DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What's the deal? Have you been recruited to speak for Tink? Is he unable to speak for himself? He has been drawing back from his most important findings for some time now, including the "double-hit" and now even distancing himself from the McClelland diagram, which was first published in his own book. He has endorsed Aguilar's work on the wound to the back of the head but defended the authenticity of the Zapruder film, which does not show it. What's wrong with this picture?

I know you are out of your depth when it comes to the medical and the ballistic and the photographic evidence, which you displayed in your incompetent review of INSIDE THE ARRB, but for you to be playing a shill for Tink when his time has come is too much for anyone who claims to be competent. If you can't see the inconsistency, then you, like Tink, are discrediting yourself, too. We all know his many virtues, but those seem to be past of a distant past. Where does he stand now?

Let him speak for himself.

A question or three for Tink:

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

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

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

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

Thanks--

The above is ridiculous.

Tink just said that he thinks the fatal bullet came from the right front. So how could he beleive the WR? Or that Oswald acted alone?

And he just said that Dave Wimp convinced him that there was not a double hit at 313, so obviously his beliefs have changed since his book.

Further, it was Tink, with Gary Aguilar, who uncovered the fact that Hoover knew that Odum had never shown CE 399 to Wright at Parkland. THat was a tremendous blow to the official story. Then John Hunt took it a step further--which for all intents and purposes proved that CE 399 was switched WITHIN 24 HOURS, and the FBI was in on the cover up almost immediately.

So obviously if CE 399 was planted and the FBI knew it, then ipso facto, Oswald did not kill Kennedy, and you have a conspiracy and cover up. ANd BTW, TInk alluded to the assassination being an "inside job" in his book. (See p. 176)

The above is one reason that, for the most part, I stay out of these internecine battles over the Zapruder film. If somehow you are against alterationism at its most extreme, then you are grilled, Spanish Inquisition style, about whether or not you are really some kind of spook or a secret WC defender. Which is just damned silly.

The Zapruder film, more than any other piece of evidence is responsible for 1.) Reopening the JFK case in 1976. (And before Burnham says something about the HSCA being unsatisfactory, that was due to the sacking of Sprague and the horrible cover up by Blakey. Period.) and 2.) Convincing millions of young people that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy through its powerful insertion in Stone's film.

So the idea that you are either for us or against us based on what you think of the film's authenticity is just manufactured bunk.

And for what purpose, I don't really know.

[Greg Burnham]

I'd still prefer to hear from Josiah. This is not a challenge, Jim. I am truly mystified by some of the exchanges that are posted. Please allow him to

either answer or not. It is his choice. I know what he wrote in Six Seconds. I was confirming his current stance. If it was an inappropriate question,

my apologies.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

Rich DellaRosa, who surprisingly viewed "the other film" on three different occasions, explained that the stop was quite abrupt and threw the occupants forward. Since they are thrown forward in frames 314-316 when, presumably, since the limo is supposed to be accelerating, they should be pulled backward, my conjecture has been that they used some of the frames from the stop because they were concerned that, as a striking feature of the actual event, they might remember passengers being thrown forward and therefore included them. Rich's description of his observations about "the other film" may be found in Appendix E of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). You are right to notice that there is something anomalous going on here, because their motions are inconsistent with the scenario the film is being used to convey.

Jim

Occupants of the limo either "duck for cover" after the head shot, or are thrown forward due to sudden braking ?

I've seen it questioned as due to sudden acceleration after the stop during the head shot, meaning I suppose that the stop occurs while Connally is turning and writhing, then he flies forward as Greer hits the gas. But I wasn't there and can't judge.

Good thread.

You have it backward.

Brakes throw people forward (Newton).

Gas (acceleration) throws people backward (Newton).

Jack

Tsk! - too sleepy last night, I guess. Glad I didn't drive.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Since the orientation of the head in frames 272-275 is not the same as in this HSCA photograph, because the HSCA photograph is more directly on the back of the head (where the scalp has been arranged to conceal the blow-out), while the head is rotated further to the left (in relation to the HSCA photograph), you are conveying a false impression of their relationship and exaggerating the location of the "gray area" further to the right and too much toward the ear. If you were right about your superposition, your area indication would be more or less correct. But you are not and it is wrong. I do not thereby insinuate you are not acting in good faith, Robin. But I do contend you have made a mistake. Would you agree that, given the evidence I have adduced in this thread of the location of the head wound, that on either your interpretation or mine, the HSCA photograph has to have been faked or else all of the witnesses are wrong? Doug Horne, by the way, has written me to say that he regards the discovery of the gray area as important, in part because its elongated shape corresponds with the elongated shape of the diagrams by Chuck Crenshaw for the ARRB, which appear as Figure 17 and especially as Figure 18 in INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. I (2009), where Figure 18, especially, gives a more accurate location of where the gray area is located relative to his skull, which corresponds closely with the argument I have made about your orientation mistake. If you were to pull it over about an inch to the left here, you would be much closer to the film and to Crenshaw's diagram. (I will see if I can scan it and post it, but I have to in a new post.)

