DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Dean Hagerman]

A question or three for Tink:

1) Do you believe the Warren Report is essentially accurate or do you believe it is essentially flawed?

2) Are your current beliefs essentially unchanged from what they were when you wrote Six Seconds? Are they contrary? Is this a gray area?

3) Do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?

I'm not being as facetious as it might appear. I just haven't heard or read what you currently hold to be true about this subject in a vey long time.

Thanks--

Sure thing, Greg. Sylvia Meagher once pointed that it was not important what any particular person believed. What was important was the evidence (or lack of it) for that belief. But you ask rather simple and obvious questions that I’ll be pleased to answer.

“1) Do you believe the Warren Report is essentially accurate or do you believe it is essentially flawed?”

“Flawed” is too gentle a term for what the Warren Report perpetrated. As countless folks have pointed out over the years, its conclusions do not grow out of the evidence. In instance after instance, their conclusions conflict with the evidence.

“2) Are your current beliefs essentially unchanged from what they were when you wrote Six Seconds? Are they contrary? Is this a gray area?”

They are essentially unchanged. I made some mistakes... some minor, at least one major. But the overall claim of Six Seconds... that is, that shots came from more than one location... has become more and more indisputable as the years pass.

“3) Do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?”

I’m not sure that Lee Harvey Oswald even acted that day... not to say “acted alone.” I am persuaded that shots were fired from the Depository but I am not persuaded that Oswald fired them. I never have been so persuaded.

*******************

At the risk of boring you and others, let me add a few thoughts about this case.

From the beginning, the only thing I’ve been interested in concerns what happened that day in Dealey Plaza. Because of that, I’m largely ignorant of the numerous conspiracy theories about who did it and why did they do it. It seemed to me that there were three questions that had to be answered in logical order: (1) What happened? (2) Who did it? (3) Why did they do it? I’ve been stuck for forty-some years on the first question.

If you’re going to figure out what happened, you have to decide first and foremost what you are going to take as evidence. The researches of John Hunt, Gary Aguilar and myself with respect to CE 399 indicate the problems with only one piece of physical evidence. There were hundreds of people in and around Dealey Plaza that day and we have a plethora of their eye-witness observations. Some are credible some are not. All are subject to the caveats Elizabeth Loftus laid out in her groundbreaking studies on eyewitness testimony. Almost every factor Loftus lays out as degrading the reliability of eyewitness testimony was present in Dealey Plaza that day. Where, then, can we turn for some bedrock of evidence upon which to base our judgments of what happened in Dealey Plaza. It seems to me that we have to turn to the numerous films and photos taken that day by press photographers and ordinary citizens in Dealey Plaza. We know that the event happened in only one way. We know that photos or films of the same event should fit together without discrepancy except for the point of view of the photographer. If they did not fit together... if one film or photo was discrepant... it would stand out like a sore thumb. The fitting together of all the films and photos taken that day is both the test and guarantee of their authenticity. They form a seamless, self-authenticating whole. The zealotry of Professor Fetzer and his collaborators over fifteen years to show any discrepancy serves to buttress the authenticity of these films and photos. We should be grateful for their efforts. We would not know that these films and photos are authentic if no one had tried to show they were fakes and failed in that attempt.

Don Jefferies has complained that it’s difficult to determine my views on anything “that doesn’t pertain to Jim Fetzer.” It may seem that way. Actually, I have discovered a small community of folks who don’t often post on this or any board and I find my email discussions with them productive. I think the threshold question in this case is whether or not it is provable that shots were fired from a location other than the Depository. I’m working on that and finding that the accretion of evidence over time is impressive. Thus far, however, my project has not lent itself to discussions on the internet. I suspect this will change and I am looking forward to getting assistance and opinions from the members who post here.

Finally, I should indicate why I may have given Don Jefferies the opinion he holds. It has to do with the difference between advocacy and scholarship and between advocacy and investigation.

I learned a bit about scholarship while I was in the academic world. The scholar does not just advocate a point of view. He/she does not build a case like an attorney builds a case for trial. Rather, the scholar looks at both sides of a particular question, catalogues the evidence on both sides and then offers a solid opinion as to the emergent truth. He/she also is scrupulous about admitting a mistake when one has been made.

