DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[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

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

REPORTING THAT THE EDIT IS NOT WORKING... :oit did now...????????? Edited March 28, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[David Josephs]

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.

Glad you got back to that Glenn... if what Monk is saying is even remotely possible, it is indeed mind boggling

What makes sense as a possibility to me is a complete, non-telephoto lens film, shot from/by Zapruder's pedestal and then edited within the frame... maybe this process makes the intersprocket area "more" possible... Two films from Zap's location seems to make no sense since if you move the camera closer or father away, there is no way to keep the same angle during the entire panning... the camera would have to move side-to-side pretty significantly for every foor from the original Z location....

Greg, if Zap's film was at 24.3fps (or even slow-mo 40fps) instead and not shot thru a telephoto lens, would alteration of the "original" make more sense to you after what you've seen?

Finally, if the 85 feet between cars is right, something is VERY wrong... in the extant Z film the Queen Mary is following behind by about 6-8 feet... the ONLY way Hill makes it to the limo from 85 feet is if the limo virtually stops... and even then at 20mph it takes him 3 seconds to overtake it...

Greg - what did you see with regards to Hill chasing the limo?

and thanks for the revelation... not sure about others but this is pretty amazing stuff to me...

[Greg Burnham]

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

Jack,

I know what you're saying, but it came out a bit awkwardly. I think your point is this: The legitimate refutation of the Big Lie is seldom

recognized for what it is as a result of the power of the Big Lie. When people consider that the OFFICIAL ACCOUNT might be the BIG LIE

it is, indeed, mind boggling. It is much easier, more comforting, and safer (in the short term) to simply accept the less disturbing than

it is to challenge the status quo.

[Bernice Moore]

deleted edit finally worked...b

Edited March 29, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

Dear Mr Fetzer:

I am quite familiar with Mantik's studies. And so is TInk. As I said, they do not conflict with what I see on the Z film, or what Groden sees. You can yell and scream and cry about this point all you want. But it does not.

Bernice: Many times here, people have accused others of somehow being spooky or WC defenders if they do not buy into radical Z film alteration. We have seen it here on this forum right now. Tink answered the questions posed to him. That is not enough. Now, like Jim Angleton and Nosenko, Fetzer the Grand Inquisitor accuses him of evading questions etc. He has not. As per looking up things like the whole Moorman imbroglio, that is a perfect example of what I just said above: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That was not the case with that.

And BTW, this is a big difference between me and Fetzer. I mean he found the Nelson book convincing, he finds Best Evidence convincing, he bought into every thing in the Horne series. Let alone Judy Wood and No Planes etc. I don't. And I explain why I don't.

Third, now comes the so-called Real Z film viewings. I watched this phenomenon grow day by day on Rich's forum. At the end I sat there with my mouth agape. If you counted all the people who saw this Real Z film, it got into the tens of thousands. I am not kidding. For someone said they saw it on the late night news in a fairly big Texas town, maybe in San Antonio or somewhere like that.

So in other words, many, many,many people have seen this film, right? And not one media person ever wrote about it anywhere? Not even in the alternative press? No group of people ever called each other or met up to talk about what they saw? Really? When the Z film was shown by Rivera, the result was like an electric current going through the country: I mean it was Topic A at work and at lunch counters and water coolers. But people saw this film that no one had ever, ever seen and it showed the limo stopping, Kennedy going through all these gyrations of being hit with multiple shots--and God knows what other gory stuff, and everyone just goes to sleep like nothing happened.

Please.