This is where i see the grey area in Zapruder.

I also see what appears to be a scalp " Hair Piece " apparently used to patch over the open skull cavity.

Either that or someone has given him a VERY BAD haircut.

Edited March 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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

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

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

What's the deal? Have you been recruited to speak for Tink? Is he unable to speak for himself?

I have not talked to Tink directly in probably a year. Is this another of your Tink Conspiracy charges? And I know Tink will reply to this but I think he already had. And somehow Greg missed it.

He has been drawing back from his most important findings for some time now, including the "double-hit" and now even distancing himself from the McClelland diagram, which was first published in his own book.

I don't agree. Tink is saying that he thinks there was one shot from the front, isn't that a conspiracy? And his suspicions about CE 399 have not been weakened, they have been strengthened. In fact, Tink's comments on the conspraicy matter today are stronger than they were before.

He has endorsed Aguilar's work on the wound to the back of the head but defended the authenticity of the Zapruder film, which does not show it. What's wrong with this picture?

This is a matter of disagreement. It depends on where you look for it in the film. Bill Miller's coning effect is undeniable. Groden's stills in High Treason, especially the hard cover, is also pretty compelling. So Tink disagrees with yours. Big deal

I know you are out of your depth when it comes to the medical and the ballistic and the photographic evidence, which you displayed in your incompetent review of INSIDE THE ARRB,

A four part, 100 page review betrays my incompetence? In which I sourced all kinds of books, including the Law book, the Livingstone book, the Mantik and Aguilar pieces in your anthologies, plus declassified HSCA testimony, and ARRB interviews? No Jim, that demonstrates competence, not incompetence. But further, it denotes the sine qua nons of responsible criticism: credibility, care and responsibility. Without those qualities criticism is not criticism. Its flacking. And anybody who can call the Nelson book the LBJ equiivalent of JFK and the Unspeakable--which you did-- does not know the difference.

but for you to be playing a shill for Tink when his time has come is too much for anyone who claims to be competent. If you can't see the inconsistency, then you, like Tink, are discrediting yourself, too.

I am not playing shill for Tink. I pointed out specifically where TInk already replied to these questions. Why does he have to do so again? You are in such a blood feud with him that you cannot even tell when someone is trying to be fair.

Oh and by the way Jim, this is about the fortieth time you have claimed me incompetent. I guess I should give up now huh? Especially when ctka.net is now getting close to 2 million hits a year.

We all know his many virtues, but those seem to be past of a distant past.

No they are not. His book has stood the test of time. Go back and read the first two parts of my Bugliosi review, plus part four. See how many times I referenced his book. One definition of a classic is a book that was written many, many years ago but still has value, both intrinsically, and as a marker in history.

Where does he stand now?

Its obvious to everyone I think. He thinks the JFK case was a conspiracy, but he thinks the film is genuine. As many others do eg. Aguilar, Robertson, Marcus, Groden etc.

Let him speak for himself.

He already did. But you ignore it.

Edited March 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Since I asked Robin to go back to frames 313-317, why have you omitted the most important frames

from this little gif? That cannot be accidental. And why wound anyone discount the conclusion

of an expert on special effects who told Noel Twyan that it had been "painted in"? The physics,

of course, are wrong for a shot from the right/front to have caused brains to bulge to the right/

front. This is part of a multifaceted deception that I have addressed in many places, including,

for example, "The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox", http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html .

It included the wording for frame 313 when it appeared in LIFE to imply that the direction from

which the shot had been fired could be determined on the basis of a single frame, the appearance

of missing mass from the right-front on the anterior-posterior and lateral cranial X-rays, and an

interview with Abraham Zapruder on television that day, during which he placed his hand up to the

right-front of his head to indicate where the brains had been blown out. But surely we all know

that they were blown out to the left/rear, near to where the Harper fragment was found on Saturday.