The same distinction is apparent in the world of the courts. Within the courtroom, the attorney is playing the game of persuasion. His job is to persuade the judge or jury of a particular version of the truth. His job is simple advocacy. Admitting he is wrong when he is wrong is not part of his job description. The job of the investigator is different. In criminal defense, the investigator of course has his eye out for those facts or possible interpretation of facts that buttress the case of one’s client. But that is not the sole job of the investigator. The proper job description is to find what is out there and report that back. For example, when I was working for Stephen Jones in his defense of Tim McVeigh, my job was not just to report back the facts that helped McVeigh’s case. As any defense attorney knows, he wants to know the good with the bad... the facts that hurt his case along with the facts that help his case. In this sense, the same distinction between advocacy and scholarship is found in the distinction between advocacy and investigation. I know how to build a case and I know how to investigate a case. With respect to the Kennedy assassination, I’m doing the latter.

Professor Fetzer shows again and again that he is doing the former and it gets my goat. For over a decade he’s been using an argument that 19th Century logic books label “poisoning of the well.” Since I used sketches drawn from the Zapruder film in Six Seconds, he’s been claiming that my defense of the Zapruder film’s authenticity is just an old fart defending his reputation. Of course, the same argument applies to Fetzer ten times over since he has been trying to make his reputation by impugning the Zapruder film. This is pure advocacy that has nothing to do with scholarship or evidence. It’s the sort of thing a lawyer might or might not try before a jury he took to be stupid.

But no one reading this needs a catalogue of Professor Fetzer’s style of advocacy. It’s there for all to see.

JT

Tink

Thank you for replying to Gregs questions, I am very happy to see that you still back up your work in SSID, not that I had ever thought that you had abandoned it, its just with all of the arguments back and forth between you and Jim about alteration other issues become blurry

I am disappointed that you have changed your mind on the double head hit theory which I still strongly believe in to this day

The reason I so strongly believe in it is because when I first read your book back in 1988 I thought your research on that subject was very sound and I still feel that way

[Jack White]

I am still not being allowed to post images, so I have asked Dr. Fetzer to post two new studies here.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Always nice to see Bill Kelly here, as elsewhere, kissing Tink's butt. Not to make too fine a point of it, but this guy has not explained how he reconciles the massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head with his advocacy of the authenticity of the Zapruder film. What this demonstrates is that there is a fundamental incoherence at the core of his position, an inconsistency that deprives it of any probative significance. From inconsistent premises, every conclusion follows!

I would also observe that Tink grossly misrepresents the findings of Elizabeth Loftus. As David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., already explained in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), page 178, a Harvard study she cites shows that, when it comes to the salient features of a situation, subjects were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their recollections. So if Tink understands this study, which is reported in her work, then he has to know that he is misrepresenting these findings.

He is blowing smoke and playing his game of dodge and fake, which is his technique. And in this latest post, he shows again the complete lack of respect for truth and evidence that has distinguished the later stages of his career, where, in order to make the argument he has made here, he has to completely discard Gary Aguilar's impeccable point about the improbability of the witnesses to the back of the head wound being mistaken, as Bernice pointed out in her post #114:

JOHN F. KENNEDY'S FATAL WOUNDS:

THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS

FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT

by

Gary L. Aguilar, MD

San Francisco, California, August, 1994

If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem.

So which is it, Tink? You, not I, are the master bloviator when it comes to evading the crucial question. You have come down on both sides of the question regarding Gary Aguilar's work. You want to disregard witness testimony by grossly distorting Elizabeth Loftus's work. Yet Gary had made the compelling case that it is overwhelmingly improbable that they are wrong. So what's the score: Do you stand by Gary's work or do you continue to insist the film is authentic?

This man not only betrays the search for truth but he is willing to denigrate or misrepresent the work of those with whom he likes to align himself. He grossly misrepresents the work of Gary Aguilar by using his misrepresentation of Loftus to create uncertainty about his findings, even though Gary spelled it out as you have seen. And he evades the crucial question of whether there was a massive hole in the back of the head, which would invalidate the Zapruder film.

In order to deny the presence of a massive hole in the back of the head, Tink has to distort or ignore the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza; Clint Hill, who was the first person to see it "up close and personal"; physician after physician at Parkland, who also described cerebellum extruding from this "fist sized" defect at the back of his head; others at Bethesda (before Humes enlarged it), and even the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, who prepared the body for burial.

