Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, this is quite fascinating. Thanks for tracking it down. The use of a flechette should have left a wound on his

neck, but there was nothing resembling any such wound reported at Parkland, Bethesda, or elsewhere. We know he

had a small entry wound in the mid-line of his throat, a most unlikely location for a flechette fired from the side. It

was described as a bullet's entry wound three times by Malcolm Perry, M.D., during the Parkland Press Conference.

We also know that there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield and that cerebellar tissue was seen

extruding from the wound at the back of his head at Parkland. Bob Livingston, M.D., world authority on the human

brain, explained to me that even the near-simultaneous impact of two hits (one from behind, one from the right/

front) would not have caused cerebellum to extrude--unless the tough membrane that covers it, the tentorium, had

been ruptured. It could not have ruptured from a flechette, but appears to have ruptured when the bullet hit his

skeleton and broke in two, one part going downward into his right lung, the other upward and rupturing the tough

membrane. Nor would a flechette explain the two small shrapnel wounds in his face, which appear to have been

caused by shards of glass when the bullet passed through the windshield--and made the sound of a firecracker!

That Josiah Thompson should casually dismiss the idea, given this study, however, further impugns his integrity.

Not only has he repudiated the double-hit analysis that was the strongest scientific contribution of his book, but

we find the following passage about the Umbrella Man in this study by Richard Sprague and Robert Cutler, namely:

Questions have always been raised about TUM (The Umbrella Man) ever since Josiah Thompson and Richard Sprague

discovered the open umbrella in a series of photographs. Photo #13, a picture taken by Phil Willis at Zapruder frame

202, shows TUM with open umbrella. Photos #4, 5, and 6 (frames 224, 225, and 227 of Zapruder's film) show the

umbrella protruding from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. Photo #14 (by Richard Bothun) shows TUM less than

a minute after the shots, sitting on the edge of the grass near his original position, with another man seated next

to him. The umbrella is lying on the sidewalk. Photos #15 and 16 (by Wilma Bond) show TUM a minute later, standing

near the highway sign holding the umbrella.

So he is in the process of divesting himself of any significant contribution to the possibility of conspiracy in the death

of JFK but David Lifton should have been raising cain over his reminder that he has abandoned the double-hit account,

since Lifton had had it pointed out to him by Richard Feynman, a Nobel laureate in physics, when he showed him frames

of the Zapruder film at an early stage in his research. Apparently, in his zeal to attack me based upon ignorance of my

research on 9/11, he overlooked a direct conflict with his own research on JFK! This is turing out to be quite a circus.

P.S. Jack told me that Robert Cutler had done studies of all of this some time back. Could someone repost it here?

Jim,

Much of Cutler's work was consistent with (and sometimes based upon) the reportage of Fletcher Prouty.

THE UMBRELLA SYTEM: PRELUDE TO AN ASSASSINATION by Richard E. Sprague & Robert Cutler

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

In the earlier post, he tells us that he has "been working on a new manuscript", which is supposed to show that, although there was no double-hit, there was a shot from in front, which means "JFK’s head did not dramatically move forward between 312 and 313". But we already know that, in the extant film, that dramatic movement does take place, as Richard Feynman verified. So what's going on? Since his head DOES dramatically move forward between 312 and 313 of the extant film, does he mean that this "dramatic movement" is an artifact of the recreation of the film? Not likely, I am sure we would all agree. But how can he explain away a feature that a meticulous study in his his own previous book demonstrated so clearly and which Richard Feynman independently confirmed? I am supposed to be "the silly one" but this is quite bizarre. Josiah is truly "some piece of work"!

For the last six months, I’ve been working on a new manuscript. I found in Washington at the AARC all my old transcripts of Dallas witnesses. They are quite wonderful. In addition, I went to Dallas and spent two afternoons looking at the MPI transparencies. They too are quite wonderful. The consequence of this work is that I think I can now correct some mistakes I made forty years ago. JFK’s head did not dramatically move forward between 312 and 313 and that means we are seeing the impact of a bullet from the right front, not the exit of a bullet from the rear. The last forty years have made certain aspects of the assassination much clearer. Although I cannot as yet come up with a complete reconstruction of what happened, I think I’ve made good progress on part of it. It’s appearance will prove once again that the Professor is not just wrong but silly. So what else is new.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

1) We do not know if Steven Louie Witt was indeed Umbrella Man, who many folks think is a spotter for the snipers of the JFK assassination. I don't think he was.

2) Steven Louie Witt could possibly be a CIA operative or an operative of the plotters of the murder of JFK. He could in fact *maybe* have been a spotter for the snipers of JFK and just told the HSCA a load of baloney.

Notice how the New York Times does not discuss Dark Complected Man, who most credible researchers think INDEED WAS a spotter for the snipers of the JFK assassination. He is the guy with a walkie talkie in his back pocket and who was photographed talking on it post assassination. Then DCL sat down cool as a cucumber in all the chaos post JFK assass. There is no known interview of him. He has not been identified (because IMHO he is one of the assassins of JFK).

Dark Complected Man is also the man who held his hand in a fist in front of his stomach as JFK's limo approached and then raised his arm high, almost like making a salute, as JFK came in range of the sniper or snipers on the Grassy Knoll. A raised hand would be a signal for the sniper or snipers on the Grassy Knoll to keep shooting, we need a "head" shot, JFK is still alive, etc.

Umbrella Man is the noisy diversion for JFK researchers and the media; Dark Complected Man, with the walkie talkie and hand signals, is the one to focus on.