Josiah cites Dave Wimp as having convinced him he was wrong about the "double hit". But Richard

Feynman discovered it independently when Lifton when to visit him at CalTech. So whom should we

believe: David Wimp or Richard Feynman, who won a Nobel Prize in physics? Roderick Ryan told

Noel Twyman the "blob" had been painted in, which Duncan MacRae disputes. So again whom should we

believe: Duncan MacRae or Roderick Ryan, who received the Academy Award for his contributions to

cinematography in 2000? And Duncan is not even addressing the right frames, which is simply absurd!

We know that one film, which was developed in Dallas, was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, which

was an 8mm (already split) version. The crew working that night had to go out and have a store

opened so they could show it, since they did not have an 8mm camera on hand. A second film was

brought to the NPIC on Sunday, which was a 16mm film that had been developed in Rochester. There

were five physical differences between them. The ARRB confirmed all this, as I explained in "US

Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/994

We have witness after witness, including the four escort patrolmen, that the limo came to a stop.

John Costella has collated a massive archive at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html . I wrote

about aspects of this in "New Proof of Video Fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm and in

"Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-telling-truth-clint-hill-or.html We know

the limo came to a stop. We also know the limo stop is not in the film. Its alteration is the no brainer!

Since we know from the witnesses whose testimony has been reiterated during this very thread that

JFK had a major blow-out to the back of his head--and many also added that it was to the right side--

when we find a major blow-out to the back of his head IN LATER FRAMES OF THE FILM that is missing

from THE EARLIER FRAMES OF THE FILM, which Hollywood experts have confirmed was painted over

"in black"--and crudely done--the problem is not lack of proof. We are exposing an elaborate charade!

Robin,

Go back to frames 313-317, where the "blob" seems to gush out to the right/front.

Then we can better trace the distinction between the "blob" and the skull flap. They

are not the same, where, as I observed, Roderick Ryan explained to Noel that it had

been painted in. The distinction between the "blob" and the skull flap is important.

Jim

Robin is 100% correct, nothing has been painted in.

What we see in the Zapruder film is NOT a painted in blob.

What we see is the simultaneous combination of the energetic release of brain matter, blood, bone, and the blowing out of the flap, all at the same instant.

It's a no brainer.

Edited March 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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

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

I figured you would have nothing to say to that.

Edited March 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What is that "blob" supposed to be? Brains bulging out to

the right/front might be expected of a shot fired from the

left/rear. But we know that it entered his right temple and

created shock waves that blew his brains to the left/rear.

So I can't help wondering what Duncan thinks he is viewing:

brains blown out to the right/front by a shot from where?

For those who have not watched John's introduction to the

faking of the film, this is an appropriate time to link to it:

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

We know more than we did then when John created his intro.

"Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" offers

an nice illustration that derives from what we have recently

learned from Clint Hill about his actions in Dealey Plaza.

Removing the limo stop was crucial because it was such an

obvious indication of Secret Service complicity. And when

they took it out, there wasn't enough time to allow Clint Hill

to do everything he has said he had done--for 47 years now!

But if what Clint Hill has to say is true, the film is a fake.

If the limo came to a halt--as witness after witness said--

the film is a fake. And if there was a blow-out at the back

of his head, as we also know, then the film (again) is a fake.

So I find it very difficult to imagine why anyone today would

continue to uphold the authenticity of the film. Since Tink

endorses Aguilar's study (showing the consistency of the blow-

out to the back of the head), how can he deny that it's fake?

Tell us, Tink. You have taken back the "double hit", which we

know took place from independent sources. You are equivocating

about the McClelland diagram. How do you reconcile Aguilar's

study, which you have endorsed, with the film's authenticity?

And how do you explain away that there were five physical differences

in the strips of celluloid that were taken to the NPIC on Saturday

(the 8mm version developed in Dallas) and on Sunday (the 16mm

version developed in Rochester)? Inquiring minds want to know.

Since I asked Robin to go back to frames 313-317, why have you omitted the most important frames

from this little gif? That cannot be accidental. And why wound anyone discount the conclusion

of an expert on special effects who told Noel Twyan that it had been "painted in"?

For God's sake man, the other frames are in the video which I posted below the video which shows frames 312 and 313.

Just for you, here's one I made in slow motion showing frames 312 to 317.

Re: Twyman - Neither he, or his so called "expert" are experts if they think a blob has been painted in.

No amount of academic qualifications or letters after a name, can compensate for good old common sense and an absense of the Wacko gene.