Abraham Lincoln observed that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. It is a very simple proposition: Does he agree that there was a massive defect to the back of the head? Because if he does, then his defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if he does not, then his credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink? Tell us.

Many thanks for your valuable input Tink,

Bill Kelly

Edited March 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin,

I was able to scan it, as you can see here, but I was unable to add it to the earlier post, which I attempted to do.

What is most important to notice is that this is a 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional phenomenon, because the wound was at the back of the head but to its right side. If you review the earlier sketches by Charles Crenshaw, noting in particular the view from the side, and bear in mind the consistency with which it is described by witness after witness as roughly round and about 3" in diameter (or the size of your fist when you double it up) and you will see these considerations have to be applied to the HSCA diagram.

Here is Chuck's double-aspect diagram. So I recommend you shift it to the left about an inch, which should bring it into the occipital area, as Crenshaw drew it. And bear in mind that that location is confirmed by the Harper fragment, which is a piece of skull from the occipital area. I therefore think you should move it just a bit for the reasons I have explained and let's see what it looks like. Notice that the elongated image appears to be more of a perspectival phenomenon than a feature that was distinctive of the wound, which was basically circular.

Edited March 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

My brief replies are in bold-face:

Always nice to see Bill Kelly here, as elsewhere, kissing Tink's ass. Not to make too fine a point of it, but this guy has not explained how he reconciles the massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head with his advocacy of the authenticity of the Zapruder film. What this demonstrates is that there is a fundamental incoherence at the core of his position, an inconsistency that deprives it of any probative significance. From inconsistent premises, every conclusion follows!

Always nice to see you once again, Professor, leading with your chin! The Moorman photo was taken at Z 315 from the left and rear of the President. It was taken from a position much closer to the President and from a much better angle to show the "massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head" you keep trunpeting. Was it too faked up? The only sensible conclusion is that neither the Zapruder film nor the Moorman photo show such "a massive blowout." This does not mean that later observations by Parkland personnel are incorrect. The evidence concerning the President's head wounds is an immense mess. Anyone like you who claims to have a simple and clear understanding of what they are is just blowing smoke. To do this tangle of evidence justice requires acute and prolonged study. Something you apparently do not have time for.

I would also observe that Tink grossly misrepresents the findings of Elizabeth Loftus. As David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., already explained in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), page 178, a Harvard study she cites shows that, when it comes to the salient features of a situation, subjects were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their recollections. So if he understands this study, which is reported in her work, then he has to know that he is misrepresenting the findings.

Elizabeth Loftus' defining work Eyewitness Testimony revolutionized the treatment of eyewitnesses by thousands of attorneys in tens of thousands of cases. Just for starters, the back cover of her book states: "As pertinent today as when it was first published more than a decade ago, this engaging and highly praised study makes the psychological case against the reliability of the eyewitness." In her book she did cite a study by J.K. Marshall, K.H. Marquis and S. Oskamp entitled, "Effects of kind of questions of interrogation on accuracy and completeness of testimony," Harvard Law Review 84 (1971): 1620-1643. I have that article. Its published abstract states: "Underlying the rules of courtroom procedure and evidence are assumptions about human behavior. The authors, interested in how people perform as witnesses, conducted an experiment to measure the effects of various modes of interrogation on the quality of testimony. Their results cast some doubt on the soundness of the present rules for examining witnesses and suggest several new procedures." You say that by citing this article Elizabeth Loftus somehow undermines the thesis of her book that I have accurately stated. Nonsense.

The rest of your post is your characteristic bloviation that is not worth a reply.

JT

He is blowing smoke and planing his game of dodge and fake, which is his technique. And in this latest post, he shows again the complete lack of respect for truth and evidence that distinguishes the later stages of his career, where, in order to make the argument he has made here, he has to completely discard Gary Aguilar's impeccable point about the improbability of the witnesses to the back of the head wound being mistaken, as Bernice pointed out in her post #114:

JOHN F. KENNEDY'S FATAL WOUNDS:

THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS

FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT

by

Gary L. Aguilar, MD

San Francisco, California, August, 1994

If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem.

So which is it, Tink? You, not I, are the master bloviator when it comes to evading the crucial question. You have come down on both sides of the question regarding Gary Aguilar's work. You want to discount witness testimony by grossly distorting Elizabeth Loftus's work. Yet Gary had made the compelling case that it is overwhelmingly improbable that they are wrong. So what's the score: Do you stand by Gary's work or do you continue to insist the film is authentic?

