DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Yes, that's closer. I would move it a bit more to the left and enlargen it just a little. It was about 3' across. Thanks.

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 James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I hate to say it, Michael Hogan, but Tink has STILL not answered the question, and DiEugnio's interventions on his behalf only serve to obfuscate his failure to do that. Sometimes you appear to care more about propriety than truth. Well, after 44 years, we are entitled to some answers from Josiah about where he stands today. Surely you can appreciate that.

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.

Edited March 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Just to make sure I understand where Tink stands today on the assassination and Lee Oswald's role therein, here is a diagram of his theory of the shooting from THE SATURDAY EVENING POST (2 December 1967). At this point in time--and in his book, SIX SECONDS (1967)--he identified Lee Oswald as the shooter in the 6th floor window, the alleged "assassin's lair". Before I offer any comments on his position, I want to know if his views remain the same now, 44 years later, as they were in 1967:

The first shot, fired from the book depository, hit President Kennedy in the back. The second, from a building

on Houston Street, wounded Governor Connally. Then, as the limousine drove on, the third shot, also fired from the

depository, hit the President in the rear of his skull and instant before the fourth shot, coming from the stockade

fence behind the knoll, struck him in the right front of the head. [This caption accompanied the diagram in SEP.]

Do you still believe that Lee Oswald fired two shots, one that hit him in the back and the second in the back of the head? that the limousine continued moving (there was no limo stop)? that there was a shot from the grassy knoll that hit him in the right front? that the shot to his back hit where the shirt and jacket have holes? and that the final shot that entered his right front--in the temple?-- exited where? You no longer accept the "double hit" theory, but otherwise these are your opinions after 44 more years of study?

Edited March 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[William Kelly]

Always nice to see Bill Kelly here, as elsewhere, kissing Tink's butt.

I DON'T KISS ANYBODY'S BUTT, ALL I SAID WAS THANKS FOR THE VALUABLE INPUT.

AND THAT'S BUTT KICKER, NOT BUTT KISSER.

ON THE OTHER CHEEK, PROF. FETZER HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING COMPARABLE TO WHAT TINK THOMPSON HAS DONE TO ADVANCE THIS CASE FURTHER.

IN FACT, THE BIGGEST BUTTHOLE HAS DONE EVERYTHING IMAGINABLE TO DIVIDE THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY AND ATTACK THOSE WHO HAVE ACTUALLY DONE SOMETHINGS THAT DESERVE RECOGNITION.

AS A SOLDIER, PROFESSOR, PRIVATE EYE, RESEARCHER AND WRITER, TT HAS AVOIDED THE BS AND FOCUSED ON WHAT CAN BE FORENSICALLY DETERMINED TO BE THE TRUTH, AND THEN TRIES TO TAKE IT FURTHER. PERHAPS SOMEDAY WE CAN USE THESE TALENTS TO ACTUALLY TAKE THE CASE TO COURT, GET A GRAND JURY TO ORDER A PROPER FORENSIC AUTOPSY, AND THEN THE ARGUMENTS WILL BE OVER ABOUT THE HOLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD, THE SINGLE BULLET AND HOW JFK WAS ACTUALLY MURDERED, EVEN THOUGH THOSE RESPONSIBLE WILL HAVE ESCAPED JUSTICE.

IN THE MEANTIME, IDIOTS WHO WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT THE ZAPRUDER FILM AUTHENTICITY, THE HOLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD, THE SINGLE BULLET OR WHOSE KISSING WHOSE BUTT CAN CONTINUE TO DO SO.

THANKS AGAIN TO TINK THOMPSON FOR STICKING TO HIS GUNS AND GUTS AND STAYING IN THE GAME BECAUSE WE NEED HIM NOW MORE THAN EVER, AND WILL NEED HIM AS WE ENTER THE APPROACHING STRETCH RUN.

BILL "BUTT KICKER" KELLY

Edited March 28, 2011 by William Kelly

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack White has asked me to post these on his behalf. Let me simply observe that, in my opinion,

this dedicated and modest man has done more to advance our understanding of the photographic

and film record than anyone else in the history of the study of the assassination, where he has

now been joined in common cause by David Mantik, David Lifton, John Costella, David Healy,

and others unnamed. For those who want to understand how the Zapruder film has been used as

the backbone of the cover-up, see HOAX (2003), which is why these issues are so significant.

Jim...I think this is a very important proof of fabrication. I found a view of that side of the car

which shows the location of the chrome strip seen in Zapruder. It shows clearly exactly where

Connally is located in Zapruder...MUCH TOO FAR TO THE REAR OF THE JUMP SEAT.