As I said previously, what is seen is the simultaneous combination of the energetic release of brain matter, blood, bone, and the blowing out of the flap.

Edited March 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

For those who may be unaware of those five physical features that distinguish the 8mm film (developed in Dallas) brought to the NPIC on Saturday, 23 November 1963, and the 16mm film (developed in Rochester) brought to the NPCI on Sunday, 24 November 1963, here is what Doug Horne wrote about them:

1/24/11 4:23 PM

US government official: JFK cover-up, film fabrication (continued on page 15, post #223))

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

(1) Five features of the original do not match the extant film

INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV (2009), p. 1292:

Conclusions

In his long essay published in 2007 on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, Josiah Thompson [NOTE: the author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), an early study based on the Zapruder film] told us we should all trust [retired Kodak expert on celluloid] Rollie Zavada’s judgment and defer to his authority:

“Roland Zavada has a towering reputation in the field and no conceivable reason for cooking his conclusions.”

Now that we have concluded examining his report and Zavada’s changes of mind since that time, it is clear that he has cooked his conclusions. In particular, he has ignored—trashed—key testimony:

*That the exposures were not bracketed at the Jamieson lab when the three ‘first day copies’ were struck, meaning that the three ‘first generation’ copies today should not be bracketed copies;

*That a ‘full frame’ aperture (picture plus soundtrack) was used when duplicating the Zapruder film, meaning that the intersprocket images should be present on the ‘first generation copies’;

*That the edge printer light was turned off when the original film was developed, meaning that there a double registration of processing edge prints in the family scenes on the extant ‘first generation’ copies; and,

*That the camera original film was slit at the Kodak plant in Dallas, meaning that the 16 mm wide, unslit black-and-white copies in existence today cannot have originated from the camera original film, and are instead indirect evidence that a new ‘original’ was created as an unslit 16 mm, double 8 movie (just as Homer McMahon’s expert testimony to the ARRB indicates).

Furthermore, Zavada’s opposition to the shooting of a control film in Zapruder’s actual camera in Dealey Plaza—which was inexplicable and extremely frustrating when it occurred in 1997—now takes on a very different taint, one of possibly intentional sabotage of the authentication effort by the ARRB staff. An incredible charge, you say? Not necessarily.

Read more on pages 1292 through 1294 as well as 1243 to 1292. And this does not take into account that the numbers on the extant film are not punched in the same location as the original. Read Horne to appreciate the depth of Zavada’s deception.

Edited March 29, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

Since the orientation of the head in frames 272-275 is not the same as in this HSCA photograph, because the HSCA photograph is more directly on the back of the head (where the scalp has been arranged to conceal the blow-out), while the head is rotated further to the left (in relation to the HSCA photograph), you are conveying a false impression of their relationship and exaggerating the location of the "gray area" further to the right and too much toward the ear. If you were right about your superposition, your area indication would be more or less correct. But you are not and it is wrong. I do not thereby insinuate you are not acting in good faith, Robin. But I do contend you have made a mistake. Would you agree that, given the evidence I have adduced in this thread of the location of the head wound, that on either your interpretation or mine, the HSCA photograph has to have been faked or else all of the witnesses are wrong? Doug Horne, by the way, has written me to say that he regards the discovery of the gray area as important, in part because its elongated shape corresponds with the elongated shape of the diagrams by Chuck Crenshaw for the ARRB, which appear as Figure 17 and especially as Figure 18 in INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. I (2009), where Figure 18, especially, gives a more accurate location of where the gray area is located relative to his skull, which corresponds closely with the argument I have made about your orientation mistake. If you were to pull it over about an inch to the left here, you would be much closer to the film and to Crenshaw's diagram. (I will see if I can scan it and post it.)

This is where i see the grey area in Zapruder.

I also see what appears to be a scalp " Hair Piece " apparently used to patch over the open skull cavity.

Either that or someone has given him a VERY BAD haircut.

Jim.

My marking of the grey area on the Groden scan is an APPROXIMATION only, as is the angle at which i used to place the scan on the Zapruder GIF

it is not that easy to see kennedy's actual head angle in Zapruder, all i know for sure is that he is in the process of falling to his left.

If he is falling with his head tilted to the left, or face down is hard to discern. ( BUT MAY BE THE KEY TO MARKING THE GREY AREA CORRECTLY )

It is possible that the yellow marking on the image above needs to come down slightly and also to the left . ?

hard to say without knowing the correct head orrientation as kennedy is falling to his left.