Look closely at all the photos of Dark Complected Man. At Z202 his hand is held in fist in front of his stomach (and out of view of the Grassy Knoll). Then by Z226 he has his hand held high. Then Kennedy is getting his brains blown out at Z313. I think none of those are a coincidence; I think DCL was a spotter for the JFK assassination.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

My best guess about Tink's "new manuscript"--let's see, he published SIX SECONDS in 1967, so he's only had 44 years to work on it, but saved it up for the 50th!- Like this twaddle from Robert Morrow, which is full of uncertainties, actually qualifies as "silly". Tink has run a vendetta against me for so long because, with my background in philosophy, I can see through him. No principled philosopher who was seeking the truth about a serous subject would commit fallacy after fallacy, where this latest display demonstrates the case in spades. Morrow turns out to know much less about the assassination than I have supposed: by putting the limo out front, giving Jackie a huge bouquet of red roses and Nelly of yellow, they didn't need a "spotter". But they need someone to tell them if they were hitting their target. As long as he is pumping, they keep shooting. This really is not a mystery. And for him to ignore that the Umbrella Man and the Cuban were OBVIOUSLY working together is just a bit much. To say we "don't know" when his testimony was evasive and vague (because he wasn't there) and the umbrella was not the one used during the shooting ought to be enough even for Robert Morrow to grasp the fraud, where the most plausible take on the upraised fist is an instruction to "STOP". Either he just hasn't read the thread and simply wanted to pump in his two cents worth or he is just not very good at processing information. In either case, I am sorry to say, for Morrow to make this post at this point REALLY IS SILLY.

1) We do not know if Steven Louie Witt was indeed Umbrella Man, who many folks think is a spotter for the snipers of the JFK assassination. I don't think he was.

2) Steven Louie Witt could possibly be a CIA operative or an operative of the plotters of the murder of JFK. He could in fact *maybe* have been a spotter for the snipers of JFK and just told the HSCA a load of baloney.

Notice how the New York Times does not discuss Dark Complected Man, who most credible researchers think INDEED WAS a spotter for the snipers of the JFK assassination. He is the guy with a walkie talkie in his back pocket and who was photographed talking on it post assassination. Then DCL sat down cool as a cucumber in all the chaos post JFK assass. There is no known interview of him. He has not been identified (because IMHO he is one of the assassins of JFK).

Dark Complected Man is also the man who held his hand in a fist in front of his stomach as JFK's limo approached and then raised his arm high, almost like making a salute, as JFK came in range of the sniper or snipers on the Grassy Knoll.

Umbrella Man is the noisy diversion for JFK researchers and the media; Dark Complected Man, with the walkie talkie and hand signals, is the one to focus on.

Look closely at all the photos of Dark Complected Man. At Z202 his hand is held in fist in front of his stomach (and out of view of the Grassy Knoll). Then by Z226 he has his hand held high. Then Kennedy is getting his brains blown out at Z313. I think none of those are a coincidence; I think DCL was a spotter for the JFK assassination.

Edited by Kathy Beckett
it is against forum rules to brand someone a liar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

I do think that "Dark Complected Man" and "Umbrella Man" were both spotters or signalmen for the snipers of JFK. I don't know much about Louis Steven Witt if he was Umbrella Man or not or if he was US intelligence.

But I do know that Dark Complected Man was holding his fist in front of his stomach (Z 202) as JFK's limo approaches; then DCM abruptly raises his arm by at least Z 226 - now this is well BEFORE JFK's head is shattered at Z 313.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oMHWqtpXrhA/Si69A-OmJTI/AAAAAAAAABA/PlS2NCQ5sQM/s400/jfkumbrella2.gif

So I don't think a raised arm by DCM means to *quit* shooting. The pumping of the umbrella could very well mean keep shooting until we get a head shot on JFK.

I do know DCM and Umbrella Man sat around cool as cucumbers while many other folks were running around or charging the Grassy Knoll in search of a gun man.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Daniel,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I have been dealing with Zapruder film alteration since 1996, when I organized the first symposium at Lancer in Dallas. Tink has been asssiling me ever since. I have published many articles about it, some of which can be found on my assassinationscience.com web site. I have also published THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) and the Duluth conference on film alteration is available on YouTube. Indeed, if you read "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication" on Veterans Today, you will see that I have introduced links to each of the six participants contributions. Check out those videos.

It seems to me you have not thought this through. There was a fist-sized hole in the back of his head. The Parkland physicians were very explicit about it. I discuss it and diagrams of it by McClelland and Crenshaw in every presentation I make. Aguilar did a long study about it in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). While I now believe he did not do justice to the enhancement of the wound performed by Humes using a cranial saw, it should be obvious that the film cannot be unaltered, given this wound, because it has been painted over in the early frames--even though it is visible in frame 374. How do you reconcile those reports with the film?

I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, Daniel. I recognize that there are members of the JFK research community who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that the film has been altered, no matter how much proof may be available. You may ask why they would have done this or that, but you are not considering the time-line. They did what they did, which resulted in a flawed film. Clint Hill, whose life was defined by those few seconds, has described those moments the same way for 47 years, as I explain in "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder fim?"

Plenty of people insist the film is authentic, when it cannot possibly be authentic. It is not even self-consistent, since frame 374 shows the wound that has been obfuscated in earlier frames--where, according to Hollywood film restoration experts, it was painted over in black. Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects, for which he won the Academy Award in 2000, told Noel Twyman back around 1996 that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in. They are both obviously right. I have no idea why you are willing to reject the witnesses who reported the limo stop, because they are abundant and compelling. The film was faked.

