE SEARCH FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD, provides an excellent account, which has now been supplemented

by DiEugenio's time-line, does not bother me nearly as much as that he and Robert Morrow both believe the Zapruder film is authentic,

when we know that witnesses in Dealey Plaza, such as Beverly Oliver, saw his brains blown out to the left-rear, that others, such as

Audrey Rike, felt the massive defect when he was lifting the body into the ceremonial bronze coffin, and that virtually all of the

physicians at Parkland, who were experienced with gunshot wounds, confirmed that both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was seen

extruding from the wound--a wound that is NOT seen in frames 313-316, for example, but IS visible in later frames like 374!

Now in "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", which you can google, I have presented the data virtually side-by-side

for ease of access, including the McClelland and Crenshaw diagrams, multiple quotes from physicians at Parkland, and frame 374.

What is there left to argue about? DiEugeio thinks Rollie Zavada is SINCERE and THEREFORE the film has not been faked? When

a group of Hollywood film restoration experts has found that the blow-out in those early frames was painted over in black--and

it was done very crudely!--what is there left to argue about? The blow-out existed in fact (which we know from the multitude

of witnesses, including the physicians) and it is visible in frame 374, but it is missing from frames 313-316! Case closed!

And have they never read the article Jim Marrs and I published some time ago, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", in which we

explain the multiple indications that the backyard photos were faked, which include (1) that the chin is not Oswald's chin, (2)

that there is an insert line between the chin and the lower lip, (3) that the finger-tips of his right hand holding the two newspapers

are cut off, and (4) that by using the newspapers he is holding, whose dimensions are known, Jack White has been able to

demonstrate that either the man in the photo is too short to be Lee Oswald or else the newspapers were introduced too large?!

These are only a few of the ways we know that the backyard photos are faked, which is what Lee said when he was shown one of

them. Moreover, there are at least four photos in the set, where the tilt and expression of the face is the same in each of the four!

Now it does not surprise me that David von Pein is going to come onto this forum and try to convince us of things that are not

true and have been proven to be false. But that DiEugenio or Morrow should continued to hold beliefs in the authenticity of the

film or that the backyard photos are genuine simply nauseates me. They are both seasoned students of the assassination, both

of whom should know better. Yet their attitudes here are simply inexcusable. No serious student of the death of JFK should

have to be spoon-fed how we know that the Zapruder is a fake, when I have published books with dozens of proofs and John P.

Costella has presented a visual tutorial, not to mention the many articles I have written about it, including "Zapruder JFK Film

impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", and "The JFK 'Head Shot'

Paradox". If you haven't read them and don't know what I am talking about, then that simply proves my point all the more.

In the year 2010, no one on this forum who is both competent and honest should be in the position to deny that the backyard

photos are faked. Jesse may believe what Marina has told him, but she cannot have taken these photographs, because no one

took them: they were faked! And once Jack White had testified before the HSCA about the multiple indications of fakery, no

serious student should have had any excuse to linger in doubt. Jim Marrs and I included Jack's findings in our article about this,

which means that, if you two needed a refresher course, we have already provided one. Kindly cease presenting indefensible

positions about either the Zapruder film or the backyard photographs! It is incredibly embarrassing for the two of you, whom

in other respects I admire, to place yourself on the same plane as David von Pein by upholding positions that are not only false

but have been proven to be false repeatedly in the past, lest we be forced to conclude that you are not both competent and honest.

James Fetzer, not buying that the Zapruder film was a fake. Robert Groden has a blow up of one of the frames of the Zapruder film after the fatal head shot and it clearly shows an outward "volcano" effect of the back of JFK's head. There is your blowout. Just because some folks think the back of JFK's head appears intact in the Zapruder film, post kill shot (and not in close analysis) does not mean it was. I think it was severely damaged like a cracked eggshell at that point, only fully collapsing later on the road to Parkland and at the hospital when the back head wound at that point was quite large. By that time blood and brains had time to ooze out and fully deform the back of the head.

Edited November 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[David Lifton]

Pat Speer. . . :

You write:

If you'd had an inkling, you'd know that I went back to the earliest statements of the Parkland physicians, and have shown that what they actually said scarcely relates to what people like yourself would like us to believe they said. You would like us to believe they described an exit on the far back of the head in the occipital region. What they really described was a single wound--presumably of both entrance and exit, on the right back half of the head, primarily in the parietal region.