HI JIM; THANKS FOR THE REPLY, I WAS NOT MEANING THOSE BEING ACCUSED OR REFERRED TO AS W/C SUPPORTERS, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE Other end, sorry caps,please. excuse,,,,how many times, jack has presented his work refering to a specific, study he has made and been

called everything from crazy to a nut of an old man.....and worse, i thought i made myself clear on that end, i referred to jack specifically...at times, that is and has been very hard to believe, he defends himself well, but just the same, he has had to put up with such for many years..which is his right, though some others would deny that to him apparently,if they could have their way.i have also watched it for many years and will not give them a break....to my knowledge there are 6 i do not recall tousans on rich's coming forward stating they had seen it,the other zapruder, i do recall some trying to pretend they had, and being shot down by Rich as well as Greg, they more or less had to pass a high standard, of information, relating to such, i do recall even regular members some getting to the stage where they could see right through the phoneys, i never saw Greg nor Rich nor any of the others simply, accepting any without, qualifying.....perhaps my memories are not as clear as yours now, but sorry i do not recall what you have stated.....there were 6 who have seen the other zapruder film, not many, many, they the 6 were represented on Rich's and allowed their names to stand, william reymond was one, rich, and greg has come forward the other three, shall remain unamed,by myself anyway, until such time as they chose to speak out, gee i do not wonder why they never have on here...

i think it has been referred to in some articles mentioning it, within the alternative press,but the so called huge free media press would and could not, with a ten foot pole, as when it is definitely proven to be altered, doctored, played with,the crappy zappy or whatever one chooses to call it, i think perhaps if reported by the so called,free press, the american public just may stand up and have something to say, after all it was 16 million of their moneys that went to the Zapruder family, and now copyrights belong to the tsbd museum, that could be one reason why it has not been dealt with by them so far,also it would clearly be stating that the government was involved within all, as they always had pocession of such, after it left abraham's pocession, like perhaps they have also been told what to, and what not to report on, kind of like control of the press.like in Mockingbird.....as far as Josiah and Jim and their differences, that is of long standing, and goes back some years now, imo, i have always thought differences plainly spoken and brought to light, help clarify the research, rather than allow it to sit, undiscussed, and hidden within...that may be wrong to some people who do not like long nor lengthy discussions that get heated at times, as for what dr. jim finds convincing, imo is entirely up to him,the same in reference to josiah, i do not agree with all, within any ones studies that i can recall, not the alterations, nor certain other topics, nor books or such,but i do not presume, to tell them what they cannot believe nor what they do,or should, simply because i may not, i figure to each their own,as i will not argue with you nor stress the point by telling you that you must believe anything i do,sometimes, the less said by others the better, left to their own, at times the parties involved can come to an understanding, but not pressured by others strong vocal opinions, that they may see as interferrance at the time.the discussion is ongoing....left to their own, eventually they may,or decide such as to recognise such as each others work differences and carry on with their individual work, as they strike each others off their lists...imo.though i do believe that some play games, to deliberately muck up the research of others,as well as to take it off the board, which imo is dishonest,also some by playing the game of i am a ctr but post and act like a l/nr to throw all off kilter while they really are simply xxxxe disturbing and getting away with it, to get back at someone, for an imaginary insult, they cannot recall,unless they have deliberately created to pull off a set up, which has happened in the past as well..you know..this world would be such a boring place if all agreed and all were the same in their thoughts and beliefs, i think this particular thread has been one of the very best in so very long, much information has been presented by many, others opinions as well,which is stimulating, and has routed many to get back perhaps into their studies of this or another area of study, where and when accomplished they will decide and make up their own minds on what they may believe or not...but imo alteration is not a dirty word as some have and to do try their darndest to portray it, the government altered so much documentation, witness reports etc, it would be no problem for them to work on any film or photo,they had the facilities at the time and the people with the knowledge, so why would it ever be a surprise to some, i do not know, that would be childs play after what they have and had done...after all, they covered up an assassination of a President, nothing was out of their hands..nor ability,......... thanks again for the come back, we differ in some areas which imo is quite normal, but we sit on the same side.....imo....best b ps sorry i had to reply in order to edit this post...b

Edited March 29, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Josiah Thompson]

"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."

You hopeless ninny! How many times do I have to explain that I am not denying that Kennedy had a hole in the back of the head. The Zapruder film doesn't show such a hole but even more importantly the Moorman film doesn't show it either. Why is that important? Because the Moorman photo was taken at Z 315 and was taken from closer in than the Zapruder film and from a much better angle... behind and to the left of the limousine. Neither the Zapruder nor the Moorman film show a hole in the back of his head. Are you now going to say that the Moorman photo was faked up. Good luck.