Of course the viewpoint is not the same, but I think he appears to be much too close to the

side of the limo for line of sight to matter. His head is much too big for him to be more toward

the center of the limo (note JFK in other photo), which is more proof of monkey business.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is an extremely revealing post. It shows that Tink Thompson has never studied David Mantik's work on the X-rays and the medical evidence, where the lateral cranial X-ray shows tiny particles from the shot to the right temple consistent with a frangible (or "exploding") bullet. This was not a tangential shot high in the temporal-parietal section, which would not have caused cerebellum to be extruding from the wound.

Think about it. Here is a guy who has been parading around like "a big deal" for the last 44 years and he is implicitly endorsing a conception of this shot that has been untenable since the Parkland physicians began reporting their observations of cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound, which was located in the occipital region and to the right, just as Gary Aguilar, M.D., has clearly demonstrated.

As Mantik explains, the exploding bullet created shock waves that blew his brains out the back of his cranium, which was already-weakened by the shot the Bethesda physicians detected near the EOP. And Bob Livingston explained that the tentorium had to have already been ruptured, since otherwise cerebellum would not have extruded from the wound. Does Josiah Thompson understand anything about the medical evidence?

And reread this stunning sentence: "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." So here he is, 44 years later, saying that he does not know if there was a blow-out to the back of the head! If Josiah Thompson doesn't know that, given the massive proof adduced just on this thread, what good is he? And why would anyone think they could learn anything from him about JFK?

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.

Edited March 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Jim...I think this is a very important proof of fabrication. I found a view of that side of the car

which shows the location of the chrome strip seen in Zapruder. It shows clearly exactly where

Connally is located in Zapruder...MUCH TOO FAR TO THE REAR OF THE JUMP SEAT.

Of course the viewpoint is not the same, but I think he appears to be much too close to the

side of the limo for line of sight to matter. His head is much too big for him to be more toward

the center of the limo (note JFK in other photo), which is more proof of monkey business.

What you are calling his head in frame 372 is actually a combination of his head PLUS Nellie's head, as they join, while she is in the process of pulling him down on to her lap.

Re: The flower head. The flowers are over the top of his head.

There is absolutely no fakery going on in any of the points which you raised.

Check the Connally location in 337 and then 372 only 35 frames later and explain how Connally

was able to go from the falling position in 337 to an upright position in 372, while changing

the orientation of his shoulders 180 degrees. You are engaging in wishful thinking in seeing

what you want to see. In 372 Nellie is not seen, especially not seen "pulling him down". In frame

337 Connally has NO HEAD. I subjected the frame to extreme computer enhancement, and

no head can be seen, only green and yellow where his head should be. Unexplained is the

triangular shape (seen in this frame only) which looks like a reflection on a jagged piece of

glass. Explain this shape. Explain how Connally moved from the jump seat to the back

seat in 35 frames. Good luck.

Thanks to Jim for posting the studies. The forum still refuses my images.

Jack

Edited March 28, 2011 by Jack White

[Bernice Moore]

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.

QUOTE JIM;''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''

Jim...FWIW IMO.. I would suggest you go into a search within the forum threads, use just the words Jack White and or alteration, a suggestion, to see exactly whom, are then attacked and ridiculed...perhaps you will come to realise exactly who attacks and ridicules whom, and how very much he for one, has repeatedly taken because of his beliefs, which he is entitled to..but others do not think so....it goes back many years.....imo...bB)

[Greg Burnham]

Another detail that's worth mentioning: there appeared to be a much larger distance between the X-100 and the Queen Mary after the limo emerged

from behind the Stemmon's sign than there had previously been immediately after the turn onto, and as they initially travelled down, Elm Street. The

gap between the two vehicles increased (became wider) as they moved toward the "kill zone" -- and then decreased again just before and during the

head shot. I assume that was the result of the abrupt braking by Greer which brought the X-100 to a stop thus closing the distance.

FWIW

Hi Greg,

Your description of the widening gap between the two vehicles at some point is very important.

Blaine's comments support this. Start listening a little before 39:15 of the video:

http://booktv.org/Program/12061/The+Kennedy+Detail+JFKs+Secret+Service+Agents+Break+Their+Silence.aspx

85 foot separation between the cars, speed of the limo 11 mph according to Blaine and Clint running 15 mph to catch it.

chris

Thanks Chris. I'm listening to it now. -- Ok, I just got done. Wow. What a bunch of bull crap. JFK was more aware of the

dangers to him in Dealey Plaza than were the trained Secret Service Detail according to Blaine. He quotes the untrained

(in matters of protection) JFK's own words about how easy it would be for an assassin to shoot him from an open window

in a tall building. Yet, the trained Secret Service personnel didn't "get it" apparently, since they failed to provide the kind

of protection that was obviously necessary. The claim that they were under staffed is so weak as to be laughable.

