DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Pat Speer]

I think this Groden scan is a good representation of the skull damage.

Robin...that xray depiction show's Lifton's SURGERY OF THE TOP OF THE HEAD, not the damage

seen at Parkland.

Jack

Thanks Jack

I am trying to concentrate on the Bethesda autopsy images after Parkland .

there well may have been surgery performed on the scalp in order to extract the brain. ( I recall reading that in the ARRB medical testimony some years ago )

Robin, to understand the x-rays, one must grasp that the black areas do not necessarily reflect missing bone, but can also reflect missing or macerated brain. The x-ray in the bottom left corner of the slide below is of the same skull as the x-ray in the bottom right corner. The black area on the image at left does not represent missing skull, but macerated brain.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Agreeing with a source whose incompetence with regard to the medical, ballistic, and photographic evidence is known has no value. This is a classic case of "the blind leading the blind". I have given you citations were you can confirm that Harvard studies have shown witnesses are 98% accurate and 98% complete when they are reporting features they have witnessed that were salient (important to them). Josiah Thompson has a vested interest in protecting his indefensible contention that we do not know if there was a blow-out to the back of the head, which in turn implicates the authenticity of the Zapruder film. Disregard the Harvard study, if you will, which is objective, empirical proof that what you are saying here is false. But tell me why you also discount what Gary Aguilar explains here about the improbability of his 44 witness reports--where all 44 report the same observations!--being false. You appear to have lost any semblance of reason. We know Tink's rationale, but what is your excuse? And I address the same question to Jim DiEugenio.

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.

In this case, frames from this film would certainly be a good start. As Josiah and others points out, witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with lying. But the fact that there are only witness accounts for the existence of such a film is not convincing. As someone else said earlier in this thread, extra ordinary claims demands extra ordinary evidence. It is an understatement that the alleged contents of this "other" film are extra ordinary.

Moreover, I agree with Jim D. here. Had such a film been shown on television this would, of course, have created a sensation.

But perhaps you also have an idea as to why, for example, frames are so hard to get? Or why there seems to be such secrecy about this whole thing, still? Those things makes this even more suspicious.

Edited March 29, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

It never ceases to astound me how many otherwise sophisticated individuals, who often post on this and on other forums, have no idea about the basic elements of the medical evidence. Here is an overview of how all the evidence fits together: "Dealey Plaza Revisited", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/dealey-plaza-revisited.html I am going to return to some of the important evidence presented here exonerating Oswald as a shooter, which demonstrate clearly that he was framed, when it would not have been necessary to frame a guilty man. In fact, as I explained there, his weapon cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK, he was not on the 6th floor when the assassination took place, and Marina, his wife, reported that he admired JFK and bore him no malice. So the man who was fingered for the crime by the Warren Commission had neither the means, the motive, or the opportunity to have committed it. Yet Josiah Thompson is STILL not convinced whether or not Oswald was one of the shooters? How could an expert on the assassination still not know, 44 years after the publication of SIX SECONDS (1967)? What is there not to know?

Even Robin Unger does not seem to understand the most basic aspects of the medical evidence, which David Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE (1980), explained more than 30 years ago. I realize that Jim DiEugenio has no idea what Lifton was talking about and therefore trashed Horne when he reported that the results of the ARRB confirmed his (Lifton's) basic findings about the theft of the body, its early arrival at Bethesda, the alteration of the body and the fake autopsy report. Anyone with a serious interest in this case has to understand the gross differences in the descriptions of the wound to the back of the head from Parkland (where it was around 3" in diameter at the back of the head and slightly to the right), from Bethesda (where it had grown into an enormous wound taking up most of the skull, where the earlier blow-out was now the heel of a footprint), and during the HSCA reinvestigation (where the wound mysteriously contracts and now we have only a small hole at the top of the head at the crown or "cowlick", which is visible on the HSCA diagram I have posted but not in the HSCA photograph). Lifton's sketch of the differences appears below:

While I agree that the red spot in the cowlick was not a bullet entrance, it's just not true to state this spot is not visible in the HSCA photographs. The reason why you can't find it in the comparisons you keep posting is that you have matched up the WRONG photo with the HSCA's drawing, and have circled the WRONG part of the cowlick. I've pointed this out to you before. Perhaps, however, I have failed to show you where the spot really is. It is shown on the slide below.

As stated, I agree with you...and Dr. Humes, Finck, and Boswell... that the faint spot in the cowlick was not the bullet entrance noted at autopsy. It seems quite clear to me, moreover, that it was the other location noted on the slide, which is, not coincidentally, precisely where they claimed it was.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

This is extremely interesting and more than a little curious. Notice in the HSCA photograph and diagram that the wound at the top of the head (at the crown or "cowlick") is visible on the DIAGRAM but not in the PHOTOGRAPH, where diagrams can be created to include or exclude anything you like. You may or may not recall how many students of JFK were incredulous when the HSCA medical panel shifted the location of this wound 4" above where the Bethesda pathologists had originally placed it. That was stunning all by itself and raised questions about the integrity of the HSCA reinvestigation--and for good reason!

What you are showing--which, to the best of my knowledge, no one else has ever noticed!--is an apparent entry wound around the EOP, which is the original location the Bethesda physicians had specified. But of course they made that identification by the study of a piece of beveled bone, not from an examination of JFK's cranium. The only time a photo like this could actually have been taken would have been between the first shot to the back of the head (around the EOP) and second shot that entered his right temple and set up shock waves that blew his brains out the back of his already weakened skull in Dealey Plaza.