UNQUOTE

This is false. I wince at the thought that some eager-to-learn high school student is going to read your assertions, and come away with a complete misunderstanding of the underlying record.

The original record from Parkland Hospital describes a wound at the right rear of the head, believed to be an exit. That is in the Dallas medical reports, and it is reflected in the "first day" newspaper accounts at the time. It is also reflected in the testimony of the Dallas doctors.

There is not a single medical report from Dallas that indicates an entrance at the rear of the head, as Vincent Salandria noted back in 1965.

I'm not going to spend time and waste space repeating what is already spelled out in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence. But one Dallas doctor and nurse after another, with minor variations, repeats the same thing, again and again. Dr. Jenkins, in his report written on 11/23/63, reports how the cerebellum "protruded" through the wound. (Do you understand where the cerebellum is located?) In a 1966 telephone interview, Dr. Peters told me, and this is quoted in Ch 13 of Best Evidence, how he could see the cerebellum resting against the foramen magnum, the hole in the bottom of the skull.

When Stanhope Gould (with whom I worked closely in 1988, and who was the CBS producer for Cronkite's Watergate coverage) revisited those doctors in 1988, they repeated the same thing: an exit wound in the back of the head. (See the KRON-TV hour long documentary, with excellent graphics).

So what the heck are you talking about? I don't know how you have managed to massage the data to come up with the conception you apparently have, but based on the Parkland medical records, the Parkland testimony, the "first day evidence" from newspaper interviews, etc., it is quite incorrect.

Decades ago, I interviewed those doctors by phone, and in 1982, and 1983, did my own in-person interviews (See the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence); and I then re-filmed them in 1989. The head was so completely undamaged, when viewed from the front, that Nurse Audrey Bell told me how she had to ask Dr. Perry where the wound was, and he moved the head slightly to one side, to show her the wound at the rear.

It is you who appears to be engaged in wishful thinking.

Wake up and smell the Cappucino, Pat Speer.

If you do not understand that the head wound in Dallas was different in size and location from the head wound as observed (and reported) at Bethesda--and that, according to the Bethesda diagram, it was some 400% larger--you are missing what is perhaps the most fundamental fact of this entire case.

The body of President Kennedy was the most important item of evidence in the case against Oswald. That's why the wounds had to be altered (and bullets removed) to create a completely false appearance (by the time of the official autopsy), one that would support the (false) thesis of Oswald's guilt. This not only applies to the "head wounds," but to the throat wound as well. That is why the wound described by the Dallas doctors as a small entry, through which a neat trach incision was made, was so mutilated and enlarged, by Bethesda, that the original trach incision was not even visible. As Dr. Finck testified in New Orleans: "I do not know why it is not there."

Magic, perhaps?

Again, I repeat:

If you do not understand that the President's wounds were different-- in size and location--in Dallas, and at Bethesda--you are missing what is perhaps the most fundamental fact of this entire case.

The President's wounds--what was tantamount to the legal diagram of the shooting--were changed, to accommodate the "Oswald did it alone" theory. That's not just an "obstruction of justice." That's the key to this whole murder.

DSL

P.S. One of the most serious problems with the Jesse Ventura show was the failure to address any of this critical evidence--not the FBI report indicating "surgery of the head area", nor the demonstrable changes in the wound pattern (between Parkland and Bethesa) plus the copious evidence of an intercept, between Dallas and Bethesda. The reason the assassination of President Kennedy must have been an "inside job" is not because of some hypothesis about a Watergate burglar, or because of Hunt's "deathbed confession", or because Gerald Ford made a dumb editorial revision of a wound (10 months later). All of that is very interesting, but certainly not as important as the central fac that the President's body was intercepted in the hours immediately following the murder, and the wounds altered. For Ventura to ignore this critical evidence, and then to put out a documentary which makes the charge that we had a coup d'etat, is simply beyond my comprehension. Certainly, that is not what I would call "brilliant." I would also like to know the full story behind why the Zapruder film was shown, without focusing on the head snap. Instead, Ventura--who obviously believes there was a high level plot in this case-- is shown repeatedly saying "back and tothe left." But this is like someone fighting with one hand tied behind their back. Does Ventura's failure to use the Zapruder film to show the headsnap mean that he was prohibited from doing that, by contract? Was he prohibited from showing the Zapruder film, the way anyone would show it, to a high school audience? I'd sure like to know the full story behind that rather peculiar omission. DSL

Edited November 28, 2010 by David Lifton

[William Kelly]

Where was Judy Baker on the show?