The fact that neither the Zapruder film nor the Moorman photo don't show a hole in the back of his head doesn't mean that there wasn't such a hole. The testimony from Parkland stands on its own feet. These are professionals performing their professional duty where accurate observation of wounds is critical. They are eminently believable.

However, as I've said once already, the Kennedy head wounds are an evidentiary mess and have nothing to do with what you are trying to prove... that the Zapruder film has been faked up. So quit putting up straw men expressing opnions I've never had nor ever expressed.

JT

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.

[David Andrews]

Deleted, revised, bumped.

Edited March 30, 2011 by David Andrews

[Jack White]

Dear Mr Fetzer:

I am quite familiar with Mantik's studies. And so is TInk. As I said, they do not conflict with what I see on the Z film, or what Groden sees. You can yell and scream and cry about this point all you want. But it does not.

Bernice: Many times here, people have accused others of somehow being spooky or WC defenders if they do not buy into radical Z film alteration. We have seen it here on this forum right now. Tink answered the questions posed to him. That is not enough. Now, like Jim Angleton and Nosenko, Fetzer the Grand Inquisitor accuses him of evading questions etc. He has not. As per looking up things like the whole Moorman imbroglio, that is a perfect example of what I just said above: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That was not the case with that.

And BTW, this is a big difference between me and Fetzer. I mean he found the Nelson book convincing, he finds Best Evidence convincing, he bought into every thing in the Horne series. Let alone Judy Wood and No Planes etc. I don't. And I explain why I don't.

Third, now comes the so-called Real Z film viewings. I watched this phenomenon grow day by day on Rich's forum. At the end I sat there with my mouth agape. If you counted all the people who saw this Real Z film, it got into the tens of thousands. I am not kidding. For someone said they saw it on the late night news in a fairly big Texas town, maybe in San Antonio or somewhere like that.

So in other words, many, many,many people have seen this film, right? And not one media person ever wrote about it anywhere? Not even in the alternative press? No group of people ever called each other or met up to talk about what they saw? Really? When the Z film was shown by Rivera, the result was like an electric current going through the country: I mean it was Topic A at work and at lunch counters and water coolers. But people saw this film that no one had ever, ever seen and it showed the limo stopping, Kennedy going through all these gyrations of being hit with multiple shots--and God knows what other gory stuff, and everyone just goes to sleep like nothing happened.

Please.

I know of NOTHING which has been called THE REAL ZAPRUDER FILM being seen by anyone. I do know of something called ANOTHER FILM or

THE OTHER FILM being seen by different persons at different times, independently of each other. Calling it the "real Zapruder film" is a deceptive trick

to try to ridicule it.

The persons who saw THE OTHER FILM are of highest character, are good observers and have absolutely no motivation to fabricate a story like this. None

of them had heard of anyone else's story. Their stories all are consistent with each other. By my remembrance there are (were) 6 or 7 of these viewers. Two of

them saw it multiple times. Rich DellaRosa saw it two or three times under security oath conditions. Before he died, Rich told the complete story to a trusted

associate. One researcher saw it at a news network, thinking it was the Z film, which at that time had not been released. One person was shown it several

times by a former intelligence agent. At least one person saw it on a college campus. One alleged viewer said he saw it as a CIA training film, but some

persons do not trust him. All these persons are known, but I am not mentioning them by name, except for Rich, whose account of the OTHER FILM has

been published. At the time these persons saw the film, many "believed" they were seeing the Zapruder film...and only realized after seeing the extant

version that it did not jibe with what they had seen before, which was indelibly etched in their memories. One of these persons saw it at a news network.

Later, after seeing the extant version, this researcher went back to the network and asked to see the film seen earlier, and got a denial that it existed.

It is understandable that those who have not seen THE OTHER FILM might deny its existence. But ridicule of responsible researchers is reprehensible.

It is understandable to believe that such a film does not exist. It is not understandable to condemn those who have seen it.

Jack

Edited March 29, 2011 by Jack White

[Josiah Thompson]

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?