I am not a psychologist, but I am an expert on rationality, which can be measured by objective standards. Convergence in views depends upon having the same body of evidence, the same alternative hypotheses, and relying upon the same rules of reasoning. There is massive objective proof that this film was redone. We know the exchange took place at the NPIC. You may actually be familiar with the evidence and the alternative hypotheses, but perhaps not with the principle known as "inference to the best explanation". Just a suggestion, but you might read "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", where I explain it in the first few sections. I cannot otherwise account for why you are in a state of doubt.

Tink has been working against scientific research from qualified experts from the beginning. He attacked ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), even though it published meticulous studies by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., proving that the autopsy X-rays had been altered and a fine contribution from Robert B. Livington, M.D., a world authority on the human brain, showing that the brain shown in the diagrams and photographs at the National Archives could not possibly be the brain of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It shattered the cover up on the basis of impeccable scientific conclusions, yet he attacked it as "Assassinated Science".

He also assaulted MURDER, which many regard as the best collection of studies ever published on the death of JFK, while praising only one chapter by Gary Aguilar. When I observed that, if Aguilar was right (about the massive blow out to the back of the head), then he had to be wrong (about the authenticity of the film), he went silent. For the latest on JFK, see "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then", which includes new proof that Oswald was not on the 6th floor and summarizes our findings. You can sort it out for yourself, but there have been many signs that Tink was not on "the up and up", where I believe we are now seeing the fruition of his efforts to undermine JFK research in this new series featured by The New York Times.

So my experience with Tink is not limited to issues related to the Zapruder film, even though his commitment to preserve an aura of authenticity seems to have driven him from the beginning. He has attacked me so many times I have lost count (many many hundreds and probably even a thousand), where his resorting to fallacies I spent 35-years teaching freshmen to avoid revealed to me that he was not the man he claimed to be. I have now inventoried at least a half-dozen fallacies that he has committed in this latest charade, featured in a newspaper that Carl Bernstein as infiltrated by the CIA back in 1977. I am sorry, Daniel, but any views I have formed about Josiah Thompson are substantiated in spades by the evidence, including this latest exercise in disinformation.

Jim

Dr Fetzer: I think there certainly was a conspiracy and there certainly was manipulation and destruction of evidence to cover it up. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on Zapruder film falsification. (I have no expertise in motion pictures, and agree with the assertion that "If the Zapruder film is authentic it is proof of conspiracy; if the Zapruder film is modified or fabricated, it is also proof of conspiracy".) That said, for the sake of this argument I shall for the moment assume you are correct and Dr. Thompson is mistaken on this point.

With your academic background I am somewhat surprised that you jump to the conclusion that Dr. Josiah Thompson's continued sticking to the authenticity of the film is evidence that he is an op of the conspiracy. It seems to me rather a very common phenomenon in topics of prolonged expanding research: excellent researchers of one generation can be among the most resistant to new developments from the next generation of researchers if it shows that large amounts of effort were expended by the earlier researchers based in whole or part on false assumptions.

In my undergrad days I recall a geologist explaining that the theory of Continental Drift did not become accepted by by the consensus of geologists through dramatic additional confirming discoveries. When the theory was first advanced, most older geologists categorically dismissed it as simply being too bizarre to be true. The tide turned only with time as the field was became dominated by the next generation who encountered the theory in their youth and had no inherent emotional objection to it.

Other examples that come to my mind: Mayanist J. Eric S. Thompson, the preeminent expert on Maya hieroglyphic writing of the mid 20th century, who in his later years became one of the most vehement critics of the phonetic syllabic theory of decypherment (which is now accepted as the most important development in the topic which led to the majority of the inscriptions becoming readable). Musicologist William Russell was one of the first to treat jazz as worthy of serious academic study and wrote pioneering books and articles on the subject; he also "rediscovered" retired old jazz musician Bunk Johnson, got him out of retirement and into playing and making recordings. But when later researchers determined that Johnson fabricated or exaggerated much of his account of his early life and career, Russell was one of the most resistant to the very notion that some of what Bunk told him in his interviews might have been "bunk". See any pattern here?

Personally, I find discussions of differing interpretations to be more interesting and informative when they are weighted more towards data than ad hominems.

Best wishes to all. -- D.M.

The whole notion that the Zapruder Film has been massively altered is a farce. Nothing of the sort happened. The Zapruder Film was developed within hours of the assassination and then multiple copies were made by others. This is really one of the great canards of JFK research, right up there with the theory of Two Oswalds and the notion that the 3 tramps were anything but 3 simple, non-conspiratorial tramps.

Robert Groden is the world's expert on the film and photography of the JFK assassination. He is a far more reliable source than Jack White (who thinks everything was altered) and Fetzer. Groden says there is no way the Zapruder Film was altered, except for the fact that there were a few missing frames - critical frames I grant - but that is it.

Robert Groden's web page is www.jfkmurder.com

As for Josiah Thompson, it sure was interesting to seem him dismiss the Umbrella Man, while at the same time IGNORING Dark Complected Man, the man with the walkie talkie and the hand signals. That seems like a glaring ommission to me because DCM certainly is a "person of interest."