While I agree that the red spot in the cowlick was not a bullet entrance, it's just not true to state this spot is not visible in the HSCA photographs. The reason why you can't find it in the comparisons you keep posting is that you have matched up the WRONG photo with the HSCA's drawing, and have circled the WRONG part of the cowlick. I've pointed this out to you before. Perhaps, however, I have failed to show you where the spot really is. It is shown on the slide below.

As stated, I agree with you...and Dr. Humes, Finck, and Boswell... that the faint spot in the cowlick was not the bullet entrance noted at autopsy. It seems quite clear to me, moreover, that it was the other location noted on the slide, which is, not coincidentally, precisely where they claimed it was.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

1/24/11 4:23 PM

US government official: JFK cover-up, film fabrication (continued from page 9, post #129))

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/994

US government official: JFK cover-up, film fabrication

By Jim Fetzer

Online Journal Guest Writer

Apr 7, 2010, 00:19

(2) Different films were brought to the NPIC on consecutive days

Not only has Doug Horne demonstrated that the strips of film—the actual celluloid -- of the film that was processed in Dallas and the extant “Zapruder film” are not the same, but he has demonstrated that David Wrone has misled his audience and distorted the evidence about the chain-of-custody, where one film -- apparently the original, was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, 23 November 1963, which was an 8mm, slit version, the processing of which Bruno Brugioni, Chief of the NPIC Information Branch, supervised, which even required opening a camera store to purchase an 8mm projector, which the NPIC did not possess, while a second, 16mm unslit version, was brought to the NPIC on Sunday, 24 December 1963, by Secret Service Agent “William Smith,” which was handled by Homer McMahon and by Ben Hunter, who had not been present the night before, and a very different film.

INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, pages 1226 and 1227:

Analysis: First of all, we can now say with certainty that the NPIC never copied the Zapruder film as a motion picture, even though for years the NPIC notes had mislead some researchers into believing that it had. However, Homer McMahon’s rock-solid certainty that the film brought to him was an original, unslit 16 mm wide, double 8 movie -- and that it came from a classified CIA photo lab run by Kodak at Rochester -- implies that McMahon and Hunter were not working with the true camera original developed in Dallas, but were instead working with a re-created, altered film masquerading as ‘the original.’ I suspected in 1997, and I am more certain than ever today at this writing in 2009, that ‘Bill Smith’ told the truth when he said that the film he couriered to NPIC was developed in Rochester -- after all, how could he possible make a mistake about something so elementary, since he brought it from Rochester to Washington, D.C. himself? He was only lying about one thing: it could not have been the original film exposed inside Abe Zapruder’s camera, because we know from the Dallas Affidavit trail, and from the interviews Rollie Zavada conducted with the surviving personnel from the Dallas Kodak lab, that the original film was indeed developed in Dallas on Friday, November 22, 1963. If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 movie film the weekend of the assassination, and if it was really developed in Rochester at a CIA lab run by Kodak (as he was unambiguously told it was), then the extant film in the Archives is not a camera original film, but a simulated ‘original’ created with an optical printer at the CIA’s secret film lab in Rochester.

The critical information published in the ARRB call and meeting reports about our interviews with McMahon and Hunter in 1997 was published in full by Jim Fetzer in the year 2000 in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, but was subsequently ignored by Josiah Thompson in a 2007 essay posted on the Mary Ferrell website (note 14) and was intentionally under-reported and misrepresented by David Wrone in his 2003 book on the Zapruder film. This is what many advocates of a specific hypothesis or a historical position resort to when the heat is on and their longstanding positions on key issues are threatened by new evidence: all too often they either ignore the argument of their opponents as if they do not exist, or they will misrepresent them, intentionally setting up a false ‘straw man,’ and then knock it down. In the case of the serious chain-of-custody implications of the McMahon interviews, Thompson chose to ignore the problem in 2005 and again in 2007, while David Wrone has not only misreported/misrepresented their import, but he has overstated the case for authenticity, as I shall demonstrate below.

In his 2003 book THE ZAPRUDER FILM: REFRAMING JFK’S ASSASSINATION, Wrone fails to report the specific content of the Homer McMahon interviews (nor does McMahon’s name even appear in Wrone’s index), and then completely misreports what I have said about them (on page 127), as follows:

Similarly spurious is Douglas Orme’s charge (yes, he misspelled my name, too) that Time, Inc. allowed the film to be altered. In MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, Horne argues that Time, Inc. permitted the film to be taken by Federal Officials for doctoring. [This statement was followed by endnote 36, which simply refers to page 319 of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, without telling the reader what is on page 319. Page 319 is the interview report I wrote of the Homer McMahon interview of July 14, 1997 at the National Archives.] Like Zapruder, however, Time knew it had a treasure in the Zapruder film, and it would do nothing to endanger the flow of revenue it expected from those 26 seconds of film.

Shame on you David Wrone! There are so many things wrong with this short paragraph that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, and most importantly, Wrone never mentioned in his text that the Head of the Color Lab at NPIC, the world’s pre-eminent photo interpretation lab in 1963, claimed that he had [had] delivered to him by the Secret Service, prior to the President’s funeral, a 16 mm wide, unslit original double 8 film of the Kennedy assassination that was developed in Rochester, the location from which the courier brought him the film!!! So David Wrone’s first sin is that of intellectual dishonesty -- hiding facts from his readers which might have contradicted his own thesis that the extant film in the Archives today is authentic and unaltered. His second sin is that of putting words in my mouth: it is simply not true that I said anywhere in Fetzer’s book that Time, Inc. had allowed the film to be altered! The editor of the anthology, Jim Fetzer, published only my call reports and meeting reports of what the witnesses told the ARRB staff, and no one used that language in their interviews with us. So Wrone set up a straw man here which he attempted to knock down with a private enterprise profit motive, while all the time ignoring facts about C.D. Jackson’s long standing associations with the CIA and the national security establishment during the decade of the 1960s. If Wrone had been intellectually above-board, he would have talked honestly about the content of the McMahon/Hunter interviews, and then stated why he did not find these eyewitness recollections persuasive, if that was the case; instead, he took the coward’s way out and intentionally failed to report what McMahon had said. . . .