What you're doing here is just dishonest. I'm sorry to have say this but no other word fits. Never... I say again... never have I said that I believed Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter in the Depository. Six Seconds ends with a chapter entitled "Answered Unanswered Questions." The last fifteen page section... count 'em fifteen pages... is directed to the final question "Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot the President?" That section is made up of evidence after evidence (at that time unknown to the general public) undermining the claim of the Warren Commission that they had proven Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. When you don't have any evidence are you reduced to just making it up?

JT

[Josiah Thompson]

“Neither of these issues, Baker or Z film animation, are worth what he [Fetzer] 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?”

How’s this, Jim, for a guess.

In October 2013 (as the 50th Anniversary approaches), various TV producers are beating the bushes for Kennedy assassination interviews with live people. One popular network has had it in for “assassination buffs” for almost those fifty years. A producer (“Todd”) and anchor (labeled in the business, “the talent”) meet to discuss their anniversary show:

Todd: You won’t believe what I’ve stumbled on. Take a look at this FOX excerpt from Hannity. This dude James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. is a gas.

The Talent: That’s great... although it was so bad, I almost ended up feeling sorry for the schlub.

Todd: Not so quickly. This guy is all over the internet with silly-ass claims. He says Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield shot down Senator Welstone’s plane with some “directed energy weapon.” Oh, and pretty much the same thing for the Twin Towers. They were dropped by some super “directed energy weapon” in space. Fetzer started some organization called “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” with another guy. When the other guy found weapons from space too much, Fetzer excommunicated him and 80% of the “scholars” went with the other guy.

The Talent: Yeah, but we saw on TV the second plane hit the South Tower and about 10,000 people witnessed the same thing.

Todd: Fetzer claims the TV coverage was faked up. I’m not sure what he says about the 10,000 witnesses but I heard something about the government using a hologram. He offers the same sort of drivel about the Kennedy assassination. The Zapruder film was faked up and maybe Zapruder never took a film in Dealey Plaza. When you point out that the other films show the same thing, he says they were faked up too. The best thing is what he says about Mary Moorman.

The Talent: Who’s that?

Todd: That’s the poor woman who took a Polaroid just as Kennedy got hit in the head. The Zapruder film shows her standing in the grass taking her photo. Fetzer claims she was actually standing in the street to take her photo and that the limousine came to a full stop.

The Talent: How’re we gonna deal with that?

Todd: We’ve got segments from two other films taken in the Plaza that show her standing right where she stands in the Zapruder film, right where she testified she was standing in the Clay Shaw trial.

The Talent: I’m still worried about him coming across as such a schlub that people will feel sorry for him... I did.

This is no drill, Jim. This could really happen. In fact, it probably will happen.

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.

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.

[Josiah Thompson]

"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."

It turns out that you and Mantik are wrong about this... all the letters after your name not withstanding.

"Eyewitness Testimony" by Elizabeth Loftus was published by Harvard University Press. The Press summarized the book on the back cover as follows:

"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."

"By shedding light on the many factors that can intervene and create inaccurate testimony, Elizabeth Loftus illustrates how memory can be radically altered by the way an eyewitness is questioned, and how new memories can be implanted and old ones altered in subtle ways. She thus calls into questin today's widely held assumption of eyewitness authority over the details of a crime or other events."

"Eyewitness Testimony provides a sobering counterpoint to today's theatrical reliance on eyewitness accounts in the media, and should be required reading for trial lawyers, psychologists, jurors, and anyone who considers the chilling prospect of confronting an eyewitness accusation in a court of law."

Just as the summary indicates, this book has revolutionized the treatment of eyewitnesses in court and the procedures law enforcement uses in dealing with eyewitnesses. Numerous persons have been convicted on eyewitness testimony and later exonerated. There is simply no question about the forceful argument Loftu puts forward in this book: eyewitness testimony is unreliable because it is haunted by a slew of factors that degrade its reliability.