This man not only betrays the search for truth but he is willing to denigrate or misrepresent the work of those with whom he likes to align himself. He grossly misrepresents the work of Gary Aguilar by using his misrepresentation of Loftus to create uncertainty about his findings, even though Gary spelled it out as you have seen. And he evades the crucial question of whether there was a massive hole in the back of the head, which would invalidate the Zapruder film.

In order to deny the presence of a massive hole in the back of the head, Tink has to distort or ignore the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza; Clint Hill, who was the first person to see it "up close and personal"; physician after physician at Parkland, who described cerebellum extruding from this "fist sized" defect at the back of his head; others at Bethesda (before Humes enlarged it), and even the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, who prepared the body for burial.

Abraham Lincoln observed that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. It is a very simple proposition: Does he agree that there was a massive defect to the back of the head? Because if he does, then his defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if he does not, then his credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink? Tell us.

Many thanks for your valuable input Tink,

Bill Kelly

[Don Jeffries]

Thank you, Josiah, for detailing your views for us. However, the question I asked was very simple, and you didn't quite address it directly in your post.

Simply put; how do you reconcile the photo/film/x-ray record with your belief that the head shot came from the right front? Without that massive blowout in the back, where did such a shot exit?

I humbly suggest that this is really the issue that defines the whole film alteration debate.

[Josiah Thompson]

I don't think it does. A shot striking tangentially high in the temporal-parietal section of the brain would not blow out a section of the occiput. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that there was no avulsive wound in the back of the head. But I'll let you guys argue about it.

JT

Thank you, Josiah, for detailing your views for us. However, the question I asked was very simple, and you didn't quite address it directly in your post.

Simply put; how do you reconcile the photo/film/x-ray record with your belief that the head shot came from the right front? Without that massive blowout in the back, where did such a shot exit?

I humbly suggest that this is really the issue that defines the whole film alteration debate.

[Jack White]

Thank you, Josiah, for detailing your views for us. However, the question I asked was very simple, and you didn't quite address it directly in your post.

Simply put; how do you reconcile the photo/film/x-ray record with your belief that the head shot came from the right front? Without that massive blowout in the back, where did such a shot exit?

I humbly suggest that this is really the issue that defines the whole film alteration debate.

I could not disagree more with this last statement. And it shows just how polarizing this has become.

Robert Groden does not beleive the film is forged. Yet, he is one of the foremost advocates for this hole in the back of Kennedy's head. In fact, Fetzer uses his poster of the Dallas doctors to make this point.

Gary Aguilar does not believe the film is forged--or he is at least an agnostic. Yet, he is one of the foremost advocates of this hole in the back of Kennedy's head. In fact, Fetzer uses his chart to make this point.

So then how does this issue "define the whole film alteration debate"?

It does not. If you ask Groden about the hole in the back of Kennedy's head in the Z film, he will say, "Yes you can see it. Take a look at especially the hard cover version of High Treason, the last plate."' How do I know he will say this? He told me this himself. And he will tell you that also Don. Did you ask him?

Bill Miller's coning frames are very compelling in this regard also.

So no, this sample above does not define the debate. Only with Fetzer does it define the debate since he has this blood feud with TInk. Kelley thanks TInk for his answers to Burnham's questions, and in Feetzer's world it is butt kissing. I answer Burnham's questions in advance from TInk's previous statements, then I am a shill. Even though Tink's eventual answers were what I predicted they would be.

I don't even know if Fetzer realizes just what a polarizing force he has become in the JFK community. He first did this with 9-11 where he alienated the more distinguished and responsible critics like Steve Jones and Mike Green. Now by forcing the issue on Z film alteration, and making it an unbelievably stupid all or nothing issue, he does the same thing here. I mean this is almost as dumb as what he did with Judy Baker.

And here is the bottom line: WHY???

Neither of these issues, Baker or Z film animation, are worth what he puts into them. I mean what mobility have they given the JFK case? What will the other side do to these issues? Anyone want to take a guess?

To do what he does here and with Baker, to split, insult and polarize the community simply because he is personally invested in the issue, and has this feud with Tink is to me, a guy who has lost his sense of balance and proportion. There are so many other things that the ARRB did a very good job on that further our cause without this baggage.