Note 14: The name of the lengthy 3-part essay is “Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination,” and is based upon a somewhat shorter version delivered by Thompson on November 19, 2005 at a conference sponsored by Jim Lesar’s Assassination Archives and Research Center (ARRC) and the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law.

(more to come)

Edited March 29, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

1/24/11 4:23 PM

US government official: JFK cover-up, film fabrication (continued)

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/994

US government official: JFK cover-up, film fabrication

By Jim Fetzer

Online Journal Guest Writer

Apr 7, 2010, 00:19

(3) The Zapruder film displays inconsistencies with other films and with itself

INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, pages 1336 to 1337:

The Alteration of the Zapruder Film was Rushed and Imperfect

Because there are physical limitations to what can be altered in a film -- particularly on a tight schedule and

when faced with time pressure--the alteration of the Zapruder film was imperfect, and it therefore had to be

suppressed as a motion picture even after its gross alteration to conceal what the forgers had been unable to

remove. My working hypothesis postulates that because the cabal that killed the president (and which was

feverishly covering up the crime that weekend) did not yet know, on the weekend of the assassination, what

type of investigation(s) would be conducted of the crime, or by which governmental bodies, speed was of the

essence. By late Sunday afternoon -- after discussing the limitations to the film’s alteration with the

technicians at “Hawkeyeworks” in Rochester -- they would have known that while the car stop had been

removed from the film, and the exit debris leaving the back of President Kennedy’s skull had also been

removed, that a serious problem remained: the so-called ‘head snap,’ or violent movement of the President’s

head and upper body to the left and rear, in response to the frontal head shots. This was a simple and

persuasive demonstration of the law of conservation of momentum that even a layperson without a physics

degree could viscerally understand, and the public could not be permitted to see it, or the lone assassination

cover story would not sell . . .

The film’s imperfect alteration was revealed in other ways aside from the ‘headsnap.’ As later discovered by

Josiah Thompson, Ray Marcus, and other researchers, and as written about in scores of books now and as

mentioned in hundreds of lectures, the extant film contains evidence of a very serious ‘timing problem’:

President Kennedy and Governor Connally react to separate shots that occur too close together to have been

fired in succession by the rather slow mechanism of the alleged murder weapon. The Warren Commission

staff expressed great concern about this internally, and ultimately dealt with it dishonestly by concluding that

the same bullet had hit both men, and that Connally had unaccountably exhibited a ‘delayed reaction’ to his

very severe and painful wounds. What we do not know today is whether the ‘timing problem’ is an artifact of

frame removal, or whether those frames of the film prior to the headshot were not tampered with, and

reflected the true reality of the assassination farther up Elm Street in the vicinity of the Stemmons Freeway

sign. Either possibility is [better: could be] true. Given what we know about the robust evidence in favor of

alteration of the Zapruder film, it would be imprudent for JFK researchers to continue to claim that the

‘timing problem’ is the primary evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. It isn’t. Given the

overwhelming evidence that the camera original has been altered, the ‘timing problem’ should now be

demoted to simply being ‘possible evidence’ of conspiracy. Eyewitness and earwitness testimony from Dealey

Plaza alone, and the behavior of the impact debris after the head shots, are the true ‘bedrock evidence’ that

proves conspiracy, not the ‘timing problem,’ which is inevitably suspect now, because of the overwhelming

evidence that the camera original Zapruder film was altered on Sunday, November 24, 1963.

One final and undeniable mistake by the forgers was their failure to black out the real exit wound(s) in the

posterior skull in all frames. I believe one of two exit wounds can been seen today, with proper

magnification, in frames 335 and 337 of the extant film [NOTE: and in frames 372 and 374, where a

comparison between David Mantik’s study of “Area P” in the lateral cranial X-rays and the blow-out to the

back of the head can be viewed in “Dealey Plaza Revisited,” Chapter 30 of JOHN F. KENNEDY: HISTORY,

MEMORY, LEGACY (2009), which can be downloaded here.] The best images of this to date have been

published in HIGH TREASON (the color plate in the cloth edition, opposite page 387), in [Harrison Livingston’s]

THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY: DECODING THE FORGERY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM (on page 264)

and in [Robert Groden’s] THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (on page 38). While the forgers were ‘successful’ in

superimposing rather poor aerial imaging artwork of an enormous head wound on the top and right side of

President Kennedy’s head in the Zapruder film -- a head wound which is grossly inconsistent with the

localized posterior blowout observed at Parkland Hospital, and only roughly consistent with the autopsy

photos taken after clandestine post mortem surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital -- they failed to properly

execute their most basic task, which was to hide all evidence of posterior exit wounds in the back of JFK’s

head. Persons in the government were clearly aware of this problem, for the last frame of the Zapruder film

published in volume XVIII of the Warren Commission’s 26 supporting volumes was frame 334, the frame

immediately prior to those which show one of the two exit defects in the back of the head. ‘Coincidences’ like

this are not worthy of belief, and the fact that the Warren Commission stopped publishing at frame 334

strongly implies that someone on the staff—presumably Specter and Rankin—knew they had a problem in

frames 335 and 337, and so simply decided not to publish those frames. For them, discretion was the better

part of valor. . . .

INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Vol. IV, pages 1317 to 1320 (in part):

If the Zapruder Film is an Alteration, Doesn’t This Mean That Other Films of the Assassination

Must Have Been Altered Also? Also, Are There Inconsistencies Between Other Films and the

Zapruder Film?

Absolutely—alteration of the Zapruder film does indeed imply that in a perfect conspiracy, that other films

would have been altered also, and in the same way as the Zapruder film. If they were not altered and the

Zapruder film was, this would have left undeniable evidence in the photographic record that “the” pre-

eminent record of the assassination is indeed an alteration. In fact, what we do find in the evidence is one

suggestion of identical alteration; and numerous indications of disagreement between various Dealey Plaza

films and the Zapruder film.

The Turn from Houston Onto Elm May Have Been Removed from the Zapruder Film, the Nix Film,

and the Muchmore Film

First, let us examine the suggested identical alteration of the Zapruder film, the Nix film, and the Muchmore

film. Neither the Nix film, the Muchmore film,nor the Zapruder film show the Presidential limousine turning

left from Houston Street onto Elm Street. Orville Nix told Mark Lane (on film) in 1966 that his film has

initially been ‘lost’ by the processing plant and that when the FBI returned his film to him, some of the

frames had been ‘damaged’ and were missing. The originals of both the Nix film and the Muchmore film

(taken from the opposite side of thje plaza from which Zapruder was shooting his film, and from much

farther away) are missing today. How convenient. The absence of first-frame overexposure in frame 133 of

the Zapruder film suggests, but in my view does not prove, that the limousine’s turn from Houston onto Elm

was removed when the film was altered and recreated, using an optical printer. The fact that the originals of

the Nix and Muchmore films are missing is extremely suspicious; they may have been removed from

circulation to prevent detection of their alteration -- specifically, removal of the limousine’s turn onto Elm

from Houston and of the car stop during the assassination. If ever found, one of the first things that should

be checked is to see if the limousine’s turn onto Elm Street in these two films has been excised--either

crudely, with splices, or via reprinting those films in an optical printer.

Clint Hill’s Interactions with Jackie Kennedy on the Trunk of the Limousine Appear to be

Inconsistent in the Nix Film and the Zapruder Film

There is also significant disagreement between the Nix film and the Zapruder film. In Harry Livingstone’s

2004 book about the Zapruder film, he discusses differences between the images of Clint Hall and Jackie

Kennedy on the trunk of the limousine in the Nix film, versus what is shown in the Zapruder film. Livingstone

correctly points out that in the Nix Film, Clint Hill appears to place his left arm around Jackie Kennedy’s right

shoulder and push her back into her seat -- where as in the Zapruder film, he barely touches her with his

right hand, and is not seen embracing her with his left arm at all. (See pages 250-251 of Livingstone for the

pertinent Nix frames, and the MPI video of the Zapruder film for comparison. A projected version of the

portion of the Nix film showing Clint Hill on the trunk of the limousine can been seen in the 1973 film

“Executive Action,” and it can be seen in its entirety in the Groden DVD JFK Assassination Films: The Case for

Conspiracy.)

Is the “Headsnap” Different in the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films?

The ‘headsnap” in the Nix film appears to be slightly slower, and less violent than in the Zapruder film; in the

Muchmore film, there appears to be no ‘headsnap’ visible at all, but this may be inconclusive because of the

camera angle at the time of the headshot(s) and because the line of sight to the President’s head is

obstructed by Dealey Plaza bystanders immediately afterwards. (See episode 3 of “The Men Who Killed

Kennedy” for footage oft he headshot(s) in both the Nix and the Muchmore films; both films can also been

seen in their entirety in Robert Groden’s DVD JFK Assassination Films: The Case for Conspiracy.) The

perceived differences between the headshot(s) in the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films suggests that when

debris exiting from the back of President Kennedy’s head was removed from the three films, that it was not

done uniformly, resulting in three slightly different versions of the motion of the President’s head caused by

the fatal shot(s). This has not been conclusively proven, but is worthy of further investigation. . . .

Concluding Reflections

There is much more, but the Addendum, “The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood,” pages 1352 to 1363, is of

special interest, where highly qualified experts on film restoration viewed a digital version of the forensic copy

of the Zapruder film obtained from the National Archives and found that the massive blow out at the back of

the head had been painted over in black, which was a stunning confirmation of the observation of Roderick

Ryan, reported in Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the bulging out of brains -- called the

“blob”—and the blood spray visible in frames 314 and thereafter had also been painted in, where Ryan would

receive the Academy Award in 2000 for his contributions to cinematography, where his area of specialization

was special effects.

As of this date, seven Hollywood film experts -- eight, if we include Ryan -- have agreed that the fakery used

to cover up the blow out to the back of the head by painting it over in black was very primitive and highly

amateurish, a finding that they have based upon a 6k version of the forensic copy of the Zapruder film

obtained from the National Archives. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has verified these artifacts using the 4x5

slides created by MPI when it produced a digital version of the film -- which are archived at The 6th Floor

Museum -- the inadequacies of which are explained in “Which Film is ‘the Zapruder Film’?,” by me and Scott

Lederer, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), page 31. The creation of this visual deception was an

elaborate undertaking, but it contained the elements of its own refutation.

“Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery” is an astonishing achievement. For Horne to have assimilated and

synthesized such a complicated and technical assortment of arguments and evidence impresses me beyond

words. This chapter alone is worth the price of the whole. No matter what reservations or differences I may

have with any other parts of his work, what he has done on the film is extraordinary. He was my featured

guest on “The Real Deal” on Wednesday, 13 January 2010, archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

It is also archived http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/do . . . b-part-iii.html as part of a three-part blog on Horne, INSIDE THE

ARRB (2009). Those who want to pursue this historic development in JFK assassination research are

welcome to pursue these leads.