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

So Robert Morrow thinks that, when I suggest that the upraised fist meant "STOP", I was talking about SHOOTING? If anyone wanted more proof that his knowledge of the assassination is meager beyond belief, this has to be it. My guess would be that no one--NO ONE!--other than Morrow mistook what I meant as a signal to Greer to STOP THE LIMO! The passengers were jostled forward, which we can still see in frames that show them being THROWN FORWARD when, in terms of the sequence of events being presented, they should be being PULLED BACKWARD. So precisely how does Robert Morrow explain the five physical features that distinguish the extant film from the original, which are inventoried in "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"? or that an 8mm split film, developed in Dallas, was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, the 23rd, while a 16mm unspilit film, developed in Rochester, was brought there on Sunday, the 24th? And how does he reconcile Clint Hill's descriptions of his actions in Dealey Plaza, which have been consistent over 47 years--including that he rushed forward, pushed Jackie down, lay across their bodies and peered into a massive, fist-sized hole in the back of JFK's head and then turned and gave his colleagues a "thumb's down, all before the limo reached the Triple Underpass--not to mention witness after witness who reported that the limo had either slowed dramatically or come to a complete halt, which John Costella has collated in "What happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak"? Does he think he is entitled to pick and choose the evidence and disregard or suppress whatever he likes whenever he wants? That is what I would expect from an op like Tink, not from serious students of the assassination. There are too many on this forum who don't even qualify as "amateurs", because they treat this as though it were a game. Egad! You can even SEE THE BLOW OUT in frame 374 but NOT SEE IT in earlier frames. Does Robert Morrow not understand what that means? that the film is NOT EVEN SELF-CONSISTENT? that is has to have been "fixed", at least in those early frames? And if those who spend so much time here can't see through Tink or absorb proof that the film is a fake when it has been explained here time after time, what chance is there that the American public will see through him and actually begin to grasp how profoundly they have been deceived by their own government about the death of their own president using agents and shills and papers and films paid for with their own money? If those who participate here were capable of serious thought, they might be a force for enlightening others. Far too many haven't a clue.

Daniel,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I have been dealing with Zapruder film alteration since 1996, when I organized the first symposium at Lancer in Dallas. Tink has been asssiling me ever since. I have published many articles about it, some of which can be found on my assassinationscience.com web site. I have also published THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) and the Duluth conference on film alteration is available on YouTube. Indeed, if you read "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication" on Veterans Today, you will see that I have introduced links to each of the six participants contributions. Check out those videos.

It seems to me you have not thought this through. There was a fist-sized hole in the back of his head. The Parkland physicians were very explicit about it. I discuss it and diagrams of it by McClelland and Crenshaw in every presentation I make. Aguilar did a long study about it in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). While I now believe he did not do justice to the enhancement of the wound performed by Humes using a cranial saw, it should be obvious that the film cannot be unaltered, given this wound, because it has been painted over in the early frames--even though it is visible in frame 374. How do you reconcile those reports with the film?

I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, Daniel. I recognize that there are members of the JFK research community who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that the film has been altered, no matter how much proof may be available. You may ask why they would have done this or that, but you are not considering the time-line. They did what they did, which resulted in a flawed film. Clint Hill, whose life was defined by those few seconds, has described those moments the same way for 47 years, as I explain in "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder fim?"

Plenty of people insist the film is authentic, when it cannot possibly be authentic. It is not even self-consistent, since frame 374 shows the wound that has been obfuscated in earlier frames--where, according to Hollywood film restoration experts, it was painted over in black. Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects, for which he won the Academy Award in 2000, told Noel Twyman back around 1996 that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in. They are both obviously right. I have no idea why you are willing to reject the witnesses who reported the limo stop, because they are abundant and compelling. The film was faked.

I am not a psychologist, but I am an expert on rationality, which can be measured by objective standards. Convergence in views depends upon having the same body of evidence, the same alternative hypotheses, and relying upon the same rules of reasoning. There is massive objective proof that this film was redone. We know the exchange took place at the NPIC. You may actually be familiar with the evidence and the alternative hypotheses, but perhaps not with the principle known as "inference to the best explanation". Just a suggestion, but you might read "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", where I explain it in the first few sections. I cannot otherwise account for why you are in a state of doubt.

Tink has been working against scientific research from qualified experts from the beginning. He attacked ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), even though it published meticulous studies by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., proving that the autopsy X-rays had been altered and a fine contribution from Robert B. Livington, M.D., a world authority on the human brain, showing that the brain shown in the diagrams and photographs at the National Archives could not possibly be the brain of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It shattered the cover up on the basis of impeccable scientific conclusions, yet he attacked it as "Assassinated Science".

He also assaulted MURDER, which many regard as the best collection of studies ever published on the death of JFK, while praising only one chapter by Gary Aguilar. When I observed that, if Aguilar was right (about the massive blow out to the back of the head), then he had to be wrong (about the authenticity of the film), he went silent. For the latest on JFK, see "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then", which includes new proof that Oswald was not on the 6th floor and summarizes our findings. You can sort it out for yourself, but there have been many signs that Tink was not on "the up and up", where I believe we are now seeing the fruition of his efforts to undermine JFK research in this new series featured by The New York Times.

So my experience with Tink is not limited to issues related to the Zapruder film, even though his commitment to preserve an aura of authenticity seems to have driven him from the beginning. He has attacked me so many times I have lost count (many many hundreds and probably even a thousand), where his resorting to fallacies I spent 35-years teaching freshmen to avoid revealed to me that he was not the man he claimed to be. I have now inventoried at least a half-dozen fallacies that he has committed in this latest charade, featured in a newspaper that Carl Bernstein as infiltrated by the CIA back in 1977. I am sorry, Daniel, but any views I have formed about Josiah Thompson are substantiated in spades by the evidence, including this latest exercise in disinformation.