I did not see her.

Ventura endorsed Judyth Baker's book on the radio, not his TV show.

And Dawn, you quote me and say "one researcher putting down another, so educational," when I said that Ventura's co-author of his book is Dick Russell,

who I thought would set him striaght about the most significant JFK assassination evidence, when instead he promotes the work of Professor Fetzer,

Jim Marrs and JVB.

It would be much more educational for everyone if he would have focused on Dick Russell's work, or any of the most recent research ratherthan rehasing what he did.

The same goes for the four questions posted by the Christian Science Monitor writer, as if the jacket bunched up and other such questions are pertinent.

In addition, I join David Lifton in questioning Pat's reasoning in contending the head would was one of both entrancea and exit?

What happened to the standard forensic rule of small entrance and large exit?

And in The Kennedy Detail, Agent Hill reports that he twice looked closely at the head wound and there was a a gaping "fist sized hole in the back of the head."

We have a little catching up to do,

BK

[William Kelly]

Pat Speer. . . :

You write:

If you'd had an inkling, you'd know that I went back to the earliest statements of the Parkland physicians, and have shown that what they actually said scarcely relates to what people like yourself would like us to believe they said. You would like us to believe they described an exit on the far back of the head in the occipital region. What they really described was a single wound--presumably of both entrance and exit, on the right back half of the head, primarily in the parietal region.

UNQUOTE

This is false. I wince at the thought that some eager-to-learn high school student is going to read your assertions, and come away with a complete misunderstanding of the underlying record.

The original record from Parkland Hospital describes a wound at the right rear of the head, believed to be an exit. That is in the Dallas medical reports, and it is reflected in the "first day" newspaper accounts at the time. It is also reflected in the testimony of the Dallas doctors.

There is not a single medical report from Dallas that indicates an entrance at the rear of the head, as Vincent Salandria noted back in 1965.

I'm not going to spend time and waste space repeating what is already spelled out in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence. But one Dallas doctor and nurse after another, with minor variations, repeats the same thing, again and again. Dr. Jenkins, in his report written on 11/23/63, reports how the cerebellum "protruded" through the wound. (Do you understand where the cerebellum is located?) In a 1966 telephone interview, Dr. Peters told me, and this is quoted in Ch 13 of Best Evidence, how he could see the cerebellum resting against the foramen magnum, the hole in the bottom of the skull.

When Stanhope Gould (with whom I worked closely in 1988, and who was the CBS producer for Cronkite's Watergate coverage) revisited those doctors in 1988, they repeated the same thing: an exit wound in the back of the head. (See the KRON-TV hour long documentary, with excellent graphics).

So what the heck are you talking about? I don't know how you have managed to massage the data to come up with the conception you apparently have, but based on the Parkland medical records, the Parkland testimony, the "first day evidence" from newspaper interviews, etc., it is quite incorrect.

Decades ago, I interviewed those doctors by phone, and in 1982, and 1983, did my own in-person interviews (See the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence); and I then re-filmed them in 1989. The head was so completely undamaged, when viewed from the front, that Nurse Audrey Bell told me how she had to ask Dr. Perry where the wound was, and he moved the head slightly to one side, to show her the wound at the rear.

It is you who appears to be engaged in wishful thinking.

Wake up and smell the Cappucino, Pat Speer.

If you do not understand that the head wound in Dallas was different in size and location from the head wound as observed (and reported) at Bethesda--and that, according to the Bethesda diagram, it was some 400% larger--you are missing what is perhaps the most fundamental fact of this entire case.