But as with Baker, he persists. Don Quixote with a buzzsaw.

BTW, he still buys Baker.

Whew.

Having studied the JFK matter for nearly 50 years, I am more than a casual observer. I have studied all the books

and all the views of all the authors and researchers. Therefore I feel qualified to judge their work. This is a preface

to saying that the people with the greatest OVERALL GRASP of what happened are Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs.

The greatest SPECIALISTS are John Armstrong (LHO) and David Lifton (medical). None of these are perfect, and in

fact have several weaknesses...but all are at least 90 percent on target.

On 911, few can come close to Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood.

Jack

[Don Jeffries]

Jim,

I guess that was a bit simplistic of me. Let me elaborate a bit. I think that the debate about film alteration centers around what we can see, in terms of JFK's head wounds, versus what the medical personnel in Dallas reported, and what the photos and x-rays show. I know that was one of my early questions; why does it appear, to the naked eye, that the side of JFK's face was blown off, yet witnesses reported no real damage in that area?

I understand the skull flap argument. In my view, it's not a very good explanation. And the fact we have such debates about whether or not a blowout in the back of the head is visible in the Zapruder film or not is indicative that the wounds are certainly not clear. It then becomes a battle of the "experts" and one ultimately sees what one wants to see, to quote Paul Simon. That's why I generally stay out of the alteration threads, although I have noted that they invariably serve to bring Josiah Thompson into the fray, which I think is a good thing.

I agree with you that film alteraton is not one of the most crucial issues at hand. I think there are far more provable areas of conspiracy. And, as you observed, this has become the most contentious aspect of JFK assassination research. On the other hand, while Jim Fetzer's zeal for alteration has been roundly criticized, what I'm amazed at is the passion so many have for debunking any notion that the films are not legitimate. I can understand the Zapruder family feeling this way, but does anyone else really have such a vested interest in its inviolability?

I believe that much of the opposition to the notion of film alteration is fueled by Jim Fetzer's unfortunate tendency to "lead with his chin," as Josiah noted earlier. As I have told him before, he loses debates that he shouldn't, because neutral observers object to his style. On substance, I believe he makes some great points, and he almost always wins my support. He's raised some great questions, and has a wonderful way of thinking outside the box. Now, if he'd only start counting to 100 before hitting enter....

Edited March 28, 2011 by Don Jeffries

[Robin Unger]

Robin,

I was able to scan it, as you can see here, but I was unable to add it to the earlier post, which I attempted to do.

What is most important to notice is that this is a 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional phenomenon, because the wound was at the back of the head but to its right side. If you review the earlier sketches by Charles Crenshaw, noting in particular the view from the side, and bear in mind the consistency with which it is described by witness after witness as roughly round and about 3" in diameter (or the size of your fist when you double it up) and you will see these considerations have to be applied to the HSCA diagram.

Here is Chuck's double-aspect diagram. So I recommend you shift it to the left about an inch, which should bring it into the occipital area, as Crenshaw drew it. And bear in mind that that location is confirmed by the Harper fragment, which is a piece of skull from the occipital area. I therefore think you should move it just a bit for the reasons I have explained and let's see what it looks like. Notice that the elongated image appears to be more of a perspectival phenomenon than a feature that was distinctive of the wound, which was basically circular.

Thanks Jim.

Is this closer to what you see.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

(4) non-sequential Zapruder frames showing the grey patch

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Josiah ducks and feints and doesn't address the questions. Notice that, in responding to the citation of a study from Harvard that showed observers were 98% accurate and 98% complete regarding features of situations they took to be salient--where features are "salient" when they are important to the observer--he quotes some puff piece from the book cover! Well, David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., first discovered this finding, which he cites on page 278 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), where I confirm it on page 210. David has a Ph.D. in physics from Wisconsin and an M.D. from Michigan. My Ph.D. is in the history and the philosophy of science, where my dissertation was on the relationship between probability and explanation. My most recent book, my 29th, is a collection of studies by a dozen distinguished philosophers entitled, THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010). David and I are most unlikely to be wrong about this. Josiah studied the Danish mystical philosopher, Kierkegaard, about whom he wrote a book. Kierkegaard did not believe in reason, just as Josiah does not believe in statistics. If you doubt my implication that he is pulling one of his patented "snow-jobs" here, continue after his dismissal of everything else--which was a citation from Gary Aguilar, M.D., about the reliability of the witnesses reports regarding the blow-out to the back of the head, which was certainly salient. And it should be obvious why: the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296! Why do you supposed he wanted to cut off his response at precisely that point? Students of JFK are going to have to decide if they care about reason and evidence or side with obfuscationists and irrationalists.