Jim

Dr Fetzer: I think there certainly was a conspiracy and there certainly was manipulation and destruction of evidence to cover it up. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on Zapruder film falsification. (I have no expertise in motion pictures, and agree with the assertion that "If the Zapruder film is authentic it is proof of conspiracy; if the Zapruder film is modified or fabricated, it is also proof of conspiracy".) That said, for the sake of this argument I shall for the moment assume you are correct and Dr. Thompson is mistaken on this point.

With your academic background I am somewhat surprised that you jump to the conclusion that Dr. Josiah Thompson's continued sticking to the authenticity of the film is evidence that he is an op of the conspiracy. It seems to me rather a very common phenomenon in topics of prolonged expanding research: excellent researchers of one generation can be among the most resistant to new developments from the next generation of researchers if it shows that large amounts of effort were expended by the earlier researchers based in whole or part on false assumptions.

In my undergrad days I recall a geologist explaining that the theory of Continental Drift did not become accepted by by the consensus of geologists through dramatic additional confirming discoveries. When the theory was first advanced, most older geologists categorically dismissed it as simply being too bizarre to be true. The tide turned only with time as the field was became dominated by the next generation who encountered the theory in their youth and had no inherent emotional objection to it.

Other examples that come to my mind: Mayanist J. Eric S. Thompson, the preeminent expert on Maya hieroglyphic writing of the mid 20th century, who in his later years became one of the most vehement critics of the phonetic syllabic theory of decypherment (which is now accepted as the most important development in the topic which led to the majority of the inscriptions becoming readable). Musicologist William Russell was one of the first to treat jazz as worthy of serious academic study and wrote pioneering books and articles on the subject; he also "rediscovered" retired old jazz musician Bunk Johnson, got him out of retirement and into playing and making recordings. But when later researchers determined that Johnson fabricated or exaggerated much of his account of his early life and career, Russell was one of the most resistant to the very notion that some of what Bunk told him in his interviews might have been "bunk". See any pattern here?

Personally, I find discussions of differing interpretations to be more interesting and informative when they are weighted more towards data than ad hominems.

Best wishes to all. -- D.M.

The whole notion that the Zapruder Film has been massively altered is a farce. Nothing of the sort happened. The Zapruder Film was developed within hours of the assassination and then multiple copies were made by others. This is really one of the great canards of JFK research, right up there with the theory of Two Oswalds and the notion that the 3 tramps were anything but 3 simple, non-conspiratorial tramps.

Robert Groden is the world's expert on the film and photography of the JFK assassination. He is a far more reliable source than Jack White (who thinks everything was altered) and Fetzer. Groden says there is no way the Zapruder Film was altered, except for the fact that there were a few missing frames - critical frames I grant - but that is it.

Robert Groden's web page is www.jfkmurder.com

As for Josiah Thompson, it sure was interesting to seem him dismiss the Umbrella Man, while at the same time IGNORING Dark Complected Man, the man with the walkie talkie and the hand signals. That seems like a glaring ommission to me because DCM certainly is a "person of interest."

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Professor (and all other posters),

By all means explain why you think people are wrong, give examples, point out flaws in their argument... but please, do NOT call them "disinfo" agents, "operatives", etc, unless you have clear proof of such and cleared posting of such 'proof' with Mods prior to posting.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Here is a nice quote from a review of Noel Twymann's Bloody Treason on Amazon. It explains why the Zapruder Film could not have been massively altered (I will agree some critical frames were spliced out.)

"Mr. Twyman fails to explain how the original Z film plus 3 first generation copies, as well as, 2 second generation copies were assembled in one location so the original and all the copies could all be altered in the same way. As of November 26, 1963 Zapruder had the original. Life had a 1st generation copy, FBI in Washington had a 2nd generation copy, Washington Secret Service had a 1st generation copy, Dallas FBI had a 2nd generation copy and the Secret Service in Dallas had a 1st generation copy."

Another quote from an Amazon review: B. Lecloux:

"In Badly Reasoned, at the Harold Weisberg Digital Archive, you will find an excellent book length critique of Twyman's claims [of Zapruder Film alteration]. Weisberg is scathing in his analysis of this book. Further, historian David R. Wrone, in his book on the Zapruder film pretty much puts to bed the notion that the Z film was tampered with.

He carefully shows how there was no time for any tamperers to have had the film. And, how would they know that this was the only film they had to phony up? If they didn't know of every possible photo and video of the event, how would they be able to get away with tampering with the Z film.

In terms of common sense, the charge of faking this film is ridiculous. In terms of the documentary record, which is very clear, it doesn't appear to have happened."

Kind of hard to alter the Zapruder Film when the cat has been let out of the bag and their are so many copies floating around.

Regarding the matter of JFK's limo slowing down - it most certainly did slow down (even the break lights were on) but it did NOT stop. It slowed down to a crawl, perhaps 5 miles per hour, maybe a tad slower than that.

It is certainly possible that Dark Complected Man - who I fully believe was in on the assassination - was signaling the driver William Greer to slow down or stop so that JFK could be killed. Possible but I think a more likely explanation of DCM's actions is that he is signaling a sniper or snipers on the Grassy Knoll that JFK is still alive and we need a head kill shot. DCM is literally standing off the sidewalk, about a foot into Elm Street.