James H. Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, Duluth; Founder, Scholars

for 9/11 Truth; Editor, Assassination Science; and Co-Editor, Assassination Research, maintains a

blog on 9/11 and other “false flag” attacks.

Edited March 29, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

WARNING: I think I mentioned yesterday what Sylvia Meagher used to say about knowing people's opinions. She said it doesn't matter who believes what. The only thing that matters is what evidence someone can put forward for their beliefs. Hence, it seems to me that my beliefs about anything are profoundly unimportant. However, the good Professor keeps prattling on giving my opinons about all sorts of things independent of what I say or what the facts are. Anyone who takes Professor James H. Fetzer's word for what I believe or don't believe should have his/her head examined! In the future, I won't take the trouble to try to correct his prattling.

JT

Edited March 29, 2011 by Josiah Thompson

[Pat Speer]

Agreeing with a source whose incompetence with regard to the medical, ballistic, and photographic evidence is known has no value. This is a classic case of "the blind leading the blind". I have given you citations were you can confirm that Harvard studies have shown witnesses are 98% accurate and 98% complete when they are reporting features they have witnessed that were salient (important to them). Josiah Thompson has a vested interest in protecting his indefensible contention that we do not know if there was a blow-out to the back of the head, which in turn implicates the authenticity of the Zapruder film. Disregard the Harvard study, if you will, which is objective, empirical proof that what you are saying here is false. But tell me why you also discount what Gary Aguilar explains here about the improbability of his 44 witness reports--where all 44 report the same observations!--being false. You appear to have lost any semblance of reason. We know Tink's rationale, but what is your excuse? And I address the same question to Jim DiEugenio.

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.

Jim, the number cited by Aguilar is highly deceptive. By his own acknowledgment, there are two witnesses--Giesecke and Salyer--whose statements do not support the others. This means the odds are not 1 in 2 to the 44th power, but the odds of something happening 44 out of 46 times--a much much smaller number. (Off the top of my head I can't remember the formula, but it's certainly thousands of times smaller.)

And that's not the worst of it. He has arbitrarily decided that everyone saying the wound was not where it is in the autopsy photos was saying it was in the same location. That's flat out wrong. Look at this slide. Are these people pointing to the same location? Absolutely not.

In his best-selling and highly-influential book High Treason, published 1989, Robert Groden held that the wound location depicted in the "McClelland" drawing "was verified by every doctor, nurse, and eyewitness as accurate," and that these witnesses described an "exit wound... almost squarely in the back of the head (the occiput)."

In his more photo-intensive follow-up, The Killing of a President (1993), moreover, Groden appears to back up this claim. The photographs of 18 witnesses pointing to their heads are presented, accompanied by the following text:

"The Parkland Hospital doctors were the best eyewitnesses to the President's wounds. They had at least 20 minutes, and some had longer, to examine the President's injuries immediately after the shooting. The doctors' oral and written statements provided the only reliable clues to the snipers' locations and bullet trajectories..."

From this one might assume the witnesses presented were at Parkland and had 20 minutes or more in which they viewed the President's wounds. But this is far from the case. Only 10 of these witnesses were at Parkland and very few of these witnesses got much of a look at the President.

When one studies the photos of these witnesses, moreover, there's a bigger surprise. Many of these purported "back of the head" witnesses are not actually pointing to a wound location on the back of their heads, as one would guess, but are instead pointing out a wound location on the top or side of the head, at locations just as close or closer to the wound location depicted in the autopsy photos and x-rays as the wound location depicted in the so-called "McClelland" drawing...the drawing they'd purportedly "verified."

(Although Groden, in The Killing of a President, claims Dr. McClelland himself made this drawing, he is clearly mistaken. In June, 2010, Josiah Thompson, who first published the drawing, wrote me and confirmed that while this famous drawing--which has come to represent the "actual" location and appearance of the president's large head wound to many, if not the majority, of conspiracy theorists--was based upon Dr. McClelland's description of the large head wound to the Warren Commission, Dr. McClelland had in fact "had nothing to do with the preparation of the drawing.")

And it's not as if Groden is the only one making false claims about these witnesses... Here is how Dr.s Mantik and Wecht address this issue in The Assassinations, published 2003: "The compilations of Gary Aguilar, M.D., have convincingly shown that the Parkland Hospital physicians and nurses, and even the Bethesda autopsy personnel themselves, almost unanimously recalled a large hole at the low right rear of Kennedy's head." And, as if to prove their calling this wound "low" was not a mistake, they later ask "Was cerebellum missing at the low right rear, where the Parkland medical witnesses (including six physicians) saw massive trauma?" Now, look back at the photos in Groden's book reproduced on the previous slides... Is it a true statement that these witnesses "almost unanimously" pointed out a wound location at the LOW right rear of their heads? NO. NO. And HELL NO.

Let's count then and make it official. First of all, we need to define our terms. For a wound to be LOW on the back of the head, it would have to be at the level of the ear or below, in the location of the wound in the "McClelland" drawing, correct? So let's run back through the photos and note which ones show someone pointing out a wound below the top of their ear.

Beverly Oliver points out a large wound at the level of the ear and above. She represents 1 witness whose recollections are consistent with a wound at the low right rear.

Phil Willis points out a wound above the level of his right ear. This means only 1 of 2 witnesses so far discussed have had recollections consistent with a wound at the low right rear.

Marilyn Willis points out a wound on top of her head. This lowers the ratio to 1 of 3 witnesses.

Ed Hoffman points out a wound at the top of the back of his head. This lowers it further to 1 of 4 witnesses.