My brief replies are in bold-face:

Always nice to see Bill Kelly here, as elsewhere, kissing Tink's ass. Not to make too fine a point of it, but this guy has not explained how he reconciles the massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head with his advocacy of the authenticity of the Zapruder film. What this demonstrates is that there is a fundamental incoherence at the core of his position, an inconsistency that deprives it of any probative significance. From inconsistent premises, every conclusion follows!

Always nice to see you once again, Professor, leading with your chin! The Moorman photo was taken at Z 315 from the left and rear of the President. It was taken from a position much closer to the President and from a much better angle to show the "massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head" you keep trunpeting. Was it too faked up? The only sensible conclusion is that neither the Zapruder film nor the Moorman photo show such "a massive blowout." This does not mean that later observations by Parkland personnel are incorrect. The evidence concerning the President's head wounds is an immense mess. Anyone like you who claims to have a simple and clear understanding of what they are is just blowing smoke. To do this tangle of evidence justice requires acute and prolonged study. Something you apparently do not have time for.

I would also observe that Tink grossly misrepresents the findings of Elizabeth Loftus. As David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., already explained in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), page 178, a Harvard study she cites shows that, when it comes to the salient features of a situation, subjects were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their recollections. So if he understands this study, which is reported in her work, then he has to know that he is misrepresenting the findings.

Elizabeth Loftus' defining work Eyewitness Testimony revolutionized the treatment of eyewitnesses by thousands of attorneys in tens of thousands of cases. Just for starters, the back cover of her book states: "As pertinent today as when it was first published more than a decade ago, this engaging and highly praised study makes the psychological case against the reliability of the eyewitness." In her book she did cite a study by J.K. Marshall, K.H. Marquis and S. Oskamp entitled, "Effects of kind of questions of interrogation on accuracy and completeness of testimony," Harvard Law Review 84 (1971): 1620-1643. I have that article. Its published abstract states: "Underlying the rules of courtroom procedure and evidence are assumptions about human behavior. The authors, interested in how people perform as witnesses, conducted an experiment to measure the effects of various modes of interrogation on the quality of testimony. Their results cast some doubt on the soundness of the present rules for examining witnesses and suggest several new procedures." You say that by citing this article Elizabeth Loftus somehow undermines the thesis of her book that I have accurately stated. Nonsense.

The rest of your post is your characteristic bloviation that is not worth a reply.

JT

He is blowing smoke and planing his game of dodge and fake, which is his technique. And in this latest post, he shows again the complete lack of respect for truth and evidence that distinguishes the later stages of his career, where, in order to make the argument he has made here, he has to completely discard Gary Aguilar's impeccable point about the improbability of the witnesses to the back of the head wound being mistaken, as Bernice pointed out in her post #114:

JOHN F. KENNEDY'S FATAL WOUNDS:

THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS

FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT

by

Gary L. Aguilar, MD

San Francisco, California, August, 1994

If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem.

So which is it, Tink? You, not I, are the master bloviator when it comes to evading the crucial question. You have come down on both sides of the question regarding Gary Aguilar's work. You want to discount witness testimony by grossly distorting Elizabeth Loftus's work. Yet Gary had made the compelling case that it is overwhelmingly improbable that they are wrong. So what's the score: Do you stand by Gary's work or do you continue to insist the film is authentic?

This man not only betrays the search for truth but he is willing to denigrate or misrepresent the work of those with whom he likes to align himself. He grossly misrepresents the work of Gary Aguilar by using his misrepresentation of Loftus to create uncertainty about his findings, even though Gary spelled it out as you have seen. And he evades the crucial question of whether there was a massive hole in the back of the head, which would invalidate the Zapruder film.

In order to deny the presence of a massive hole in the back of the head, Tink has to distort or ignore the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza; Clint Hill, who was the first person to see it "up close and personal"; physician after physician at Parkland, who described cerebellum extruding from this "fist sized" defect at the back of his head; others at Bethesda (before Humes enlarged it), and even the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, who prepared the body for burial.