And it does seem very clear that the Secret Service put JFK's limo out front, with no large press bus as had been in other motorcades in Texas, so that JFK could be easily shot. This does not mean that all Secret Service Agents were involved in the JFK assassination, perhaps key players such as James Rowley, who was a good friend of Lyndon Johnson and about his same age. Emory Roberts behavior is quite suspicious, too.

Now back to good ole Umbrella Man - I do think it is probable that he was coordinating with Dark Complected Man (who by the way, was probably an anti-Castro CIA-connected Cuban who hated JFK as much as he hated Fidel Castro). I too an extremely suspicious of Louis Steven Witt and doubt he was indeed Umbrella Man. And if Witt was not, then it brings up the matter the question of who, if anyone, prodded him to come forward and tell a bogus story. Possibly the CIA or the plotters. Someone needs to interview Witt's family and attempt to find out if he really was Umbrella Man.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14870

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone isn't thinking this through. The limo had to slow dramatically as it came to a stop. Some witnesses

saw the whole event, others only part--for dozens of different reasons, including their locations and multiple

distractions. So some saw it slow dramatically, while others saw it slow dramatically and come to a stop. The

witness reports are highly consistent once you factor in differences in location and perspective. That so many

reported it came to a complete stop is the key. Why would anyone report that if it hadn't happened? This is a

highly salient feature of the situation, one in which witnesses are 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect

to their recollections. Some saw all of it, others only part. There is no mystery here. Plus there is nothing in

the extant film that resembles either dramatic slowing or a complete stop. They all impeach the extant film.

What an absolutely pathetic display from Dr. Fetzer.

45 years ago Josiah Thompson made an inavaluable contribution to JFK research when he figured out that the assassination was carried out by three gunmen and that the fatal shot came from the right front. To this day he continues to uphold these basic facts. He also has spends a good deal of time sorting the wheat from the chaff - hence the reason he dismisses the whacky nonsense that is constantly flying out of camp Fetzer. There is absolutely NOTHING in this video to suggest that Tink is about to denounce conspiracy except perhaps in the warped imaginations of the most paranoid individuals with an axe to grind. And suggesting that he is an "op" is beyond pathetic.

Tink's careful, meticulous, logical approach to the evidence and his sober manner make the rest of us researchers look good. On the other hand, Dr. Fetzer's ridiculous, paranoid, over-the-top nonsensical theorising and his "anything that contradicts my theory was altered or faked" reasoning makes us all look like total loons. If anyone is guilty of causing confusion and conflict amongst the research community (such as it is), spoiling our reputations and giving outsiders reason to doubt a conclusion of conspiracy it is not Josiah Thompson.

Can you guess who it is?

Martin, I think you are confusing the manner in which Jim Fetzer presents his ideas with the ideas themselves. Any rational person has to admit there is very strong witness testimony to the limo stop, for example. The manner in which Jim Fetzer presents this information may grate, but he has sufficient witness testimony on his side that argument in and of itself cannot be ignored. There is also the observations at Parkland of an avulsive wound in the back of the head, but according to ITEK, the extant film shows no debris exiting the back of the head. In fact such material exiting the rear of Kennedy's head should have been one of the predominant features of the film, were it genuine. I do not agree with all of Dr. Fetzer's ideas, nor the manner in which he speaks to those with whom he disagrees. But separate the man from his claims, and give thought only to the claims. OK, not all the claims, but ones which have obvious corroboration -- the limo stop for one. Sometimes confusion and conflict within the community are not caused by the works of Jim Fetzer, but by the extraordinary way evidence was falsified in this case, enough to make the collective research community's heads spin in collective confusion. Having said that, I do wish Dr.Fetzer would tone it down, if only to gain a more sympathetic hearing on points where I believe he is on solid ground. Regards, Daniel

By the same token, Daniel, surely any rational person has to admit that there is very strong witness testimony to the limo slowing down?

And if a rational person then compares the two sets of witness testimony to each other (one being the limo stopped versus the other being the limo slowed down, almost to a halt) which would the rational person conclude was more likely if he was basing it upon the said evidence?

And the Nix film also shows blood and brain matter being expelled forward so that film too has to be altered which then begins to take us into "Chris Matthews is going to have a field day" type territory?

Regards

Lee

It is difficult to sift through the "slowed down" witnessess to "almost stopped" witnesses, to "stopped" witnesses. But the sifting has to be done, and I fear there is a great hesitancy to do this. By the way, I subjectively would link the "almost stopped" witnesses with the "stopped" witnesses as being more corroborative of each other than the "slowed down" witnesses, but that's just an opinion. Based upon Toni Foster, Hargis,Chaney, the Newmans, and a few others, I believe the limo stopped momentarily, for such a short time that others might have said it "almost stopped." But that is again my opinion. I also feel insufficient reflection/study on the matter has hurt the research community and progress on the case. Best, Daniel

Dr.JIM fwiw...here is a photo of the RUSSIAN UMBRELLA WEAPON, they used.....take care b.. P.S also a gif showing, the movement of DCM's hand he clutches and then reclutches, similar to a fist with his hand in the air..he does not wave..pps I think this one shows perhaps more as the the limo is just approaching them, then his hand is raised and clutched.the one marked frame 212.thanks..b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a nice quote from a review of Noel Twymann's Bloody Treason on Amazon. It explains why the Zapruder Film could not have been massively altered (I will agree some critical frames were spliced out.)