Ronald Jones points out a wound above and in back of his ear. This means the recollections of but 1 of 5 witnesses so far discussed are consistent with what Groden, Aguilar, Mantik, and Wecht have been feeding us.

Charles Carrico points out a wound on the back of his head above his ear. The ratio drops to 1 of 6 witnesses.

Richard Dulaney points out a wound at the top of his head. It spirals downward to 1 of 7 witnesses.

Paul Peters points out a wound above his ear. It's clear now that only 1 of 8 witnesses had recollections consistent with what so many have long claimed.

Kenneth Salyer points out a wound on the side of the head, by the ear. It bottoms out at 1 of 9 witnesses.

Robert McClelland points out a wound on the back of his head, both below and above the top of the ear. This means but 2 of 10 witnesses so far discussed had recollections consistent with a wound at the low right rear.

Charles Crenshaw points out a wound mostly behind the ear. He lifts the ratio back to 3 of 11 witnesses.

Audrey Bell points out a wound at the level of her ear. The ratio soars to 4 of 12 witnesses...1 in 3.

Theran Ward points out a wound by the ear. It drops back to 4 of 13 witnesses.

Aubrey Rike points out a wound on the back of the head above the ear. The ratio drops to 4 of 14.

Paul O'Connor points out a wound behind the ear. The ratio rises back to 5 of 15 witnesses.

Floyd Riebe points out a wound behind the ear. Now, 6 of the 16 witnesses have depicted a wound at the low right rear.

Jerrol Custer points out a wound behind the ear. Now, 7 of the 17 witnesses have depicted a wound consistent with the wound described in the conspiracy literature.

Frank O'Neill points out a wound on the back of his head above the ear.

So there you have it. Only 7 of these 18 witnesses can honestly be claimed to have described a wound at the "low right rear" a la Mantik and Wecht, at the "bottom of the back of the head," a la Lifton, or in the location depicted in the "McClelland" drawing, a la Groden. 7 of 18, need it be said, is not the "almost unanimous" claimed by Mantik and Wecht, based on the research of Aguilar, nor the "every" purported by Groden.

And it's actually worse than that. When one watches Groden's video, it's obvious that 2 of his back of the head witnesses, Custer and O'Connor, actually described a wound stretching across the entire right side of the head, and that Groden grabbed shots of them as their hands went down the back of their head to mislead his readers into thinking they saw the wound depicted in the "McClelland" drawing.

So it's really 5 of 18. 5 of 18 is not convincing evidence the wound was on the back of the head where so many would like us to believe it was. It's actually compelling evidence for the opposite...that the wound was NOT in this location.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Josiah Thompson]

This is really interesting stuff, Pat. I want to reiterate what I told you about the McClelland diagram. I gave McClelland's description to a medical illustrator who then drew it. I understand that a copy of the illustration has been posted with a note from Dr. McClelland saying that he had contact with me and that the illustration matches what he told me or drew for me. I have no recollection whatsoever of ever being in contact with Dr. McClelland ever... neither before the publication of Six Seconds nor after. Of course, my memory is not imfallible but that is what it is.

Phil Willis and Marilyn Willis were much too far back from the President to observe anything persuasive about the Presiden't head wound. Ed Hoffman? Beverly Oliver? I kind of have my doubts. I think you would do better to restrict your counts to Parkland witnesses. Even Elizabeth Loftus would point out that medical personnel practicing their craft where observations of wounds are critical are not just ordinary eyewitnesses. They should be considered much more reliable.

I hope this excellent post of yours will generate some good discussion because it is really important. Thanks for posting it.

JT

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Then Josiah Thompson ought to do a better job answering everyone's questions.

I am far from the only one who has serious questions about his views. I now ask

him the following questions, given it is 44 years since his book was published--

although it could hardly be more obvious that he is prepared to not answer any

by citing Sylvia Meagher and others from "the good old days" as a subterfuge:

(1) How many times was JFK hit and where?

(2) What were the shooters' locations?

(3) Who were they, if you can name them?

(4) What steps were taken to cover up?

(5) Were any of the photos/films faked?

(6) Who was behind his killing and why?

(7) Several shot sequences have appeared since yours.

Kindly explain how your sequence compares with these:

(7a) Richard Sprague, Computers and Automation (May 1970)

(7b) Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (1993)

(7c) James H. Fetzer, "Dealey Plaza Revisited" (2008)

Give us a summary of your position. I have explained many times that we have

more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the

hit; that the CIA/Military/anti-Castro Cubans/local law enforcement took him out;

that the FBI covered it up; and that Lyndon and J. Edgar were principals, with

financing from Texas oil men. Kindly provide us with a comparable overview, too.

WARNING: I think I mentioned yesterday what Sylvia Meagher used to say about knowing people's opinions. She said it doesn't matter who believes what. The only thing that matters is what evidence someone can put forward for their beliefs. Hence, it seems to me that my beliefs about anything are profoundly unimportant. However, the good Professor keeps prattling on giving my opinons about all sorts of things independent of what I say or what the facts are. Anyone who takes Professor James H. Fetzer's word for what I believe or don't believe should have his/her head examined! In the future, I won't take the trouble to try to correct his prattling.

JT

Edited March 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[David Andrews]

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 think that Don Jeffries raises an important point that's getting lost. How do we reconcile the right front "flap" of hinged skull that we see in the autopsy photos with the "blob" shown in Zapruder?

In the HSCA-Groden rear autopsy faked photo posted earlier in this thread, the "flap" is left dangling open rather provocatively, while the pathologist pinches closed the enormous flap of rear scalp, hiding missing bone and bone slivered in the cranium.

The circumference of the right front temporal bullet wound, after all, does not border on the "flap."

Did the "flap" exist before pre-autopsy alteration? Is the Z-film "blob" meant to confirm that it did?