The body of President Kennedy was the most important item of evidence in the case against Oswald. That's why the wounds had to be altered (and bullets removed) to create a completely false appearance (by the time of the official autopsy), one that would support the (false) thesis of Oswald's guilt. This not only applies to the "head wounds," but to the throat wound as well. That is why the wound described by the Dallas doctors as a small entry, through which a neat trach incision was made, was so mutilated and enlarged, by Bethesda, that the original trach incision was not even visible. As Dr. Finck testified in New Orleans: "I do not know why it is not there."

Magic, perhaps?

Again, I repeat:

If you do not understand that the President's wounds were different-- in size and location--in Dallas, and at Bethesda--you are missing what is perhaps the most fundamental fact of this entire case.

The President's wounds--what was tantamount to the legal diagram of the shooting--were changed, to accommodate the "Oswald did it alone" theory. That's not just an "obstruction of justice." That's the key to this whole murder.

DSL

P.S. One of the most serious problems with the Jesse Ventura show was the failure to address any of this critical evidence--not the FBI report indicating "surgery of the head area", nor the demonstrable changes in the wound pattern (between Parkland and Bethesa) plus the copious evidence of an intercept, between Dallas and Bethesda. The reason the assassination of President Kennedy must have been an "inside job" is not because of some hypothesis about a Watergate burglar, or because of Hunt's "deathbed confession", or because Gerald Ford made a dumb editorial revision of a wound (10 months later). All of that is very interesting, but certainly not as important as the central fac that the President's body was intercepted in the hours immediately following the murder, and the wounds altered. For Ventura to ignore this critical evidence, and then to put out a documentary which makes the charge that we had a coup d'etat, is simply beyond my comprehension. Certainly, that is not what I would call "brilliant." I would also like to know the full story behind why the Zapruder film was shown, without focusing on the head snap. Instead, Ventura--who obviously believes there was a high level plot in this case-- is shown repeatedly saying "back and tothe left." But this is like someone fighting with one hand tied behind their back. Does Ventura's failure to use the Zapruder film to show the headsnap mean that he was prohibited from doing that, by contract? Was he prohibited from showing the Zapruder film, the way anyone would show it, to a high school audience? I'd sure like to know the full story behind that rather peculiar omission. DSL

Jim,

I gottca on Ventura.

And I followed up on David Lifton's admiration for the KRON documentary from the 25th anniversary and found it well done.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZrrEwl2edkgJ:www.examiner.com/us-intelligence-in-national/best-jfk-assassination-video+kron+documentaries&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Dawn Meredith]

Jim and Dawn,

I don't think he has even watched the show. He says

Jesse didn't deal with the real issues, such as who

was behind the assassination. He seems to believe

that Judyth was a part of it, too. Here's a test of

his understanding. How many of these issues were in

the show, Bill? Who did Jesse suggest was responsible

for the assassination or the cover-up? How much time

was devoted to Len Osanic? to Jim Fetzer? to Jim Marrs?

to Judyth Vary Baker? to Fletcher Prouty? to Jimmy Di?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice for the following:

CIA documents

Watergate

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Operation 40

Richard Nixon

Len Osanic

Fletcher Prouty

Oswald as the "patsy"

6th Floor Museum

Gary Mack

grassy knoll

Bill Newman

Warren Commission

Arlen Specter

the "magic bullet"

Gerald Ford

the back wound

"back and to the left"

marksman

Mannlicher-Carcano

Jim Fetzer

bolt throwing off target

11.74 seconds

8.84 seconds

8.70 seconds

George H.W. Bush

From TSBD to

rooming house

supposed route

witnesses

J.D. Tippit

shell casings

Jim Marrs

Texas Theater

Marina

backyard photos

Atsugi

defection

marriage

return

George DeMorenschild

HSCA investigation

letter to Bush

"suicide"

Russ Baker

Bush calls FBI

student Parrot

the third tramp

E. Howard Hunt

St. John Hunt

"back-bencher"

"The Big Event"

David Morales

Frank Sturgis

Cord Meyer

LBJ

Where was Judy Baker on the show?

I did not see her.