"Mr. Twyman fails to explain how the original Z film plus 3 first generation copies, as well as, 2 second generation copies were assembled in one location so the original and all the copies could all be altered in the same way. As of November 26, 1963 Zapruder had the original. Life had a 1st generation copy, FBI in Washington had a 2nd generation copy, Washington Secret Service had a 1st generation copy, Dallas FBI had a 2nd generation copy and the Secret Service in Dallas had a 1st generation copy."

Another quote from an Amazon review: B. Lecloux:

"In Badly Reasoned, at the Harold Weisberg Digital Archive, you will find an excellent book length critique of Twyman's claims [of Zapruder Film alteration]. Weisberg is scathing in his analysis of this book. Further, historian David R. Wrone, in his book on the Zapruder film pretty much puts to bed the notion that the Z film was tampered with.

He carefully shows how there was no time for any tamperers to have had the film. And, how would they know that this was the only film they had to phony up? If they didn't know of every possible photo and video of the event, how would they be able to get away with tampering with the Z film.

In terms of common sense, the charge of faking this film is ridiculous. In terms of the documentary record, which is very clear, it doesn't appear to have happened."

Kind of hard to alter the Zapruder Film when the cat has been let out of the bag and their are so many copies floating around.

Regarding the matter of JFK's limo slowing down - it most certainly did slow down (even the break lights were on) but it did NOT stop. It slowed down to a crawl, perhaps 5 miles per hour, maybe a tad slower than that.

It is certainly possible that Dark Complected Man - who I fully believe was in on the assassination - was signaling the driver William Greer to slow down or stop so that JFK could be killed. Possible but I think a more likely explanation of DCM's actions is that he is signaling a sniper or snipers on the Grassy Knoll that JFK is still alive and we need a head kill shot. DCM is literally standing off the sidewalk, about a foot into Elm Street.

And it does seem very clear that the Secret Service put JFK's limo out front, with no large press bus as had been in other motorcades in Texas, so that JFK could be easily shot. This does not mean that all Secret Service Agents were involved in the JFK assassination, perhaps key players such as James Rowley, who was a good friend of Lyndon Johnson and about his same age. Emory Roberts behavior is quite suspicious, too.

Now back to good ole Umbrella Man - I do think it is probable that he was coordinating with Dark Complected Man (who by the way, was probably an anti-Castro CIA-connected Cuban who hated JFK as much as he hated Fidel Castro). I too an extremely suspicious of Louis Steven Witt and doubt he was indeed Umbrella Man. And if Witt was not, then it brings up the matter the question of who, if anyone, prodded him to come forward and tell a bogus story. Possibly the CIA or the plotters. Someone needs to interview Witt's family and attempt to find out if he really was Umbrella Man.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14870

Ropbert, I think you are behind in your reading of the curious events surrounding the Z-film. You should read Horne and catch up. Having said that, I would repeat, the greatest evidence of alteration is the removal of the limo stop, whatever happened during that time, and the strange blackening out of the back of Kennedy's head so no detail can be rendered as to the nature of the wound there. Regards, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

The fact that you are not persuaded of Z-film alteration by the evidence presented and the arguments thus far offered does not mean that studying that subject is "a farce"!!!

All it means is that you remain unpersuaded. I have never seen any of YOUR research on the subject. I do not know if you have even done any, but I suspect you have not.

I don't believe that you have even seriously tested the research of others. You simply find the "idea of alteration" to not be to your liking, I suppose, which is apparently enough

motivation for you to then pontificate, rendering a judgment of dismissal. But, that does not persuade either. You have a lot of work to do if you really want to contribute to this

aspect of the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

The fact that you are not persuaded of Z-film alteration by the evidence presented and the arguments thus far offered does not mean that studying that subject is "a farce"!!!

All it means is that you remain unpersuaded. I have never seen any of YOUR research on the subject. I do not know if you have even done any, but I suspect you have not.

I don't believe that you have even seriously tested the research of others. You simply find the "idea of alteration" to not be to your liking, I suppose, which is apparently enough

motivation for you to then pontificate, rendering a judgment of dismissal. But, that does not persuade either. You have a lot of work to do if you really want to contribute to this

aspect of the case.

Quite possibly it takes the beliefs that there was "another film", showing a different reality of what happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

The fact that you are not persuaded of Z-film alteration by the evidence presented and the arguments thus far offered does not mean that studying that subject is "a farce"!!!

All it means is that you remain unpersuaded. I have never seen any of YOUR research on the subject. I do not know if you have even done any, but I suspect you have not.

I don't believe that you have even seriously tested the research of others. You simply find the "idea of alteration" to not be to your liking, I suppose, which is apparently enough

motivation for you to then pontificate, rendering a judgment of dismissal. But, that does not persuade either. You have a lot of work to do if you really want to contribute to this

aspect of the case.

DR.Salerian's REPORT;

Alan Salerian believes that "President Kennedy's throat wound was caused by a flechette-transported poison," which paralyzed the President and rendered him

"immobilized and speechless for several seconds before a frontal entry bullet shattered his skull."

http://www.historica...dence.net/?p=60

He also posits that it was a smiling Lucien Conein in Dealey Plaza, captured in a photograph. A.J. Weberman has offered evidence that it was not Conein.

Also:

"On November 22, the first exhibition of Dr. Alen Salerian's paintings will happen in a private venue in honor and remembrance of President John F. Kennedy and his ideals. His assassination on the date in 1963, has been the backdrop and catalyst to this emotionally sweeping visual homage the painter calls JFK: Symbols on Canvas.

Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

The postmortem examination of President Kennedy is invalid: The evidence

Alen J. Salerian

Washington Center for Psychiatry, 5225 Wisconsin Avenue # 104, Washington, District of columbia 20015, USA

Received 29 May 2008;

accepted 1 June 2008.

Available online 20 August 2008.

Summary

This paper proves that President Kennedy’s postmortem examination is a sham. The sham nature of the presidential autopsy is based upon several findings incompatible with human anatomy, practice of medicine and Newton’s second law “an object acted upon by a constant force will move with constant acceleration in the direction of the force”. We review the autopsy report and other assassination evidence and demonstrate that the postmortem examination is invalid.

http://www.historicalevidence.net/?f

San Diego, CA, March 21, 2009 – Noted Washington psychiatrist Dr. Alen J. Salerian presented a lecture titled “The Double Murders of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald Are Not Good for America: The Evidence” at the 27th Annual Symposium of the American College of Forensic Psychiatry in San Diego.

Dr. Salerian’s presentation included a review and analysis of documents from President Kennedy’s medical records from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, ballistic evidence, witness reports, photographic and film images from the scene of the assassination and Newton’s Second Law of Motion.

The evidence Dr. Salerian presented included the following:

1. President Kennedy suffered three wounds, none of which was inflicted by Oswald.

2. President Kennedy’s throat wound was caused by a flechette-transported poison, probably with a main chemical or chemicals that are d-tubocurarine, or a d-tubocurarine-like substance with rapid paralyzing action. In 1975, CIA Director William Colby’s testimony at a U.S. Senate hearing before the Senate’s Special Intelligence Committee described such a neurotoxin.

3. Because of the paralysis caused by the poison, President Kennedy was immobilized and speechless for several seconds before a frontal entry bullet shattered his skull.

4. A second bullet struck President Kennedy with posterior entry 6.5 inches below his neckline and was lodged in his chest.

Contact: Alan Hermesch, 202-210-6262, 301-365-4762,

http://educationforu...showtopic=15058

Dr.Salerian's Video Report...

I have completed searches but cannot find the pages of his report, does anyone have a link or the 4 pages i believe it said it was, thanks.b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an absolutely pathetic display from Dr. Fetzer.

45 years ago Josiah Thompson made an inavaluable contribution to JFK research when he figured out that the assassination was carried out by three gunmen and that the fatal shot came from the right front. To this day he continues to uphold these basic facts. He also has spends a good deal of time sorting the wheat from the chaff - hence the reason he dismisses the whacky nonsense that is constantly flying out of camp Fetzer. There is absolutely NOTHING in this video to suggest that Tink is about to denounce conspiracy except perhaps in the warped imaginations of the most paranoid individuals with an axe to grind. And suggesting that he is an "op" is beyond pathetic.

Tink's careful, meticulous, logical approach to the evidence and his sober manner make the rest of us researchers look good. On the other hand, Dr. Fetzer's ridiculous, paranoid, over-the-top nonsensical theorising and his "anything that contradicts my theory was altered or faked" reasoning makes us all look like total loons. If anyone is guilty of causing confusion and conflict amongst the research community (such as it is), spoiling our reputations and giving outsiders reason to doubt a conclusion of conspiracy it is not Josiah Thompson.

Can you guess who it is?

Martin, I think you are confusing the manner in which Jim Fetzer presents his ideas with the ideas themselves. Any rational person has to admit there is very strong witness testimony to the limo stop, for example. The manner in which Jim Fetzer presents this information may grate, but he has sufficient witness testimony on his side that argument in and of itself cannot be ignored. There is also the observations at Parkland of an avulsive wound in the back of the head, but according to ITEK, the extant film shows no debris exiting the back of the head. In fact such material exiting the rear of Kennedy's head should have been one of the predominant features of the film, were it genuine. I do not agree with all of Dr. Fetzer's ideas, nor the manner in which he speaks to those with whom he disagrees. But separate the man from his claims, and give thought only to the claims. OK, not all the claims, but ones which have obvious corroboration -- the limo stop for one. Sometimes confusion and conflict within the community are not caused by the works of Jim Fetzer, but by the extraordinary way evidence was falsified in this case, enough to make the collective research community's heads spin in collective confusion. Having said that, I do wish Dr.Fetzer would tone it down, if only to gain a more sympathetic hearing on points where I believe he is on solid ground. Regards, Daniel

By the same token, Daniel, surely any rational person has to admit that there is very strong witness testimony to the limo slowing down?

And if a rational person then compares the two sets of witness testimony to each other (one being the limo stopped versus the other being the limo slowed down, almost to a halt) which would the rational person conclude was more likely if he was basing it upon the said evidence?

And the Nix film also shows blood and brain matter being expelled forward so that film too has to be altered which then begins to take us into "Chris Matthews is going to have a field day" type territory.

Fetzer believes it is this type of evidence that can be used to buy the American Public into easily understanding the nature of the conspiracy. He says this and then instructs you to read 15 books and go view John Costella's numerous internet videos. I say anyone who thinks these items can be used to buy large groups of people into beliveing there was a conspiracy is as mad as a hatter. Even if they're true...

Regards

Lee

Researchers bashing other researchers is a lose-lose proposition, irrespective of the validity of the reasoning processes which "rationalize" it. I have books by James Fetzer and Josiah Thompson....

and both have made significant contributions......we [the Forum] have a large audience, and when this stuff goes on

it hurts all of us, because we are recognized as a community, however fragmented it is. I have yet

to see an example of this sort of stuff going on, in which the phrase "check your ego at the door," wouldn't have

solved the issue before it was started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...