Is the rumored ear damage left unaltered in the HSCA-Groden rear-of-head fake posted earlier?

Is it possible that the too-brief frontal explosion of matter from the "blob" site in Zapruder could have been the rear spray removed from the extant film, rotated and rotoscoped onto the front of the head?

(I altered this from its original posting, so I deleted and bumped.)

Edited March 30, 2011 by David Andrews

[Robin Unger]

Even Robin Unger does not seem to understand the most basic aspects of the medical evidence, which David Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE (1980), explained more than 30 years ago

Just for the record.

I have NEVER stated at any time, that i have any expertise at all, when it comes to discussing the medical evidence.

I don't

My opinions are on the most part "SPECULATION" only, and should be taken as such.

Pat.

I remember we had some very good discussions Re: the correct orientation of the F8 Photo

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Anyone who reads DiEugenio's review of Horne can see that he does not understand the medical, the ballistic, or the photographic or film evidence. Apparently, he does not even understand that the blow-out to the back of the head BY ITSELF proves that the Zapruder film has been altered, since you can't see it (in the crucial early frames, even though it can be seen in later frames, as I have explained).

Given the books I have edited, where my comments appear throughout, especially in the Prefaces and the Prologues, it is inconceivable to me how anyone could suggest that I have not taken a stand on the medical, the ballistic, or the photographic and film evidence. In addition, I have many articles and presentations in which I spell out exactly what I believe about the assassination, including who and why.

My presentation, which I have cited in this thread alone, multiple times, "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", shows (using a diagram adapted from one previously published by Richard Sprague in COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION in May 1970) shooters in six different locations, including the County Records Building, the Dal-Tex, the Book Depository, the grassy knoll, and the north and south ends of the Triple Underpass.

I have explained this so many times that it is inconceivable to me that any serious student of the case would not know that, as I have explained hundreds of times, JFK was shot in the throat (from in front), in the back (from behind), and in the head (from behind and from in front), while John Connally was hit one to three times from the side and there were at least three misses (Tague/chrome strip/grass opposite the knoll) = at least 8, 9, or 10 shots.

By assailing me without knowing what he is talking about Jim DiEugenio demonstates--conclusively, in my view--that he is lazy, inattentive, and doesn't do his homework. Most of what he says about my views in relation to Lifton's are correct, as I have explained, where the body was covertly moved (probably to Walter Reed), bullet fragments were removed, there were multiple casket entries and surgery to both his cranium and to his throat).

What he doesn't know about JFK is multiplied many times by what he is abysmally ignorant about me in relation to 9/11. If someone want's to know my views, there are plenty of places to find them, including my Buenos Aires powerpoint, "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?", which is archived on the web site of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which I founded, and my London presentation, "Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?", http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/

Because I deal with the controversial, cutting-edge issues about JFK and 9/11, I receive plenty of flack. For a recent example, see "The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan", in which I reply to attacks that are just as misguided as those launched here by Jim DiEugenio. For more from an historical perspective, moreover, see "Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op". Check them out and you will find his knowledge of me and my positions is hopelessly inadequate.

As I have also explained many times--and I have featured both of the authors on "The Real Deal"--JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE (2008) by James Douglass records how JFK antagonized the most powerful special interests in the country, while Phil Nelson's LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION (2010), explains what they did about it. For some reason, many others--not just Jim--cannot begin to appreciate Lyndon's profound role in the assassination of his predecessor.

I really don't understand Jim. He has done some good work on the assassinations, including by editing his book with Lisa Pease, THE ASSASSINATIONS (2003). But he simply does not understand the nature of science. He doesn't understand the medical evidence or the principles of ballistics or the photographic and film evidence. That is not simply my opinion. That's a fact. Now he compounds it by attacking someone who does, which is both ironic and pathetic.

JF: I realize that Jim DiEugenio has no idea what Lifton was talking about and therefore trashed Horne when he reported that the results of the ARRB confirmed his (Lifton's) basic findings about the theft of the body, its early arrival at Bethesda, the alteration of the body and the fake autopsy report.JF

This is the kind of cheap slur that Fetzer has come to specialize in these days. Since he can't make any headway with his far out theories, he turns to empty bombast and boilerplate type insults.

What a complete misrepresentation of me and what I wrote about Horne's series. For I separated out the original things in Horne's series that were good and gave him credit for it, e.g. his work on the xrays, and the brain photos.

Not only do I understand throughly what Lifton was talking about, I actually spent several pages going over the main theses of his book. In fact, I actually enumerated them. I then explained why I disagreed with them. (Further, I enumerated all the other schools of thought on the medical evidence in this case, which Fetzer has never done and will never do.)

Now, if Fetzer buys into Lifton completely then he also thinks that all the shots came from the front and the body was hijacked in order to perform, among other things, trajectory reversal.

Does the good professor beleive this: That all the shots came from the front and the trajectories were reversed by pre autopsy surgery? A simple yes or no will suffice.

If its yes, then explain a.) The Tague strike, b.) The Connally wounds, c.) The dents in the front of the car, among other things.

If you buy Lifton wholesale, then you can't buy Horne wholesale since he does not agree the body was hijacked. He says everything was done right there at Bethesda with witnesses looking. In fact, I described in detail the unbeleivable amount of cutting, surgery and then disguising of this surgery, which he says took about 45 minutes. And which no other professional pathologist or surgeon would possibly agree would take that short amount of time.

But Fetzer's insistence on this point makes a good plateau from which to remind us of all the things he believes in in this case:

1. He buys Lifton's book, and has never made a derogatory comment on it that I have read. Which means he thinks the body was hijacked and then altered in order to 1.) Perform trajectory reversal since all the shots came from the front, 2.) To extract the bullets 3.) To "punch" in wounds, like the back wound. Therefore, the clothing has to be bloodied up and altered also.