To back your argument about the Zapruder film, you and Mantik cherry-picked the book and pulled a page out of Loftus' summary of the Marshall article. I asked Loftus about the Marshall article back in 1998 when this first came up. (I've known Elizabeth Loftus for some twenty-five years. We've worked on several cases together, most recently a death penalty case in Alabama.) Back in 1998, I asked her about the Marshall study. She made the common sense point that there's a real problem in defining what "salient" means. Salient for one person may not be salient for another. Her conclusion was that for this reason it was perilous to try to apply the data from this experiment outside the actual experiment. (Don't worry. I may even have the email from her.)

Yet this is exactly what you have done. This is perhaps a longer explanation than your point deserves. It shows how multiple letters after your name innoculate no one from making mistakes of generalization.

JT

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

[Greg Burnham]

deleted

Edited March 29, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[Pat Speer]

Thanks Michael

Quote:

-Robinson said that Ed Stroble (now deceased) had cut out a piece of rubber to cover the open wound

in the back of the head, so that the embalm~ing fluid would not leak; the piece of rubber was slightly larger

than the hole in the back of the head, and Robinson estimated that the rubber sheet was a circular patch

about the size of a large orange

Robin this is similar with added info, best b

Spencer was a Petty Officer and Photographer’s Mate at the Naval Photographic Center. She developed JFK autopsy photos, and is perhaps the most important witness regarding the autopsy photos. She actually saw an autopsy photo showing the back of the head wound. Her deposition was taken June 1997 by the ARRB:

Q: Did you see any photographs that focused principally on the head of President Kennedy?

A: Right. They had one showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head.

Q: Could you describe what you mean by the "wound at the back of the head"?

A: It appeared to be a hole, inch, two inches in diameter at the back of the skull here.

Q: You pointed to the back of your head. When you point back there, let's suppose that you were lying down on a pillow, where would the hole in the back of the head be in relationship to the part of the head that would be on the pillow if the body is lying flat?

A: The top part of the head.

Q: When you say the "top of the head," now, is that the part that would be covered by a hat that would be covering the top of the head?

A: Just about where the rim would hit.

Q: Are you acquainted with the term "external occipital protuberance"?

A: No, I am not.

Q: What I would like to do is to give you a document or a drawing, and ask you, if you would, on this document, make a mark of approximately where the wound was that you noticed.

MR. GUNN: We will mark this Exhibit No.148.

THE WITNESS: Probably about in there.

Q: And you have put some hash marks in there and then drawn a circle around that, and the part that you have drawn, the circle that you have drawn on the diagram is labeled as being as part of the occipital bone, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you see any biological tissue, such as brain matter, extruding from the hole that you saw in the back of the head?

A: No.

Q: Was the scalp disturbed or can you describe that more than just the hole?

A: It was just a ragged hole.

Q: And it was visible through the scalp, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Thomas Robinson

Mr Robinson was a mortician employed by the Gawler Funeral home, and was part of the team that performed the embalming and cosmetic work on the President in the early morning of November 23, 1963 at Bethesda Naval Hospital. He described a three inch circular ragged wound in the rear of the President’s head. The morticians closed this hole with a piece of heavy duty rubber. His HSCA interview in 1977 by HSCA staffer Andy Purdy was never released until 1992 by the ARRB(marked MD63). Excerpts from that interview:

Purdy: Could you tell me how large the opening had been…?

Robinson: …I would say about the size of a small orange

Purdy: Could you give us an estimate of inches and the nature of the shape?

Robinson: Three(inches)

Purdy: And the shape?

Robinson: Circular

Purdy: Was it fairly smooth or ragged?

Robinson: Ragged

Purdy: Approximately where was this wound located?

Robinson: Directly behind the back of his head

Purdy: Approximately between the ears or higher up?

Robinson: I would say pretty much between them.

Purdy: Were you the one responsible for closing those wounds in the head?

Robinson: We all worked on it…They brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill this area in the back of the head…

Purdy: You had to close the wound in the back of the head using the rubber?

Robinson: It had to be all dried out, packed, and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back over…and stitched into that piece of rubber.

James Sibert

Sibert was an FBI agent from the Baltimore office assigned to stay with the President’s body from Andrews AFB through the autopsy. His 1997 ARRB deposition is critical:

Q: Could you give the best description of the wounds to the head?

A: Well, there was a massive wound…right back in this part of the head

Q: You’re touching the cowlick area of the head?