Abraham Lincoln observed that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. It is a very simple proposition: Does he agree that there was a massive defect to the back of the head? Because if he does, then his defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if he does not, then his credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink? Tell us.

Many thanks for your valuable input Tink,

Bill Kelly

Edited March 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Don, you are completely right! After his song-and-dance about Elizabeth Loftus, where he evidently either misunderstands the study she cites or deliberately misrepresents it, he ignores my simple question--which concerns the existence on non-existence of a massive defect at the back of his head--as well. Is there a pattern here?

In order to deny the presence of a massive hole in the back of the head, Tink has to distort or ignore the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza; Clint Hill, who was the first person to see it "up close and personal"; physician after physician at Parkland, who described cerebellum extruding from this "fist sized" defect at the back of his head; others at Bethesda (before Humes enlarged it), and even the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, who prepared the body for burial.

Abraham Lincoln observed that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. It is a very simple proposition: Does he agree that there was a massive defect to the back of the head? Because if he admits there was, then his defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if he denies it, then his credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink? Tell us.

Let me repeat the question in case it escaped his attention: Does he agree that there was a massive defect to the back of the head? Remember, he was the first to publish the McClelland diagram in SIX SECONDS (1967), page 107. He seems to have understood then that it was from the occipital region of the cranium, which he diagrammed on page 101.

So surely in the 44 years since its publication, he has had the time and opportunity to decide whether or not there was a massive defect to the back of the head. Because if he admits there was, then his defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if he denies it, then his credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink?

Thank you, Josiah, for detailing your views for us. However, the question I asked was very simple, and you didn't quite address it directly in your post.

Simply put; how do you reconcile the photo/film/x-ray record with your belief that the head shot came from the right front? Without that massive blowout in the back, where did such a shot exit?

I humbly suggest that this is really the issue that defines the whole film alteration debate.

Edited March 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

As I have observed several times, Jim DiEugenio does not understand the medical, the ballistic, or the photographic evidence, including the Zapruder film. THE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE MASSIVE DEFECT TO THE HEAD IS QUITE EXTRAORDINARY. AND IT IS NOT SEEN IN THE CRUCIAL EARLY FRAMES OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM--EVEN THOUGH IT IS VISIBLE IN LATER FRAMES--WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE FILM HAS BEEN FIXED. You mention that Robert Groden has also denied that the film is a fake. Well, I think you and Groden have some kind of mental block, which, in Groden's case, has something to do with his collection of JFK memorabilia. He, too, obviously ought to concede it! What is there here that Jim DiEugenio does not understand?

In addition to disregarding David Mantik's expert studies of the X-rays, in order to deny the presence of a massive hole in the back of the head, Josiah Thompson, Robert Groden, and Jim DiEugenio have to distort or ignore the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza; Clint Hill, who was the first person to see it "up close and personal"; physician after physician at Parkland, who described cerebellum extruding from this "fist sized" defect at the back of his head; others at Bethesda (before Humes enlarged it), and even the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, who prepared the body for burial. Go back to Gary Aguilar's study of the convergence of findings by 44 sources. Once you understand the existence of the blow-out, only observation of the film is necessary to see that it isn't there!

You use the word "cartoon" and attribute that to David Lifton. Well, once you begin to appreciate how much of the extant film has been altered, including the limo stop, the blow-out to the back of the head, the brains and debris across the trunk of the limousine, Clint Hill's actions in rushing forward, climbing on the back, pushing Jackie down and lying over her and Jack while peering into this "fist sized" hole at the back of his head (I hope you haven't missed that point)--and the term "cartoon" comes to mind. And of the course the other films that show crucial events--the Nix and the Muchmore, in particular--had to be altered, too, as David Mantik has explained many times and as Doug Horne confirmed. For you, Jim, I'll keep it simple: If the blow-out is missing, then the film is fake!

P.S. Try reading "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", which appears to be one of many studies about all this with which you are unfamiliar. You seem to have missed the boat! OF COURSE THEY WERE ALL FIXED! You think the CIA was too stupid to figure that out? They were willing to assassinate the president but not to fake films? Have you given this a lot of thought?

The reason that Z film alteration is so hard to advance is that the people who have advocated for it have made very strong claims and then when someone does not agree with them, they are then attacked and ridiculed.