Thanks Jim. Methinks there are too many egos in this case. I am getting weary of people critizing others for what they ARE doing. Ed Haslam does not need defending and as far as I am concerned neither does Judyth Baker or Jesse Ventura. Hey he is getting it on tv. What are THEY all doing? Easy to be critical. easy to put down others. In fact the entire research community makes a habit of it. I have long wondered it it IS ego ir if some are not who they say they are. Either way, it's very sad that people can't just support each other's work. With one common goal: the truth. Sans ego.

Jim: Will you please see to it that Judyth gets a copy of Harvey and Lee. It really augments her work. After I finished her book I went to H and L summer of 63...most interesting. If you don't have the book you must get it. And Judyth's detractors would do well to read her book. As well as watch the video with Anna Lewis.

Dawn

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dawn,

I think she has one, but I will make sure. Your points

about the show, like most of Jim DiEugenio's, are right

on target! I have no idea why Bill believes Jesse is taking

his lead from Jim Marrs or from me. While I have written

about Ford having changed the description of the wound

to the back to make the "magic bullet" theory the least bit

more reasonable, the way Jesse tied in Nixon, George H.W.

Bush, and LBJ was brilliant! So Bill could not have been more

wrong when he suggested Jesse did not deal with those who

were responsible. That's the most the American public has

ever been exposed to in a single show! I suggested to Jesse

that the film was worth exploring that that Costella's edit--

which is available on assassinationscience.com at no charge

--would make a great story. But it is very complex and my

guess would be that he made a great start with this show. If

we are lucky, he might do another. Lifton may be right about

the most telling evidence, but it is difficult to convey complex

medical and scientific discoveries like these in an hour. As it

happens, lewrockwell.com has just published one of mine on

the issues that David cares about, which can be located here:

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

Jim and Dawn,

I don't think he has even watched the show. He says

Jesse didn't deal with the real issues, such as who

was behind the assassination. He seems to believe

that Judyth was a part of it, too. Here's a test of

his understanding. How many of these issues were in

the show, Bill? Who did Jesse suggest was responsible

for the assassination or the cover-up? How much time

was devoted to Len Osanic? to Jim Fetzer? to Jim Marrs?

to Judyth Vary Baker? to Fletcher Prouty? to Jimmy Di?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice for the following:

CIA documents

Watergate

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Operation 40

Richard Nixon

Len Osanic

Fletcher Prouty

Oswald as the "patsy"

6th Floor Museum

Gary Mack

grassy knoll

Bill Newman

Warren Commission

Arlen Specter

the "magic bullet"

Gerald Ford

the back wound

"back and to the left"

marksman

Mannlicher-Carcano

Jim Fetzer

bolt throwing off target

11.74 seconds

8.84 seconds

8.70 seconds

George H.W. Bush

From TSBD to

rooming house

supposed route

witnesses

J.D. Tippit

shell casings

Jim Marrs

Texas Theater

Marina

backyard photos

Atsugi

defection

marriage

return

George DeMorenschild

HSCA investigation

letter to Bush

"suicide"

Russ Baker

Bush calls FBI

student Parrot

the third tramp

E. Howard Hunt

St. John Hunt

"back-bencher"

"The Big Event"

David Morales

Frank Sturgis

Cord Meyer

LBJ

Where was Judy Baker on the show?

I did not see her.

Thanks Jim. Methinks there are too many egos in this case. I am getting weary of people critizing others for what they ARE doing. Ed Haslam does not need defending and as far as I am concerned neither does Judyth Baker or Jesse Ventura. Hey he is getting it on tv. What are THEY all doing? Easy to be critical. easy to put down others. In fact the entire research community makes a habit of it. I have long wondered it it IS ego ir if some are not who they say they are. Either way, it's very sad that people can't just support each other's work. With one common goal: the truth. Sans ego.

Jim: Will you please see to it that Judyth gets a copy of Harvey and Lee. It really augments her work. After I finished her book I went to H and L summer of 63...most interesting. If you don't have the book you must get it. And Judyth's detractors would do well to read her book. As well as watch the video with Anna Lewis.

Dawn

[William Kelly]

All I'm saying is that those who have access to getting information to large numbers of people should stick to the most significant evidence and not the debatable items that seem to generate the most dissention.

There certainly isn't a lack of evidence of conspiracy, so why dwell on the insignificant?

BK