2. He buys Horne, even though Horne says the body was not altered via hijacking, but right at Bethesda.

3. He buys radical Zapruder film alteration i.e. the film is really a cartoon which has been matted in etc.

4. He thinks the x rays were altered.

5. He thinks the pictures were altered.

Most logical thinking people would ask this: If you did Numbers 4 and 5, why would you do Numbers 1 and 2? This is a very good question to pose.

Now in Fetzer Land, this is just for starters. When you actually look at what he thinks happened, well it sort of recalls Murder on the Orient Express: Everyone killed Kennedy. This is a guy who thinks Philip Nelson's recycled LBJ book is comparable to JFK and the Unspeakable! Which for me shows that 1.) Fetzer does not have the slightest idea of why the Douglass book is so important, 2.) He does not understand who LBJ was, and 3.) He does not understand who Kennedy was, and 4.) He does not understand what makes important research important.

This is also a guy who defended Nelson's use of Seymour Hersh! Hersh's hatchet job on Kennedy has Oswald killing Kennedy and the back brace holding him up for the fatal shot!

But this is just the beginning: He also thinks the Secret Service was in on it from the start, since he buys LIfton. And if you buy Lifton you have to buy this whole Texas angle, so therefore Fetzer also buys Madeleine Brown. And if you buy Brown, then that means you have to buy the whole Murchison Ranch "death party" celebration with everyone and his brother there. Because this thing has evolved into not just Murchison, Wood, LBJ etc. But its newest shape also includes Hoover and McCloy.

But he also thinks it has a CIA element and that Bush was involved too. I mean who the heck was not involved in the JFK hit n Fetzer Land?

Which makes it quite logical that he initially fell for Gregory Douglass and his hoax, Regicide, which actually did have everyone involved.

This all parallels his work on 9-11--Judy Wood, No Planes, Holograms-- which eventually got him ejected from the more credible regions of that field.

How you are ever going to make such a smorgasbord of goulash presentable to the public for the fiftieth escapes me with a completeness that is depressing. If there is any difference between Fetzer and Nigel Turner, I do not see it. Not only do they buy almost every half baked theory/fantasy in this case, including Judy Baker, but they have no respect for the Sagan Rule that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. In fact, in his eagerness to embrace the Far Side, Fetzer gives it the back of his hand.

This is not scholarship. This is not academic review. This is not critical responsibility.

It is perhaps one step removed from Alex Jones land. And this is where Fetzer will eventually lead us.

Count me out.

Edited March 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Just for the record, Robin, I think that you are a "good guy" and I value your contributions.

But you need to know that the Groden color photos are fakes and his reconstructions are

based on the autopsy report, which was powerfully affected by Humes' surgery to the head.

Even Robin Unger does not seem to understand the most basic aspects of the medical evidence, which David Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE (1980), explained more than 30 years ago

Just for the record.

I have NEVER stated at any time, that i have any expertise at all, when it comes to discussing the medical evidence.

I don't

My opinions are on the most part "SPECULATION" only, and should be taken as such.

Pat.

I remember we had some very good discussions Re: the correct orientation of the F8 Photo

[Bernice Moore]

Reymond tried to arrange for me to view it years ago during a visit to Paris, but the owner backed out, alas.

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. How can someone who did NOT

see the film dispute those who did?

Jack

Then what is it Jack? Is it another film that no one knows was taken? Was it by the Babushka lady? I doubt it since her film was from the opposite angle. Anyone would have known it.

I am not ridiculing anyone. Especially Mili Cranor, who I have the highest respect for--and who you choose not to mention.

I posed a truthful situation. Which I stood by and watched on Rich's forum. Person after person-not Mili-- began to say that they saw this "other film", which you do not want to say was the real Z film, but I do not know what else it can be. Until finally someone said they saw it on TV, the late night news in a fairly big Texas town.

I was kind of taken aback by this chain reaction which culminated in tens of thousands of people seeing this "other film". And yet no one had ever written a word about this event. And yet even though this film was supposed to be buried for national security cover up purposes, it was somehow not.

Now, how did it slip out so often and in so many places?

Second, if it is not the Real Z film, then what is it?

I answered that. It is NOT the "real Z film". It is ANOTHER FILM or THE OTHER FILM. They are reported to be so different they CANNOT be the same.

I purposely did not mention Mili Cranor. She was the researcher who visited the network. Few know of her Fourth Decade article.

Dan Marvin is the person who saw it at a CIA training facility. William Reymond, French journalist, was shown the film multiple times by a

retired French intelligence agent, who told him it was the HL Hunt copy of the Zapruder film...but Reymond's description matched THE OTHER FILM,

not the Z film. Rich DellaRosa's description is the most detailed, because he saw it three times UNDER CLASSIFIED CONDITIONS (when he was on

active duty). Others who saw the OTHER FILM under different conditions are, as I recall, Greg Burnham, Scott Myers, and Rick Janowitz.

All of these people described the same film, including the limo making a wide turn from Houston, and the limo coming to a stop of about 2 seconds

during the head shot. What are the odds of ALL of these people lying or being mistaken about the same details?

Jack

Jack; thanks for your clarification, but rick was not one of the six, one time on Rich's that was proposed that he did, but he appeared and clarified for all that, no, he has not seen the other film........best b...there are just the 6.and milicent saw it at CBS ..b

ps..Jack, if you would like i can send you the partial thread from rich's that took place at that time, re the names the discussion you had with rich is included and the names were clarified...best b

Edited March 30, 2011 by Bernice Moore