A: Yes

Q: And the size would be?

A: It was difficult to see, because the hair was so matted…it was so bloodsoaked…it was difficult to see any distinct outline of where these bones had been literally blown out of the skull

Q: At the time you observed those wounds, the photographs had already been taken?

A: Yes

Q: Were you able to tell whether any part of the scalp was actually missing?

A: Well, there was a big cavity there. I mean that you could look in to. The skull wasn't’t intact, the bones weren't’t in place

Q: So both scalp and bone were missing at the back part of the head?

A: Well, there was tissue of course, but there definitely was a large cavity. It was just that apparent that there was so much skull missing

The "MD" medical exhibits are available here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/contents.htm

An interview with Spencer can be read in William Law's "In the Eye of History".

Bernice and others, it amazes me that to this day, the first and last to see Kennedy's head, that is, the Dallas doctors and nurses(or perhaps even earlier, Clint Hill), and Tom Robinson et al. all agree to a hole about 3 inches in diameter in the back of the head, and yet some dispute such a finding. For one, these observations reinforce Dr. Cairns' original assessment of the Harper fragment as occipital, and they makes Dr. Angel look foolish because the head was reconstructed during embalming without mention of any Harper-sized gap in the parietal that needed to be attended to with a rubber dam. Best, Daniel

Daniel, the Parkland witnesses, taken as a whole, do not support that the Harper fragment was occipital. In order for the Harper fragment to be occipital the rear head wound would have to extend several inches below the top of the ear. Look at the photos in Groden's book. Less than half of these witnesses claimed the wound extended down below the top of the ear.

As far as Robinson, by his own admission he did not see the wound during the autopsy, and did not restore Kennedy's skull. Towards the end of the restoration, he saw a hole on the back of Kennedy's head. This is not surprising. It shocks me that so many assume morticians are forensic anthropologists, and that they somehow glued the skull back together. This is just not true. The morticians were assigned the task of making Kennedy presentable for an open casket funeral. In such case they would absolutely, without hesitation, stretch and if necessary cut and re-stitch the scalp to cover up any holes that would be visible with Kennedy laying flat on his back in the casket. They would make sure the remaining hole would be on the back of the head, and covered by a pillow. This is what was done. And it's exactly as one would expect.

[Pat Speer]

Martin,

Are you aware that Thomas Evan Robinson was in the morgue at Bethesda and observed Humes take a cranial

saw to the skull and greatly enlarge it? You might want to check out Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009).

The Dealey Plaza and Parkland Hospital witnesses are our best--along with Clint Hill, who in THE KENNEDY

DETAIL (2010) described peering down into a "fist-sized hole" at the back of his head, which I discussed in

"Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" I have found the quote and add it here as follows:

THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010) includes this sentence, stunning in simplicity but pregnant in ramifications:

And slumped across the seat, President Kennedy lay unmoving, a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly

visible in the back of his head. (THE KENNEDY DETAIL, p. 217)

After all, if JFK had a fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head, it follows that (1) the eyewitnesses

were right about its location, (2) the HSCA photograph and diagram are fake, (3) the autopsy X-rays were altered,

and (4) Zapuder frames that don’t show it when they should were changed, precisely as we have found above. In

fact, Clint Hill was far from the only expert who described that wound as “fist-sized”. When I edited ASSASSINATION

SCIENCE (1998), I invited Charles Crenshaw, M.D., to contribute a chapter and asked him to diagram the wounds as

he had witnessed them at Parkland Hospital, where he was the last physician to observe them before he closed JFK’s

eyelids as he was being wrapped in sheets and placed in the casket:

Charles told me that this defect was the size of a baseball or else the size of your fist when you double it up. The

best witnesses and the best studies thus converge on the conclusion that strenuous efforts were made to conceal

the true causes of the death of JFK from the American people.

Jim, Hill's and Crenshaw's descriptions of Kennedy's head wound location do not support each other. They don't even overlap.

So which one was correct?

Edited March 29, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Glenn Viklund]

Sorry, this question had already been answered by Jim D.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Glenn Viklund