Let us never forget the Sagan Rule: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

The radical Z film alterationists--and I do not count the Wilkinsons in that category--have a very high hill to climb.

To point out one example, take a look at the seminar sponsored by Fetzer at Duluth. David Lifton admitted that one thing that would have to be proven if the Z film is a cartoon is this: all the other films have also been made into cartoons!

How the heck are you ever going to prove that? Who will be listening when you do?

Am I saying that it did not happen? No. I understand that the fraud in this case is incredible. Since there was no defense for Oswald, the prosecution could do literally anything they needed to do. Was radically altering all the films one of them? I don' t know. As Rumsfeld says: we don't know what we don' t know.

Is it necessary to prove conspiracy? Hell no! The Z film in and of itself right now does that in about four ways. And so does CE 399, the medical evidence, the witnesses who saw Oswald where he should not be, Joseph's Trade Mart invite, the Tague hit, the uncensored witness testimony of people like Bowers and Holland, and the manipulation of evidence by the FBI and DPD (The DPD sent about 220 exhibits to Washington, they got back twice that many. Where did the other stuff come from?)

As per Tink and the x rays, I am not sure you are right on this. I think Tink is much more open to this than you believe. I mean Tink is not as obstinate as Paul Hoch. He is much more open to good evidence. But to beleive Mantik's ideas about the white patch and/or 6.5 mm fragment does not necessitate Z film forgery.

To me, those are much more cogent and demonstrable than Z film radical alteration. And I personally believe both of them. (To use just one point: Where did the fragment trail described by Humes in his autopsy report go? Its not there on the extant x rays.) I used these points in my Bugliosi series part 4. And I firmly believe I could convince a layman of both in a relatively short period of time. I also think they would be devastating in a nationally broadcast documentary.

Not so with radical Z film alteration.

I personally think 48 years is enough. We have to make the big push with the best we have right now in preparation for the 50th. Radical Z film alteration is not part of that package.

Edited March 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Michael Hogan]

Don, you are completely right! After his song-and-dance about Elizabeth Loftus, where he evidently misunderstands the study she cites or deliberately misrepresents it, he ignores my simple question as well. Is there a pattern here?

In order to deny the presence of a massive hole in the back of the head, Tink has to distort or ignore the testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza; Clint Hill, who was the first person to see it "up close and personal"; physician after physician at Parkland, who described cerebellum extruding from this "fist sized" defect at the back of his head; others at Bethesda (before Humes enlarged it), and even the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, who prepared the body for burial.

Abraham Lincoln observed that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. It is a very simple proposition: Does he agree that there was a massive defect to the back of the head? Because if he admits there was, then his defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if he denies it, then his credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink? Tell us.

Let me repeat the question in case it escaped his attention: Does he agree that there was a massive defect to the back of the head? Remember, he was the first to publish the McClelland diagram in SIX SECONDS (1967), page 107. He seems to have understood then that it was from the occipital region of the cranium, which he diagrammed on page 101.

So surely in the 44 years since its publication, he has had the time and opportunity to decide whether or not there was a massive defect to the back of the head. Because if he does, then his defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film is defeated; and if he does not, then his credibility as an expert on JFK is destroyed. So which is it, Tink?

Thank you, Josiah, for detailing your views for us. However, the question I asked was very simple, and you didn't quite address it directly in your post.

Simply put; how do you reconcile the photo/film/x-ray record with your belief that the head shot came from the right front? Without that massive blowout in the back, where did such a shot exit?

I humbly suggest that this is really the issue that defines the whole film alteration debate.

Jim Fetzer has no problem interjecting himself above, yet screams at the top of his lungs at Jim DiEugenio.

Egad, man! Why are you going so far out of your way about issues where your incompetence is legion?

LET TINK SPEAK FOR HIMSELF. Are you his alter-ego? Are you a mind reader? THIS IS ABSURD. We

don't need to hear from yet another shill for Tink. You are coming across as a stooge. LET HIM SPEAK.

No one cares what YOU THINK TINK THINKS! We want to know what TINK THINKS today,

not ages ago! It is pitiful, but you really are coming across as a shill and a stooge. Pathetic!

Jim DiEugenio has earned the right to comment on these issues, Fetzer's bombasts aside. And Jim D did not prevent Josiah Thompson from speaking for himself. Far from it.