Additionally, it is a bold face lie when Blaine claims that there was no protocol for speed and/or severe turns in a motorcade

route. There is no question that when the "client's" vehicle slows down agents are required to shield him/her from potential

danger with their own bodies. I don't think that there is any question about this--it is obvious. I wonder "how slow" Blaine

would say is slow enough to warrant a protective response from the agents? The turn onto Elm was so slow as to invite

an assault--and it never even sped up sufficiently (until it was too late)--yet no response from the PPD.

Mack is in fine f**king form...as usual.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[Glenn Viklund]

Jim,

The short answer is:

In the film that I saw the limo came into view on Houston Street and the entire turn onto Elm was visible. There was no "splice" or point where the limo suddenly appeared on Elm out of nowhere. The limo made an extremely wide turn onto Elm and was moving very slowly at the corner. The limo "drifted" to the left of center (driver's POV) on Elm St. I don't recall if it actually made a complete lane change or if it was simply "pointed" more or less "left of center" -- My best recollection

is that it was partially in the left lane and partially in the center lane by the time it reached the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll next to the so-called Zapruder pedestal. Similar to what is seen in the extant film, JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign, elbows raised up, his torso apparently frozen, his "protection" inexplicably absent...a sitting duck.

There is absolutely no question as to whether or not the limo came to a complete and FULL stop. The car stopped. Completely. No motion whatsoever. The limo remained motionless for approximately 2 seconds. I'm surprised the Queen Mary didn't rear-end it.

Greg,

If I interpret you correctly, what you are recollecting from memory is that the above sequence - where the limo came to a full stop - occurred prior to where the extant film first displays the presidential limousine?

Is this correctly understood?

Edited March 28, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

The short answer is:

In the film that I saw the limo came into view on Houston Street and the entire turn onto Elm was visible. There was no "splice" or point where the limo suddenly appeared on Elm out of nowhere. The limo made an extremely wide turn onto Elm and was moving very slowly at the corner. The limo "drifted" to the left of center (driver's POV) on Elm St. I don't recall if it actually made a complete lane change or if it was simply "pointed" more or less "left of center" -- My best recollection

is that it was partially in the left lane and partially in the center lane by the time it reached the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll next to the so-called Zapruder pedestal. Similar to what is seen in the extant film, JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign, elbows raised up, his torso apparently frozen, his "protection" inexplicably absent...a sitting duck.

There is absolutely no question as to whether or not the limo came to a complete and FULL stop. The car stopped. Completely. No motion whatsoever. The limo remained motionless for approximately 2 seconds. I'm surprised the Queen Mary didn't rear-end it.

Greg,

If I interpret you correctly, what you are recollecting from memory is that the above sequence - where the limo came to a full stop - occurred prior to where the extant film first displays the presidential limousine?

Is this correctly understood?

Hi Glenn,

No, that's not correct. Sorry if I was unclear. The car may have actually come to 2 stops, though. I don't mention the first possible stop (near the corner of Houston and Elm) because I'm not sure if it fully stopped or if it just almost stopped.

Suffice to say, the car was crawling, at best, around the corner. The absolute stop occurred very near the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll, just west of the so-called Zapruder Pedestal. JFK was at a complete stand still during the head shot.

[Glenn Viklund]

OK Greg, thanks for your answer.

What you are saying is that you have seen a film where the JFK limousine came to a full stop at the exact moment when the presidents fatal head shot occurred?

Sorry to be a pain, but in my world these claims are mind boggling.

[Greg Burnham]

Essentially, that is correct.

[Jack White]

OK Greg, thanks for your answer.

What you are saying is that you have seen a film where the JFK limousine came to a full stop at the exact moment when the presidents fatal head shot occurred?

Sorry to be a pain, but in my world these claims are mind boggling.

As Hitler proved, if the lie is big enough, it boggles the mind, and boggled minds refuse to believe the obvious.

This is best demonstrated by 911. That SEVEN buildings in the midst of Manhattan would all be destroyed in

a single day's attack is MIND BOGGLING, so most people refuse to consider it. They would prefer to believe

that 19 young arabs hijacked four airliners and flew them flawlessly into targets. Silly as that is, some prefer

to believe that instead of the obvious.

Jack

[Bernice Moore]

OK Greg, thanks for your answer.

What you are saying is that you have seen a film where the JFK limousine came to a full stop at the exact moment when the presidents fatal head shot occurred?

Sorry to be a pain, but in my world these claims are mind boggling.

HI GLENN, YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN WILLIAM REYMOND'S INTERVIEW WITH JIM MARRS ON THE OTHER ZAPRUDER FILM...B

dr jim...you left out the motorcyc;ist chaney in the differences seen in the zapruder, in your summation at the top of page 11.....fwiw...thanks b

Edited March 28, 2011 by Bernice Moore