Looking at his shoulder i would say we are looking at a tilted head profile mainly of the right side, as apposed to the back of the head.as if he was falling face first onto the seat.

Can you post an image indicating where you see the difference between the ( blob / skull flap ) as i percieve these to be one in the same thing.

Robin.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin,

Thank you for such a thoughtful response. JFK's face is rotated slightly more to the left than would be consistent with the use you are making of the HSCA photograph--and therefore, in my opinion, the yellow area should be moved both to the left and slightly lower to compensate for the difference. I mentioned that Charles Crenshaw had diagrammed the blow-out as he had observed it on a cranial diagram for the ARRB, where Doug mentioned Figure 18, in particular, as showing a somewhat elongated wound. When our company departs this evening, I will see if we can do a scan, which I will add here with some additional comments. Thanks.

Jim

Since the orientation of the head in frames 272-275 is not the same as in this HSCA photograph, because the HSCA photograph is more directly on the back of the head (where the scalp has been arranged to conceal the blow-out), while the head is rotated further to the left (in relation to the HSCA photograph), you are conveying a false impression of their relationship and exaggerating the location of the "gray area" further to the right and too much toward the ear. If you were right about your superposition, your area indication would be more or less correct. But you are not and it is wrong. I do not thereby insinuate you are not acting in good faith, Robin. But I do contend you have made a mistake. Would you agree that, given the evidence I have adduced in this thread of the location of the head wound, that on either your interpretation or mine, the HSCA photograph has to have been faked or else all of the witnesses are wrong? Doug Horne, by the way, has written me to say that he regards the discovery of the gray area as important, in part because its elongated shape corresponds with the elongated shape of the diagrams by Chuck Crenshaw for the ARRB, which appear as Figure 17 and especially as Figure 18 in INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. I (2009), where Figure 18, especially, gives a more accurate location of where the gray area is located relative to his skull, which corresponds closely with the argument I have made about your orientation mistake. If you were to pull it over about an inch to the left here, you would be much closer to the film and to Crenshaw's diagram. (I will see if I can scan it and post it.)

This is where i see the grey area in Zapruder.

I also see what appears to be a scalp " Hair Piece " apparently used to patch over the open skull cavity.

Either that or someone has given him a VERY BAD haircut.

Jim.

My marking of the grey area on the Groden scan is an APPROXIMATION only, as is the angle at which i used to place the scan on the Zapruder GIF

it is not that easy to see kennedy's actual head angle in Zapruder, all i know for sure is that he is in the process of falling to his left.

If he is falling with his head tilted to the left, or face down is hard to discern. ( BUT MAY BE THE KEY TO MARKING THE GREY AREA CORRECTLY )

It is possible that the yellow marking on the image above needs to come down slightly and also to the left . ?

hard to say without knowing the correct head orrientation as kennedy is falling to his left.

Looking at his shoulder i would say we are looking at a tilted head profile mainly of the right side, as apposed to the back of the head.as if he was falling face first onto the seat.

Can you post an image indicating where you see the difference between the ( blob / skull flap ) as i percieve these to be one in the same thing.

Robin.

Edited March 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

A question or three for Tink:

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

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

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

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

Thanks--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JT

[Bernice Moore]

http://www.liveleak....=8ef_1177398555

The Zapruder Film: Truth or Deception ..or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-rcdBNFnGs

Edited March 27, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[William Kelly]

A question or three for Tink:

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

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

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

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

Thanks--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JT

Many thanks for your valuable input Tink,

Bill Kelly

[Greg Burnham]

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, Josiah. The art of persuasion is surely lacking in many of the posts that we read here. It is also true that individuals have

unique experiences and, many times, base their own beliefs about the world, their life, what all this means, and what it true--upon those experiences. Yet,

because many of these experiences are not shared in common with others the information which is used to determine what is true beyond doubt is not, in

and of itself, enough to persuade those who have no experiential frame of reference in which to make a similar judgment call. In other words, the "experience"

of one is simply the "tall story" of another unless and until it is proven to the skeptic.

Healthy skepticism is a necessary tool. It helps to keep us on track, keep us focused, and keep us honest--not only with each other but with ourselves. It's

good to know where you stand today. I have vehemently disagreed with you over the past decade or so on several issues. It's good to know that we don't

disagree about the most fundamental aspects of this case.

Having said that, I remain skeptical of much of what you have written above regarding the authenticity of the photographic/film record. But, I will leave that

topic for another day.

--

Edited March 28, 2011 by Greg Burnham